Are you an engineer? Real engineers can be held accountable for bad advise, however there is nothing in your posting that tells me you know anything about engineering. For that reason I will only deal with battery storage. Do you understand that if you charge any battery you will not get out what you put in. That is not the only pr…
Are you an engineer? Real engineers can be held accountable for bad advise, however there is nothing in your posting that tells me you know anything about engineering. For that reason I will only deal with battery storage. Do you understand that if you charge any battery you will not get out what you put in. That is not the only problem with batteries but enough for now if you want to continue on the subject.
When a person doesn’t state the obvious it doesn’t mean they don’t know the obvious. Factor it in and nothing wrong with his answer. Nothing wrong with his answer. Fossil fuels will be come unreliable when they’re depleted. They destroyed the coastline this year if you live in CA. Not worth it. Who wants tar polluting the neighborhood, animals, and decimating farms? Killing peoples economy and ways they make money isn’t good for affording energy prices. Not everyone believes the best solution are the selfish ones that cover their lifetime instead of life itself. Some change never happens unless it’s literally forced with no way out. Crisis is a painful but excellent catalyst at producing innovation and forcing change. Back pedaling and adding more gas in the mix while renewable strengthen and innovate so they can be added back in again down the road is a step in the journey of heading the right direction. The Journey was always going to have mistakes and not be smooth. Otherwise would be unrealistic. People pointing out “ooo they made a mistake” is as silly as the mistake itself. Someone is always smarter no matter who you are.
Mary Mary; I don't need to know your background to tell me that you are capable of understanding what I have to say. To begin with I agree that we should protect our environment. We have done a lot and there is more to be done. That being said, your claim that renewables are preferable to natural gas is false. If by renewables you mean solar and wind energy, they will never do the job.
It is my position that the AGW thing is a scam. How do I know? Well it's based on a closed system with respect to CO2, human input being the only recognized source. We all know that most life on earth depends on a continuous supply of O2. The rate of use is large and it must be replaced continuously. The needed O2 can only come from CO2 and the CO2 must come from volcanic activity.
There is no way the claims of AGW can be squared with known physical facts.
Thanks for your comments. I know something about geology and there is no way we will ever run out of natural gas. The high carbon shale deposits are extensive. When they tap into the Marcellus shale they will only recover that which has been made mobile by heat and pressure. The wells will recover. In addition, below the Marcellus shale is the Utica shale which has has high carbon (called Kerogen).
The only way you could claim we never will run out of natural gas is if you can show that it's created faster than we consume it, or you're assuming our demand declines asymptotically for some reason ( like, say, eventual scarcity).
As far as I know, in the relevant range of time the supply of natural gas is fixed and will eventually either run out or become uneconomical. Period.
John, you make claims as though you are an expert in geology but you are not. You say "as far as I know" but you are clue less with regard to the supply of natural gas. Why should anyone take you seriously going forward?
The high carbon shale deposits such as the Marcellus shale are deep ocean deposits the formation of which started about 1 Billion yrs ago. Perhaps only 3/4 of a billion I don't know but in any case it must have preceded ocean life because it provided the oxygen needed by all life. The oxygen was provided by one cell creatures that fed on the CO2 emitted by volcanic vents. The creatures are known as forminifers and they are still at work providing oxygen for ocean life. Up to about 1 yr ago you could go on line and learn about forminifers but it has all been removed. You will have to confirm what I say by other means. In any case a lot of carbon was produced, some places it could be 100 ft or more. of course it would remain at the bottom of the ocean if it were not for Plate Technonics which placed it within the reach of humans.
I was hoping for a response to my previous posting because geology is my passion. Lack of knowledge doesn't prevent people from putting out false info. I did hope that the facts might be of interest.
I have long maintained that AGW is a scam. It's the nature of a scam to divert attention from facts or to cover up the facts any way possible. Yes it's evil but that's what you get from progressives who are really communists. I believe AOC has not tried to cover up her intention to destroy the free market system.
Thank you. Science at one time could be fun, we could study it and see the majesty of creation.. Now the young are taught that a little bit of CO2 in the atmosphere spells the end and they are terrified. The evil that has been lain on the children is beyond belief. Instead if learning they are looking for safe spaces.
