Climate Change Thread

[KI4MVP]

I'm not trying to argue with you or contradict you. Crazy huh?

My only point is China is no shinning example.

Yet they are still doing more than the United States

 

[RonG]

As they should be.

 

[gourimoko]

I'm not trying to argue with you or contradict you. Crazy huh?

Very unusual..

 

[Soda]

Did you just ask why it would be a competitive advantage to adopt cheaper energy (where the price doesn't depend on the stability of the middle east) because other countries can eventually catch up?

The first adopter not only gets the cost savings from cheaper energy, since they developed the technology, they become the ones to sell it to the other countries.

So, you're assuming that the alt energy would be cheaper? I don't see how you can make that assumption.

 

[KI4MVP]

So, you're assuming that the alt energy would be cheaper? I don't see how you can make that assumption.

because it already is getting cheaper and the efficiencies continue to improve.

How could digging stored solar energy (which is what all fossil fuels are) up from the ground, refining it, transporting it and burning it ultimately be more efficiency than just grabbing it straight from the source as it falls to out of the air.

 

[KI4MVP]

As they should be.

I guess that's fine if you want China to be the new world technology leader instead of the United States.

Personally I don't see how that's good for our country.

 

[RonG]

I guess that's fine if you want China to be the new world technology leader instead of the United States.

Personally I don't see how that's good for our country.

No its not just that maybe its because just how bad their air quality is. Besides China is good at copying tech not creating. Quiet honestly I am ok with them spending the money on R&D for a change.

 

[RonG]

Very unusual..

No not for me, I am all about the discussion but he will keep trying to bait me into an argument.

 

[MalTalm]

because it already is getting cheaper and the efficiencies continue to improve.

How could digging stored solar energy (which is what all fossil fuels are) up from the ground, refining it, transporting it and burning it ultimately be more efficiency than just grabbing it straight from the source as it falls to out of the air.

You are oversimplifying this entire debate. There are a variety of factors which are currently holding back renewable energy from fully replacing fossil fuels. We have been burning coal for energy for 150 years. Over that time, we've refined the process and made coal burning as efficient as possible. The same goes for gasoline, these processes have been refined continually for a competitive advantage for over 100 years. I'm going off memory, but I believe that fossil fuels are 27% efficient. Which is stellar, though it may not sound like it.

Solar panels weren't really taken seriously until Bell labs started development of them for power applications in the 50's. Even so, the use was pretty limited, mostly intended for space usage. It wasn't until the 70's when we began to seriously refine it. The best solar panels today are at 22% efficiency, but as I mentioned previously the efficiency is following Moore's law (nearly doubling previous gains every 18 months) so with time they should match and then surpass fossil fuel efficiency. Yet that is only one issue. This brings us to storage...

Storing energy generated by power plants (which in turn use hot air to spin turbines) is usually done by compressing air. That system is 90% efficient, and the energy is produced as AC, which all residential homes, appliances and devices are readily built to accept. As you may be aware, using power plants REQUIRES AC, because cleverly cranking Voltage really high while keeping current really low allows a grid to spread energy with almost no loss. You can transmit boatloads of power over 50 miles with 92% efficiency. There is no good way to transmit DC over long distances, which is ultimately why Tesla won the battle against Edison. (Which really had a lot more to do with Oliver Heaviside's un-credited invention of transmission lines, which Bell labs stole from him, than it did Tesla, but that's an argument for another time.) So we can burn fossil fuels at 28% efficiency, store excess energy at 90% efficiency, and easily transmit said energy at 92% efficiency thanks to over 100 years of reasearch and development into this specific type of energy source.

And solar panels? Solar panels create DC energy and energy is stored in batteries. Batteries, even the vaunted lithium-ion batteries, are crap. They are expensive to build, the cells deteriorate quickly, and the most efficient batteries are pushing 80% efficiency. (And that's being way generous, they deteriorate very quick, and a more accurate estimation over the life of the battery would be closer to 67%. But we'll keep it at 80 for the sake of argument) To transmit that energy, we need to convert AC to DC (70% efficient), and then transmit at 92% efficiency.

So let's do the math...

For fossil fuels:
28/100 * 90/100 * 92/100 = 23% total efficiency from plant to home.

For solar panels:
22/100 * 80/100 * 70/100 * 92/100 = 11% total efficiency from plant to home.

Even if everyone bought their own panels and cut out power plants altogether, the system is still only at 12% efficiency, almost half of what we are getting via fossil fuels.

This is an over-simplified version of the challenges we face as we adapt the technology for the future, but the point should suffice. We will improve batteries (This is the biggest step) and once panels are cost-effective and people begin to install them on their personal homes, we'll start seeing HVAC, stove tops, and refrigerators, all which essentially convert that AC back into DC, built to directly take a supply from said panels. Also, as the technology continues to develop, it will eventually overtake fossil fuels, but we're still a decade away from that.

Again, the true alternative energy source is the golden fleece of technology right now... Skunk labs is allegedly developing a fusion reactor which uses turbines to generate energy, so they essentially can co-opt the power structure already in place and do so in an environmentally friendly way. There have been TREMENDOUS breakthroughs in nuclear power, but the subject is too taboo thanks to the recent reactor melt-down in Japan, and development has been halted semi-indefinately. (Which is very sad, because if you want to talk about how we can make an immediate change, those plants could be up and running in 3 years, and they would blow away fossil fuel efficiency...) There are so many creative solutions out there, including ocean turbines which use the tide to generate energy, but again we're near a decade away from any of that really being able to threaten fossil fuels.

When the time is right, it will happen. But our government forcing everyone to switch now when it is prohibitively expensive to do so, and our current infrastructure wouldn't support it, would be absurd.

