REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Europe exits climate money pit as Obama jumps in

POSTED BY: JONGSSTRAW
UPDATED: Sunday, August 4, 2013 13:41
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2598
PAGE 2 of 2

Friday, July 26, 2013 8:20 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As far as carbon dioxide... re-creating that spreadsheet is going to take some time. Family is pissed that I've spent so much time here, so it will have to wait a couple of weeks.


Bump for Signy.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 26, 2013 11:12 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


OK, I figured out where the difference came in. I was using per capita energy consumption, Geezer was looking at carbon dioxide emissions.

My figures came from here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_p
er_capita

The figures still come out the same:

If the USA is a "10" and the EU is (on average) a "5", China is a "1" and some parts of Africa are "0.1". If the USA could reduce its energy consumption to that of (say) Germany (which is close to the EU average) and distribute all of that extra energy to South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc) and all of Africa, the entire population of those regions would come up to a "1". Not luxurious, but in the realm of China, Costa Rica and Cuba.

Energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions are not the same. It's possible to consume a lot of energy without emitting a lot of carbon dioxide, which is the point of reaching for renewable energy. But is IS energy consumption which allows us to live a life of relative ease.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, July 26, 2013 11:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


This post made me look into energy policy, electricity grids, and infrastructure. There are a lot of interesting things going on which I'll just glancingly refer to because I don't want to take the time to reference all of the technical and business journal articles that were sent my way by a friend.

Germany actually has TOO MUCH windpower. The generators had to let a lot of wind blow by, because the grid isn't large enough to take up the energy. They alos need to transmit energy to southern Germany... which is where the nuclear plant are, and also away from the north sea windpower sources and solar sources. Germany is looking into high voltage DC (HVDC) instead of AC, as it is less "lossy" than AC transmission.

China is also looking into ultra High voltage DC (UHVDC). One plan is to construct 20 power corridors to balance energy production and energy consumption. The heaviest UHVDC line in the world connects Xiangjiaba to Shanghai

Quote:

±800 kV UHVDC transmission project
One of the world's longest transmission links with breakthrough technology
The Xiangjiaba - Shanghai transmission was the first UHVDC (Ultra High Voltage Direct Current) project to go into commercial operation in the world in July 2010. State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC) is the owner and ABB was the main technology supplier. The project was completed in 30 months, one year ahead of schedule. This line is a test case- the Central Committee will probably decide later this year whether to go foreward with nation-wide energy distribution, or develop power regionally.

The ±800 kV Xiangjiaba-Shanghai UHVDC link, with a rated power of 6 400 MW, has the capacity to transmit up to 7 200 MW of power from the Xiangjiaba hydropower plant, located in the southwest of the country, to Shanghai, China's leading industrial and commercial center, approximately 2,000 kilometers away.



The problem of being able to gnerate too much energy in one area (eg solar, wind) could be solved by HVDC lines.

As far as we (the United States) are concerned, the power transmission operators and power producers have no such plans to upgrade our grid, although it desperately needs a makeover- not just to accomodate interregional power transfer (like the DC Pacific Intertie from the NW to the SW) but to prevent catastrophe from a solar storm, and just to keep up with demand.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, July 27, 2013 5:36 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



The position that it's gonna be difficult to replace fossil energy with renewbles? Yeah. I stick by that.


Why difficult? Germany went from "6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 25 percent in the first half of 2012" *. And it didn't seem to hurt their economy any. What it takes first is a policy, then a direction for investments. If you're going to be investing, why invest in another coal-fired plant?

* I'll not be providing YOU sources for my quotes and figures, since despite all of my careful sourcing in the past you seem to think I'm pulling these figures out of my ass.


Doesn't mean it can't, or shouldn't, be done, but I'd rather go in with a realistic view of the problems rather than the "Oh, solar (or wind, or tidal, or geothermal, or ocean thermal differential, or crystals, or whatever) is going to solve all our problems" attitude I see here a lot.


So, that whole discussion about peaker units and smaller multiple solutions that I linked went right by you. And, does this go along with your claim that these technologies are in the laboratory stage and not ready for the real world yet?

Maybe you could tell that to the countries that have significant renewables energy production and energy conservation already on board. I guess they must be doing it with crystals.