Not sure what your point is. Engineers who design projects cannot rely on theories, they must stick with what is known. Clients some time ask for the impossible which is the case with solar panels and wind turbines.
The power companies have been doing fine without battery storage. If solar farms require battery storage, why not store on site, then convert (technically Invert) to AC and connect to the grid. There has been some pretty crazy stuff coming from the green energy people. They are actually proposing boosting DC to
440,000 volts, sending it 3,000 miles across country to battery storage and then going to AC.
The power companies have always operated without battery storage. If they need extra power they rely on gas turbines which can be brought on line in an instant. We don't need solar power. The US is the only country that has reduced CO 2 emissions by going to gas fired power plants and by reducing waste.
What does that have to do with AGW. NYC had DC power about 100 yrs ago. There were battery operated cars and people loved them at that time and people love them now. The issue is just a diversion. The real issue is that the AGW people want to spend billions to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere when the science tells us that it will do nothing to impact global warming.
You're out of the mainstream with your AGW opinions. They aren't germane here because one you're wrong (lies are never of interest) and two it's off topic.
For both reasons you are wasting everyone's time in a forum where no one cares about your denialist opinions.
No James I will not engage your credential check. We will not be measuring our members. Either you have a careful argument that makes sense or you don't. And you have a weak one barely baked.
Yes there is some energy lost when you store it. Just as there is when you transmit it. So what?
And I didn't say "batteries" I said "storage." There are many types of storage. Pumped hydro. Compressed air. Molten salt. Flywheels. Flow batteries. Lithium batteries. Etc.
There are always losses in any system and different storage mechanisms have different characteristics. Just more variables to be accounted for in the engineered system. Still not a science project. Just terms in the equation of inputs - losses = output
Maybe that's your mistake, seeing power sources as Good or Bad, Reliable or Unreliable. It's a fiction. Any intermittent power source can be buffered to provide a reliable power source. Some loss is acceptable.
Your comment that there are "other problems" with batteries indicates that it is you who does not have an engineering mindset. As long as the system functions within acceptable parameters it is a solution. Finding some loss or waste heat in a system doesn't rule it out as an option. Show me a machine or other engineered system that doesn't have waste. You can't.
There are problems with any system. The only question is whether they are accounted for and addressed. For example a natural gas plant is highly reliable. But it only works as long as you have natural gas constantly supplying it. Oh no, a "problem"! What if there isn't enough? What if there is a political problem with supply? Hot war? Trade war?
All problems. CO2 dumping also is a serious problem. But it's just another global variable to address.
John; I don't have to check your credentials, I can tell by your comments that you have no engineering experience. I have a project for you. start with solar farms in the South West with solar panels that are 18 percent efficient. Run thru all the losses in getting output to the end user and tell me hoe much is left for me to consume.
In my power distribution region we have plenty of water power. Some comes from the St Lawrence Seaway project and some from Hydro-Quebec. Actually they have too much water. My power companies also have standby gas turbines which don't take long to rev up. Also, you cannot deal with transmission loses because it depends on distance traveled which is not constant. Since we don't need the additional storage you have in mind I don't see we have anything more to discuss.
John, I checked your Jan 4th posting and see that your statements about engineering convinced me that you know nothing about engineering. Real engineers know that it is the system efficiency that counts. You did not know that, you want to divide things up and consider the efficiency of selected sections. When I asked you to compute the overall efficiency it was a test. A real engineer could probably do the math in his head.
John; I made a mistake, when you start with solar panels, you should start with the, manufacturers rating which takes into account panel efficiency. Down stream there could be as many as 8 processes and if we assume 95 percent efficiency for each then the overall efficiency would be computed by multiplying .95 X .95 eight times. You do the math, but it doesn't look good.
Are you an engineer? Real engineers can be held accountable for bad advise, however there is nothing in your posting that tells me you know anything about engineering. For that reason I will only deal with battery storage. Do you understand that if you charge any battery you will not get out what you put in. That is not the only problem with batteries but enough for now if you want to continue on the subject.
