Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 111   Go Down

Author Topic: Extreme weather  (Read 49088 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9940
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #420 on: August 07, 2019, 11:35:15 am »

Are there no benefits in the Tax Code for the oil and gas industry? Should those be eliminated as well?
Yes. The government should not play favorites,  Unfortunately it does it all the time.  Only in war or during special situations should we allow differing rules. Tax credits for renewables is another boondoggle as is encouraging corn farming to be sold for required methanol in gasoline, another boondoggle. .  Years ago, the was an Oil Depletion Allowance, that was stopped.  The concept was, that since oil from the ground which could not be replaced made that land less valuable, the oil companies could write off an allowance in their taxes for that depletion.  Nuts!  The oil industry should follow the same tax rules any other business gets. 

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1391
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #421 on: August 07, 2019, 11:38:52 am »

i think you meant ethanol.
methanol would attack many of the softer components in the fuel system.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9940
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #422 on: August 07, 2019, 11:41:31 am »

i think you meant ethanol.
methanol would attack many of the softer components in the fuel system.
Yeah.  Methanol would attack the softer tissue of your body as well.  But I still wouldn't try to drink it even though the gas has ethanol. :)

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8822
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #423 on: August 07, 2019, 12:03:33 pm »

Since it is the case that typically when wind and solar produce energy the most is also when we need the least amount of electricity, creating a surplus, the market value of this extra electricity drops almost to zero since no one really needs it.  So trying to sell the surplus of energy becomes impossible without taking a loss.

... or use the surplus during the summer, convert and store it as heat in the ground (which take a bit of room that's not readily available in urban regions), or produce Hydrogen gas from water by means of electrolysis.

Lots of initiatives are taking place that seek to optimize the luxury problem of having surplus free energy.

One such solution uses Salts to store heat:
https://www.tno.nl/en/focus-areas/buildings-infrastructure-maritime/roadmaps/buildings-infrastructure/energy-in-the-built-environment/heat-battery-a-breakthrough-in-the-storage-of-renewable-energy/

http://saltxtechnology.com/

Another initiative by a private person who created his own test unit based on 40 cubic meters of cheap Basalt gravel, that stores heat from solar collectors at some 500-600 °C. We'll have to see how long that lasts.


Don't know about your part of the globe, but there's a lot of innovation happening here. People are not complaining about what cannot be done, but are instead doing the things that can be done. Every little bit helps, not every solution will work everywhere, but that knowledge translates to marketable value (as e.g. the Danes have found out selling their Windmill expertise).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #424 on: August 07, 2019, 12:10:14 pm »

Bart, I looked through the articles in vane trying to find real figures, like how much energy is stored per (some unit of) volume?  Also, what is the total amount of energy used for heating during a normal winter in the area this is being developed and how much volume of these materials would you need to make a noticeable impact on heating cost throughout the winter? 

On top of that, how much energy will need to be produced per (some unit of) volume to charge these things, and how much surplus of wind/solar will this take. 

Additionally, assuming we are using most of the electricity from the solar/wind panels that supply energy to these systems, how many more additional solar panels and wind turbines will need to be utilized for these system to be able to absorb the optimal amount of energy to be functional? 

Every sounds good if you don't supply any figures.  I want to see figures, and promising ones at that.  Until then, you ain't going to convince anyone except the ideologues, who will buy anything. 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 12:14:51 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #425 on: August 07, 2019, 12:14:18 pm »

There is a whole school of thought that goes, roughly, "we should ruthlessly shut down any attempts to science our way out of any problems, because that's just a waste of money and time. After all, mankind is resilient and clever, and we will science our way out of these problems eventually."

This argument always strikes me as bizarre.
Logged

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1391
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #426 on: August 07, 2019, 12:17:03 pm »

we engineers design systems based on facts. Otherwise it is a waste of  resources.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #427 on: August 07, 2019, 12:17:58 pm »

There is a whole school of thought that goes, roughly, "we should ruthlessly shut down any attempts to science our way out of any problems, because that's just a waste of money and time. After all, mankind is resilient and clever, and we will science our way out of these problems eventually."

This argument always strikes me as bizarre.