Pumped storage in the U.S. is around 21.8 Gigawatts. Sounds like a lot. However, generating capacity in the U.S. is 945 GW. So all the pumped storage in the U.S. can hold slightly more than 2% of the power that can be generated. Yep. That's a solution.

So you saw a big number (127,000MW) and thought that was impressive without checking on what it actually meant. What it meant was that it was pointless to continue the discussion with you.


Yes, because I don't read research reports of bona fide researchers and the DOE like the one below, who actually ferret out the facts and run the figures, unlike you. Oh wait, you'd rather claim that it's all in the laboratory stages, that I've posted these are 100% solutions, and that I'm waving my arms about magical stuff.


Theoretically, hydropower can step in when wind turbines go still, but barriers to this non-polluting resource serving as a backup are largely policy- and regulation-based, according to Penn State researchers.

The U.S. Department of Energy recently examined the feasibility of producing 20% of U.S. electricity from wind by 2030.

"Texas is either there or close," said Blumsack. "During certain periods, as much as 30% of their energy is generated by wind."

Hydroelectric dams cannot simply release water to meet some electricity demand or hold back water when electricity is in low demand. Plants operate using guide curves that consider not only electric production, but also drinking water needs, irrigation, fish and wildlife requirements, recreation and minimum levels for droughts. These guide curves are created by the government agencies regulating the particular dam—in the case of Kerr, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—but in other places it could be the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Colorado River Authority or other entities.

The researchers determined that the Kerr Dam could accommodate the unexpected variations in wind energy, but only if those operating the dam were allowed to meet the guide curve requirements over a two-week rather than one-week period of time.

"Changing guide curves is complex, time-consuming and may even require an act of Congress," said Blumsack.

"Operational conflicts may be significantly reduced if the time length of the guide curve schedule was altered, yet such regulatory changes prove quite challenging given the institutional barriers surrounding water rights in the U.S.," said the researchers, who also include Patrick M. Reed, professor of civil engineering, Cornell University.




ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU KID!


To little rappy from Chris,IsAll: "you are merely a fucking asshole. Quote THAT, you sad little fascist biological reality"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 5:42 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:

The position that it's gonna be difficult to replace fossil energy with renewbles? Yeah. I stick by that.


Why difficult? Germany went from "6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 25 percent in the first half of 2012" *. And it didn't seem to hurt their economy any. What it takes first is a policy, then a direction for investments. If you're going to be investing, why invest in another coal-fired plant?



Fine. You convince China to do the same. They're increasing carbon emissions at almost 10% a year, and showing no signs of slowing. All of Germany's change to renewables is just a drop in the bucket relative to China's increases in pollution.

Quote:

Quote:

Doesn't mean it can't, or shouldn't, be done, but I'd rather go in with a realistic view of the problems rather than the "Oh, solar (or wind, or tidal, or geothermal, or ocean thermal differential, or crystals, or whatever) is going to solve all our problems" attitude I see here a lot.


So, that whole discussion about peaker units and smaller multiple solutions that I linked went right by you. And, does this go along with your claim that these technologies are in the laboratory stage and not ready for the real world yet?

Maybe you could tell that to the countries that have significant renewables energy production and energy conservation already on board. I guess they must be doing it with crystals.


Some are working small-scale, some larger, and some still in the lab. As noted several times, unless you get China, India, etc. on board, it's not gonna make a difference.


Quote:

Quote:

Pumped storage in the U.S. is around 21.8 Gigawatts. Sounds like a lot. However, generating capacity in the U.S. is 945 GW. So all the pumped storage in the U.S. can hold slightly more than 2% of the power that can be generated. Yep. That's a solution.

So you saw a big number (127,000MW) and thought that was impressive without checking on what it actually meant. What it meant was that it was pointless to continue the discussion with you.



Yes, because I don't read research reports of bona fide researchers and the DOE like the one below, who actually ferret out the facts and run the figures, unlike you. Oh wait, you'd rather claim that it's all in the laboratory stages, that I've posted these are 100% solutions, and that I'm waving my arms about magical stuff.


Theoretically, hydropower can step in when wind turbines go still, but barriers to this non-polluting resource serving as a backup are largely policy- and regulation-based, according to Penn State researchers.

The U.S. Department of Energy recently examined the feasibility of producing 20% of U.S. electricity from wind by 2030.

"Texas is either there or close," said Blumsack. "During certain periods, as much as 30% of their energy is generated by wind."