When a person doesn’t state the obvious it doesn’t mean they don’t know the obvious. Factor it in and nothing wrong with his answer. Nothing wrong with his answer. Fossil fuels will be come unreliable when they’re depleted. They destroyed the coastline this year if you live in CA. Not worth it. Who wants tar polluting the neighborhood, animals, and decimating farms? Killing peoples economy and ways they make money isn’t good for affording energy prices. Not everyone believes the best solution are the selfish ones that cover their lifetime instead of life itself. Some change never happens unless it’s literally forced with no way out. Crisis is a painful but excellent catalyst at producing innovation and forcing change. Back pedaling and adding more gas in the mix while renewable strengthen and innovate so they can be added back in again down the road is a step in the journey of heading the right direction. The Journey was always going to have mistakes and not be smooth. Otherwise would be unrealistic. People pointing out “ooo they made a mistake” is as silly as the mistake itself. Someone is always smarter no matter who you are.
Mary Mary; I don't need to know your background to tell me that you are capable of understanding what I have to say. To begin with I agree that we should protect our environment. We have done a lot and there is more to be done. That being said, your claim that renewables are preferable to natural gas is false. If by renewables you mean solar and wind energy, they will never do the job.
It is my position that the AGW thing is a scam. How do I know? Well it's based on a closed system with respect to CO2, human input being the only recognized source. We all know that most life on earth depends on a continuous supply of O2. The rate of use is large and it must be replaced continuously. The needed O2 can only come from CO2 and the CO2 must come from volcanic activity.
There is no way the claims of AGW can be squared with known physical facts.
That's why I claim AGW is a scam.
Thanks for your comments. I know something about geology and there is no way we will ever run out of natural gas. The high carbon shale deposits are extensive. When they tap into the Marcellus shale they will only recover that which has been made mobile by heat and pressure. The wells will recover. In addition, below the Marcellus shale is the Utica shale which has has high carbon (called Kerogen).
The only way you could claim we never will run out of natural gas is if you can show that it's created faster than we consume it, or you're assuming our demand declines asymptotically for some reason ( like, say, eventual scarcity).
As far as I know, in the relevant range of time the supply of natural gas is fixed and will eventually either run out or become uneconomical. Period.
John, you make claims as though you are an expert in geology but you are not. You say "as far as I know" but you are clue less with regard to the supply of natural gas. Why should anyone take you seriously going forward?
The high carbon shale deposits such as the Marcellus shale are deep ocean deposits the formation of which started about 1 Billion yrs ago. Perhaps only 3/4 of a billion I don't know but in any case it must have preceded ocean life because it provided the oxygen needed by all life. The oxygen was provided by one cell creatures that fed on the CO2 emitted by volcanic vents. The creatures are known as forminifers and they are still at work providing oxygen for ocean life. Up to about 1 yr ago you could go on line and learn about forminifers but it has all been removed. You will have to confirm what I say by other means. In any case a lot of carbon was produced, some places it could be 100 ft or more. of course it would remain at the bottom of the ocean if it were not for Plate Technonics which placed it within the reach of humans.
I was hoping for a response to my previous posting because geology is my passion. Lack of knowledge doesn't prevent people from putting out false info. I did hope that the facts might be of interest.
I have long maintained that AGW is a scam. It's the nature of a scam to divert attention from facts or to cover up the facts any way possible. Yes it's evil but that's what you get from progressives who are really communists. I believe AOC has not tried to cover up her intention to destroy the free market system.
Thank you. Science at one time could be fun, we could study it and see the majesty of creation.. Now the young are taught that a little bit of CO2 in the atmosphere spells the end and they are terrified. The evil that has been lain on the children is beyond belief. Instead if learning they are looking for safe spaces.
Or get it out at the speed you might want. Or charge it as fast as you might like.
That's just a matter of engineering to requirements.
You shouldn't assume either is difficult. But you imply both.
Not sure what your point is. Engineers who design projects cannot rely on theories, they must stick with what is known. Clients some time ask for the impossible which is the case with solar panels and wind turbines.