Nice try but this has absolutely no baring on this conversation.  This is about wind/solar vs nuclear. 

All real life data, and I mean of it, shows that wind/solar increases cost, uses up extremely large amounts of land (destroying environments) while not really decreasing CO2.  It is also excepted by everyone, on the left and right, that wind/solar will never be base line power sources and we will always need a base line power source. 

All real life data shows nuclear is the cleanest energy source of which nearly 100% of all waste in storable, and helps lower energy cost.  Nuclear is also a base line line power at 1/4 the cost of wind/solar. 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 12:21:05 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #428 on: August 07, 2019, 12:19:30 pm »

we engineers design systems based on facts. Otherwise it is a waste of  resources.

I am not really sure who this is meant for, but I would say, yes this a good thing.

But when people show a product but dont show the data, I have to wonder why.  I want to see real figures; what does it really do. 

There is nothing wrong with asking questions and asking to be shown the numbers. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8822
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #429 on: August 07, 2019, 12:20:06 pm »

This pretty much shows that the tax breaks oil and gas get are substantionally smaller then for wind and solar. 

Debunking Democrats' claims about fossil fuel tax breaks

And even so, it is still more expensive directly to the consumer to get electricity from renewables. 

From the article,

"According to CRS, “In 2017, the value of federal tax-related support for the energy sector was estimated to be $17.8 billion. Of this, $4.6 billion (25.8%) can be attributed to tax incentives supporting fossil fuels. Tax-related support for renewables was an estimated $11.6 billion in 2017 (or 65.2% of total tax-related support for energy). The remaining tax-related support went toward nuclear energy, efficiency measures, and alternative technology vehicles.”

But there’s more to the story, because fossil fuels deliver vastly more energy return than renewables. “In 2017, fossil fuels accounted for 77.7% of U.S. primary energy production. The remaining primary energy production is attributable to renewable energy and nuclear electric resources, with shares of 12.8% and 9.5%, respectively,” according to CRS. Wind and solar power only accounted for 3.6 percentage points of total energy production.

So, 65.2% of all tax breaks in the energy sector are going towards wind/solar that only produces 12.8% of all electricity. 

You know what, percentages are so hard to think about for the normal person.  Lets restate this in fractions.  About 2/3s of all tax breaks for energy goes to a sector that only produces about an 1/8 of the total amount of electricity. 

So, sure taking away tax breaks for oil/gas would increase prices a bit, but not nearly as much as it would for wind/solar.

This only touches on the direct subsidies. It doesn't take into account all the extra cost (both monetary and environmental/health) to cope with the negative effects of extraction and emissions.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #430 on: August 07, 2019, 12:23:36 pm »

This only touches on the direct subsidies. It doesn't take into account all the extra cost (both monetary and environmental/health) to cope with the negative effects of extraction and emissions.

Cheers,
Bart

Yes, true.  But I posted this in response to the left talking point that implies oil/gas get as much subsidies as renewables.  This is clearly false, which the numbers show. 

By the way, I am not for oil/gas.  I'd rather we get rid of it. 

I am of the opinion though that concentrating on wind and solar will not lead us down this path, which is clearly being shown by the real life data.  This is why I constantly ask for real life data, and many articles that are pro renewables gloss over it. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

amolitor

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 607
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #431 on: August 07, 2019, 12:24:14 pm »

No, Joe, you're using exactly the argument I outlined.

Renewable energy sources, like all engineering solutions under active development, are a moving target. Energy storage systems are a moving target. You can't just say "well, current solutions are not a perfect answer, so we should just stop working on them" and expect anyone to pay much attention to the next things you say.

Making blanket statements like "All of real life, and I mean all of it" is remarkably unconvincing as well. Protesteth too much, and all that.
Logged

degrub

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1391
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #432 on: August 07, 2019, 12:24:47 pm »

I am not really sure who this is meant for, but I would say, yes this a good thing.

But when people show a product but dont show the data, I have to wonder why.  I want to see real figures; what does it really do. 

There is nothing wrong with asking questions and asking to be shown the numbers.
exactly my point in support of what you and a few others have been saying.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #433 on: August 07, 2019, 12:29:19 pm »

No, Joe, you're using exactly the argument I outlined.

Renewable energy sources, like all engineering solutions under active development, are a moving target. Energy storage systems are a moving target. You can't just say "well, current solutions are not a perfect answer, so we should just stop working on them" and expect anyone to pay much attention to the next things you say.

Making blanket statements like "All of real life, and I mean all of it" is remarkably unconvincing as well. Protesteth too much, and all that.

Yes, although this is true, at some point you pass the inflection point of increased gains.  Meaning that the amount of gains you receive will start to be lower for the same amount of money/time invested. (This is a pretty common point to look for when developing new technologies, and also in marketing new products.  Even body builders look at inflection point data to adjust and change workouts.  We have inflection points in the seasons, namely on the two equinoxes, so ignoring the possibility of inflections points and trying to determine if we passed them is not smart.  You cant just say, well this will be fixed by future gains in efficiency since there is a possibility you may have already past the inflection.) 

After all, there is a physical limit to what an object can do, in any thing or purpose or system. 

All physicists who have been following wind and solar all agree we have past the inflection point years ago and any future gains will be minimal. 

To argue against this is the same fool heartiness that exist on the right when they say, well we will figure out some better way in the future to get more fossil fuels out of the ground. 

Additionally, your point of criticizing my insistence on real life data is very naive.  You don't keep on relying on lab results when actual results in the real world can be studied, especially when there is such a huge discrepancy between the two.  It's foolish. 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 12:38:50 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8822
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #434 on: August 07, 2019, 12:43:37 pm »

Every sounds good if you don't supply any figures.  I want to see figures, and promising ones at that.  Until then, you ain't going to convince anyone except the ideologues, who will buy anything.

I agree Joe,

But one thing is clear, not trying will not solve a single issue.

Sofar, the more promising near term solutions are pointing in the direction of Hydrogen gas as an efficient way to transport stored energy. That energy can be created from (surplus) renewable energy. The conversion process is not very efficient yet, so surplus energy that would otherwise be wasted is the best candidate to supply the energy, but if the cost of generating energy drops further, then even the conversion losses become less expensive.

It is more efficient to store heat as heat, with little or no conversion losses, but when the costs keep falling then conversion for storage and reconversion to electricity becomes more viable. Technology constantly improves efficiency, so energy production and storage capacity both improve while cost keeps dropping. Once the fossil fuel alternatives become more expensive, and they are already, the free source of energy (solar/wind/hydro) cannot be supplied cheaper going forward. Improving efficiency will reduce the break-even period even further.

There is still a lot of room for improvement, but it will at least already buy us some time and save money that would be required to repair the damage that fossil fuel creates. We do not have the luxury of being able to 'wait' another 30 years for Thorium reactors to become the next step.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #435 on: August 07, 2019, 12:54:02 pm »

while not really decreasing CO2. 

Can you suggest a way that this could be physically possible?
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #436 on: August 07, 2019, 12:54:27 pm »

For those that don't understand inflection points, below is a basic graph. 

With any new technology you start at 0.  Additional, there is a physical limit to what anything can do.  (Arguing against this makes no sense and it would be physically impossible.  Everything has a limit.) 

So, of course, in the beginning of new research into technology, you are moving up pretty slowly up.  But you start gaining steam and the increases in gains progressively are more and more for the same amount of investment ... up to a point. 

Eventually the gains you receive from the same amount of investment go down.  Although you are still going up, the increases are just not as much as they were before for the same investment.  This is the inflection point, and where you start to approach the limit of what can be gained in total.

A real life example would be the change in the length of the days.  From December 21st to March 21st, the length of the day increases a little more then it did the day before.  Also, shortly after Dec. 21st, the increases are not very obvious, but since they are ever increasing, become more noticeable as you get closer to Mar. 21st.  After Mar. 21st though the increases become smaller and smaller, until June 21st.  Although you still notice the increases shortly after Mar. 21, the increase in the day become less noticeable as you approach June 21st even though the day is still getting longer.  Of course the opposite happens after June 21st to Sept. 21 and then back to Dec. 21st. 