Quick aside: KI, you're an entrepreneur, yes? And if I recall, you're against raising the minimum wage because of the undue stress it would put on small businesses. The same logic stands here. Forcing companies to adapt to an inferior product and putting them at a disadvantage in a global market would be the same doom sentence. I would advise people that, indeed, things are getting substantially better every day, and when the time is right we'll get the ship righted. There will also be long-term repercussions to our fossil fuel use, but it's too late to avoid that already.

EDIT: I stopped being lazy and looked it up... Coal plants are 35% efficient, natural gas is 45%. I think the 27% comes from cars, which would make sense considering that's the industry I actually work in. I'm not going to adjust the numbers above, suffice to say it actually increases the gap between the two technologies currently.

 

[KI4MVP]

The energy generated by coal pants at 35% efficiency costs significantly more than energy from a solar plant.

And you are completely overlooking something that ultimately will be huge. Solar power doesn't have to be generated in power plants. Solar panels can be installed on the roofs of both homes and electric cars.

Also, many devices don't run off of AC power, they have to convert AC to DC. Certainly things could be made more efficient if there was a real effort to standardize things so houses had things as convenient and efficient as the USB ports built into cars.

 

[MalTalm]

The energy generated by coal pants at 35% efficiency costs significantly more than energy from a solar plant.

That isn't remotely true do to costs of solar panels, maintenance, and battery replacement. Coal is insanely cheap, as is natural gas, and they both utilize distribution systems ready-made. Solar panels require an entire infrastructure, and will need to be replaced regularly to stay competitive due to their poor yields over time...

And you are completely overlooking something that ultimately will be huge. Solar power doesn't have to be generated in power plants. Solar panels can be installed on the roofs of both homes and electric cars.

I didn't overlook that at all... Excerpt: "Even if everyone bought their own panels and cut out power plants altogether, the system is still only at 12% efficiency, almost half of what we are getting via fossil fuels."

It's really not that "huge" at all, we don't lose significant power through transmission. Transmission lines are 92% efficient, as running high voltage with little current through an RLC network generates almost no loss.

Also, many devices don't run off of AC power, they have to convert AC to DC. Certainly things could be made more efficient if there was a real effort to standardize things so houses had things as convenient and efficient as the USB ports built into cars.

This was also addressed... You can't just pipe DC into your HVAC system, you need to completely re-design the power supply. That means adjusting factory builds, establishing a new standard, creating surge control systems to prevent electrical fires and monitor leakage, all of which is very costly and time consuming. This will not happen until there's a demand for it, and once that demand exists, we're still 5-10 years of regulations away from successful implementation.

EDIT: And none of this is actually to put off the point that we should develop alternatives, that's not my argument whatsoever. My argument is that these alternatives are already being developed, these questions are being answered, and we will be moving away from fossil fuels. But we're well over a decade away from even 50% reduction. Simply saying an alternative is already better doesn't make it true. There are substantial roadblocks which are holding back solar panels and most alternative energy sources, and people are already spending a ton in R&D to overcome them.

Putting in a sub-standard system before it is ready for large-scale integration just doesn't make sense. Again, the law of economics: When it's cost effective, it will change. We aren't there yet.

 

[KI4MVP]

That isn't remotely true do to costs of solar panels, maintenance, and battery replacement. Coal is insanely cheap, as is natural gas, and they both utilize distribution systems ready-made. Solar panels require an entire infrastructure, and will need to be replaced regularly to stay competitive due to their poor yields over time...

The cheapest power contract in the country is for solar power.

Warren Buffett’s Nevada utility has lined up what may be the cheapest electricity in the U.S., and it’s from a solar farm.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s NV Energy agreed to pay 3.87 cents a kilowatt-hour for power from a 100-megawatt project that First Solar Inc. is developing, according to a filing with regulators.​

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...pest-electricity-rate-with-nevada-solar-farms

 

[MalTalm]

The cheapest power contract in the country is for solar power.

Warren Buffett’s Nevada utility has lined up what may be the cheapest electricity in the U.S., and it’s from a solar farm.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s NV Energy agreed to pay 3.87 cents a kilowatt-hour for power from a 100-megawatt project that First Solar Inc. is developing, according to a filing with regulators.​

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...pest-electricity-rate-with-nevada-solar-farms

This is a very misleading story about a power purchase contract between Solar One and Berkshire Hathaway. Essentially one solar farm has made an incredibly aggressive bid to undercut the cost of traditional power plants in Nevada, likely selling at a loss for the next few years and hoping to break even or make a small profit on the back end of the contract as costs continue to decrease. And none of this targets the fact that solar panels currently cost an average of $.30 per kWh across the nation.

I get people want to cherry pick things like this and try to blow the results out of proportion, but the technology isn't there. Is it getting better? Absolutely. But your narrative that it's already competitive is 100% false.

EDIT: I'm walking back on previous assertions made in this post, and going to confine it to this.

 

[RonG]

The cheapest power contract in the country is for solar power.

Warren Buffett’s Nevada utility has lined up what may be the cheapest electricity in the U.S., and it’s from a solar farm.

Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s NV Energy agreed to pay 3.87 cents a kilowatt-hour for power from a 100-megawatt project that First Solar Inc. is developing, according to a filing with regulators.​

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...pest-electricity-rate-with-nevada-solar-farms

You are smarter then this.... MalTalm already pointed out the facts.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

How could digging stored solar energy (which is what all fossil fuels are) up from the ground, refining it, transporting it and burning it ultimately be more efficiency than just grabbing it straight from the source as it falls to out of the air.

You just answered your own question.

Energy must be both easily stored and easily transportable to have widespread utility. And transportation is practically impossible unless the energy is stored first.

Therefore, energy that is already in a stored form has a huge advantage over raw energy for which an efficient method of storage must be devised.