Yes and grid scale storage is known. Your desperate attempts to ignore that show your argument makes no sense.
What could be simpler than banking the energy to address variability of supply?
Yes there are losses when you store energy. How much loss is acceptable? How much loss is too much?
Power companies have a long record of keeping losses low. They don't need advice from self declared experts such as you John.
The power companies have been doing fine without battery storage. If solar farms require battery storage, why not store on site, then convert (technically Invert) to AC and connect to the grid. There has been some pretty crazy stuff coming from the green energy people. They are actually proposing boosting DC to
440,000 volts, sending it 3,000 miles across country to battery storage and then going to AC.
The power companies have always operated without battery storage. If they need extra power they rely on gas turbines which can be brought on line in an instant. We don't need solar power. The US is the only country that has reduced CO 2 emissions by going to gas fired power plants and by reducing waste.
I think my suggestion to install battery storage at point of generation is brilliant.
What does that have to do with AGW. NYC had DC power about 100 yrs ago. There were battery operated cars and people loved them at that time and people love them now. The issue is just a diversion. The real issue is that the AGW people want to spend billions to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere when the science tells us that it will do nothing to impact global warming.
You're out of the mainstream with your AGW opinions. They aren't germane here because one you're wrong (lies are never of interest) and two it's off topic.
For both reasons you are wasting everyone's time in a forum where no one cares about your denialist opinions.
No James I will not engage your credential check. We will not be measuring our members. Either you have a careful argument that makes sense or you don't. And you have a weak one barely baked.
Yes there is some energy lost when you store it. Just as there is when you transmit it. So what?
And I didn't say "batteries" I said "storage." There are many types of storage. Pumped hydro. Compressed air. Molten salt. Flywheels. Flow batteries. Lithium batteries. Etc.
There are always losses in any system and different storage mechanisms have different characteristics. Just more variables to be accounted for in the engineered system. Still not a science project. Just terms in the equation of inputs - losses = output
Maybe that's your mistake, seeing power sources as Good or Bad, Reliable or Unreliable. It's a fiction. Any intermittent power source can be buffered to provide a reliable power source. Some loss is acceptable.
Your comment that there are "other problems" with batteries indicates that it is you who does not have an engineering mindset. As long as the system functions within acceptable parameters it is a solution. Finding some loss or waste heat in a system doesn't rule it out as an option. Show me a machine or other engineered system that doesn't have waste. You can't.
There are problems with any system. The only question is whether they are accounted for and addressed. For example a natural gas plant is highly reliable. But it only works as long as you have natural gas constantly supplying it. Oh no, a "problem"! What if there isn't enough? What if there is a political problem with supply? Hot war? Trade war?
All problems. CO2 dumping also is a serious problem. But it's just another global variable to address.
John; I don't have to check your credentials, I can tell by your comments that you have no engineering experience. I have a project for you. start with solar farms in the South West with solar panels that are 18 percent efficient. Run thru all the losses in getting output to the end user and tell me hoe much is left for me to consume.
I'm not doing your homework problem either. You're not a serious person as you do not engage on the merits of the argument.
I barely touched on transmission losses. We were discussing storage.
In my power distribution region we have plenty of water power. Some comes from the St Lawrence Seaway project and some from Hydro-Quebec. Actually they have too much water. My power companies also have standby gas turbines which don't take long to rev up. Also, you cannot deal with transmission loses because it depends on distance traveled which is not constant. Since we don't need the additional storage you have in mind I don't see we have anything more to discuss.
John, I checked your Jan 4th posting and see that your statements about engineering convinced me that you know nothing about engineering. Real engineers know that it is the system efficiency that counts. You did not know that, you want to divide things up and consider the efficiency of selected sections. When I asked you to compute the overall efficiency it was a test. A real engineer could probably do the math in his head.
John; I made a mistake, when you start with solar panels, you should start with the, manufacturers rating which takes into account panel efficiency. Down stream there could be as many as 8 processes and if we assume 95 percent efficiency for each then the overall efficiency would be computed by multiplying .95 X .95 eight times. You do the math, but it doesn't look good.