Nearly everyone agrees that we are past the inflection of fossil fuel production.  To argue against this is foolish.  Many physicists also agree we have past the inflection of increases in efficiencies in wind/solar.  Although not nearly as many people are following this, arguing against this, maybe not foolish yet, but not advisable. 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 12:58:44 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2489
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #437 on: August 07, 2019, 12:54:51 pm »

There was a group of blacksmiths having a brew at a pub in 1905. They started to discuss those new-fangled automobiles. Have you seen one yet?, one guy said. They're noisy, smelly, go too slow, and need someone on board who knows how to repair one every hour or so. They can't travel on our muddy roads and the tires burst all the time. And they scare all the horses. And what's worse, they need gasoline. Where can you get gasoline? What do people think is going to happen, that we're going to dig up oil from deep holes all over the planet, refine it in huge factories and ship it to corner stores in every city for people to buy when they need it? That's going to cost a king's ransom, no one has the money to build all that. It's a joke, it'll never happen.

(This story may be apocryphal.)
Logged
--
Robert

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #438 on: August 07, 2019, 01:04:52 pm »

I agree Joe,

But one thing is clear, not trying will not solve a single issue.

Sofar, the more promising near term solutions are pointing in the direction of Hydrogen gas as an efficient way to transport stored energy. That energy can be created from (surplus) renewable energy. The conversion process is not very efficient yet, so surplus energy that would otherwise be wasted is the best candidate to supply the energy, but if the cost of generating energy drops further, then even the conversion losses become less expensive.

It is more efficient to store heat as heat, with little or no conversion losses, but when the costs keep falling then conversion for storage and reconversion to electricity becomes more viable. Technology constantly improves efficiency, so energy production and storage capacity both improve while cost keeps dropping. Once the fossil fuel alternatives become more expensive, and they are already, the free source of energy (solar/wind/hydro) cannot be supplied cheaper going forward. Improving efficiency will reduce the break-even period even further.

There is still a lot of room for improvement, but it will at least already buy us some time and save money that would be required to repair the damage that fossil fuel creates. We do not have the luxury of being able to 'wait' another 30 years for Thorium reactors to become the next step.

Cheers,
Bart

Sure, but at what point do you stop and start trying something else. 

I am all for trying new things, but I am also for looking at the results and the data to figure out if it is actually working.  Maybe work on it up to and little past the inflection point.  However, after you are far enough along to definitely determine the inflection point and you still cant make it work on a large scale, it's time to call it quits in my opinion. 

At the beginning of my career, I use to walk into photo shoots exceptionally well planned.  The issue though was I was so emotionally attached to my plans that if a better image presented itself, I would not even think to recognize it because of how emotionally attached I was to the plan. 

I feel this is what is happening with wind/solar.  It is an emotionally pleasing idea that we can live in tandem with nature when it comes to our energy needs.  But it just ignores all the data that is coming out.  We are just too emotionally attached to this idea to let it go. 

Insofar a hydrogen, I agree, it looks promising, so long as it can become efficient.  Remember, splitting water requires so much energy that we dont use it and nearly all commercial hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 01:18:25 pm by JoeKitchen »
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4245
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #439 on: August 07, 2019, 01:16:41 pm »

There was a group of blacksmiths having a brew at a pub in 1905. They started to discuss those new-fangled automobiles. Have you seen one yet?, one guy said. They're noisy, smelly, go too slow, and need someone on board who knows how to repair one every hour or so. They can't travel on our muddy roads and the tires burst all the time. And they scare all the horses. And what's worse, they need gasoline. Where can you get gasoline? What do people think is going to happen, that we're going to dig up oil from deep holes all over the planet, refine it in huge factories and ship it to corner stores in every city for people to buy when they need it? That's going to cost a king's ransom, no one has the money to build all that. It's a joke, it'll never happen.

(This story may be apocryphal.)
 

LOL, this apocryphal story is at the very beginning of the automobile industry, but with wind/solar ...

Arguably wind power production has been around since the Dark Ages, but insofar as producing electricity the first wind turbine was introduced in 1850.  Solar cells were first discovered in 1839 by French scientist Edmond Becquerel.  So, both industries have been around long enough where an objective historical view can be had. 
Logged
"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 111   Go Up