Hydroelectric dams cannot simply release water to meet some electricity demand or hold back water when electricity is in low demand. Plants operate using guide curves that consider not only electric production, but also drinking water needs, irrigation, fish and wildlife requirements, recreation and minimum levels for droughts. These guide curves are created by the government agencies regulating the particular dam—in the case of Kerr, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—but in other places it could be the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Colorado River Authority or other entities.

The researchers determined that the Kerr Dam could accommodate the unexpected variations in wind energy, but only if those operating the dam were allowed to meet the guide curve requirements over a two-week rather than one-week period of time.

"Changing guide curves is complex, time-consuming and may even require an act of Congress," said Blumsack.

"Operational conflicts may be significantly reduced if the time length of the guide curve schedule was altered, yet such regulatory changes prove quite challenging given the institutional barriers surrounding water rights in the U.S.," said the researchers, who also include Patrick M. Reed, professor of civil engineering, Cornell University.



But there are no facts and figures here. "... examined the feasibility of producing 20% of U.S. electricity from wind by 2030." Feasible does not mean it'll be done.

"During certain periods, as much as 30% of their energy is generated by wind." What periods? for how long? What's the minimum produced?

"Hydroelectric dams cannot simply release water to meet some electricity demand or hold back water when electricity is in low demand. Plants operate using guide curves that consider not only electric production, but also drinking water needs, irrigation, fish and wildlife requirements, recreation and minimum levels for droughts."

So what are you going to sacrifice to use dams most efficiently for energy storage? Drinking water? Agriculture?

This paper also does not address the problem of wind power farms where there is no available dam site for pumped-water strorage.

But once again, the big problem isn't the U.S. failing to go to renewables as fast as you'd like, but the fact that China, India, and other developing nations want electricity, want it now, and want it as cheap as possible. They're not slowing down building coal-fired plants, and if anything are increasing their emissions yearly. Also consider that it's estimated that by 2030 India will have a bigger population than China.

So I stick by my statement. It's fine for the U.S. to conserve energy, reduce emissions, and increase the use of renewables, but unless China, India, and the rest of the developing world make changes I see as unlikely in the extreme, better prepare for climate change and its effects.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 29, 2013 6:25 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Whatever. You're obviously resistant to FACTS, like the one that the US and China put out about equal amounts of greenhouse gases and the US alone COULD actually make up for China's increases all by itself for years to come without sacrificing a robust economy. Or the FACT that India is a miniscule contributor.

Whatever. I think we're all pretty aware that you really don't care about facts, that you really are dishonest about your beliefs and motivations, and that you're pretty much a useless old windbag. So hey there old fart, go rant on some street corner to people who care more about your inanity than I do.





ENJOY YOUR NEXT FOUR YEARS!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - HERE'S LAUGHING AT YOU OLD FART!


To little rappy from Chris,IsAll: "you are merely a fucking asshole. Quote THAT, you sad little fascist biological reality"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 4, 2013 1:41 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/germany-takes-the-lead-in-h
vdc


Germany Takes the Lead in HVDC

The European Commission is counting on this sort of flexibility to meet its goal of an 80 percent renewable power supply by 2050. Corridor A could be the first step. ?




Already at half the CO2 per capita emissions of the US, the EC is trying to reduce them down by another 80%.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, August 4, 2013 1:41 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


wow - this is my first dbl in a long, LONG time.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Scientific American Claims It Is "Misinformation" That There Are Just Two Sexes
Sun, April 28, 2024 02:45 - 20 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, April 28, 2024 02:14 - 6308 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, April 28, 2024 02:09 - 3573 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Sun, April 28, 2024 02:03 - 1016 posts
The Thread of Court Cases Trump Is Winning
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:37 - 20 posts
Case against Sidney Powell, 2020 case lawyer, is dismissed
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:29 - 13 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:28 - 745 posts
Slate: I Changed My Mind About Kids and Phones. I Hope Everyone Else Does, Too.
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:19 - 3 posts
14 Tips To Reduce Tears and Remove Smells When Cutting Onions
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:08 - 9 posts
Russian War Crimes In Ukraine
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:27 - 15 posts
"Feminism" really means more Femtacular than you at EVERYTHING.
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:25 - 66 posts
Cry Baby Trump
Sat, April 27, 2024 19:21 - 79 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL