Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

[TommySr]

There will come a time when we see the same thing about electric cars and just how stupid they really are.

fpgt72, it's possible that making our air and water cleaner by removing fossil fuels from the
transportation and energy production mix could have long term negative effects on us.

example:
by making this world habitable for the future mankind there would be no reason to venture
out of our solar system looking for a new home, there is a big space rock heading our way and
when it get here all of mankind would be lost.

if we continue as we have in the past we'll have to start looking for a new home planet within 200year and
that could save mankind from extinction from a single space rock

 

[MTM98290]

No, I don't believe the government is implementing climate change under any guise. Yes, I believe that history shows starvation, disease, and lack of resources will cause migration and civil unrest.

I may have made an error in my wording, I mean "governments are implementing 'green' energy incentivization and deployment, based on the idea that the plant food called CO2 is causing detrimental harm.

All of those societal issues were present when they grew citrus in Britain, or when the icecaps covered a good portion of North America.

Your ancestors almost died then too (ref).


The planet just is, it doesn't adapt. The biologicals on it have to adapt to changes, or die off. We typically have mass die-offs each major temperature transition. ref

We are not reptiles, we can ingest food and make heat, if we don't shut down civilization via 'decarbonization' we will survive just fine.

Agreed. But extreme. We can solve the problems without those measures. A carbon tax to remove GHGs on fuels would do it.

Turquoise and Natural hydrogen are interesting, but green hydrogen doesn't have the round-trip-efficiency of other systems...

Energy Storage Technology Round-Trip Efficiency Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) 92-95% Pumped Hydro Storage 70-85% Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) 54-70% Green Hydrogen Fuel 18-46%

I understand you believe that. But, you also have shown any reason why you believe that which I haven't already rebutted. If you assume all scientists are in cahoots and all data is false, then neither of our viewpoints can be valid.

You are making an argument based on an appeal to authority. I do not necessarily accept such arguments, as many have motives, i.e. funding, reputation to consider. I can not test their hypothesis in any way, nor have I seen it convincingly demonstrated outside of computer models and the misleading zooming and scaling of graphs. Those prove nothing.

If a scientist tells me that the water in my cooking pot will boil at 212F and begin changing state into water vapor, I do not have to believe him. I can just test the hypothesis, and observe that the change of state of the liquid to a gas does in fact happen at 212F.. This makes it verifiable. This makes it Science.

But you have! When you read those crazy headlines you talked about, even watched any news, when you heard a politician say it was a hoax because they were lobbied by the industry, when you doubted the science was real, when a friend made a joke about it... there's no way to escape the propaganda.

All human language could be categorized as propaganda, good and bad, black and white propaganda. I mean it in the popular use sense of against ones interest, or serving anothers purpose without regard to the effect on others.

Every day we are in the world we are participants or bystanders to information warfare, it is the nature of civilization.

Other than GHGs, what is the motivation? Fossil fuel companies won't go away... we still need plastics and tons of other products. But the enormous power they wield today, yeah that will go away and they don't like it.

Their power will not go away, they have diversified their holdings and will survive regardless. All the oil giants are invested into 'clean energy' and will continue to profit.

When did we start talking about jailing people for being deniers? Are we going to round up the flat-earthers too? Sounding just a tad desperate/hysterical in your argument.

I can't quote it because it is 2 posts ago but you said something to the effect that Oil executives wouldn't wan't to be put in jail for denying climate change.

I do not support jailing anybody for any opinion. Period.

Flat Earthers pose what threat exactly? What fundamental pillar of civilization do they need to destroy due to their erroneous understanding of our Globe? None.

Flat Earth is easily disproven through the scientific method. When amateur astronomers set their telescopes to track the night sky for astrophotography, they often use what is called an 'equatorial mount'. The equatorial mount is angled to a certain angle in relation to the latitude of the observer/telescope. This is observable and reapeatable, therefore disproves the theory of the Earth being flat.

I have never seen the Globe from space with my naked eye, but I do not need to, I can test the equatorial mount at different latitudes and verfy that the hypothesis that the Earth is NOT flat in light of this observation. No need to take anybody's word for anything at all the Earth isn't flat and the scientific method can be used to verify this.

Denying something with evidence is good. But denying something without evidence or because you have fears that bad things might happen without acknowledging the consequences that it might happen is just hiding from reality. Rather than argue with emotions or rhetoric, facts will get you farther.

Those are two different things. I am denying that CO2 level fluctuation is not catastrophic.

Secondly, the 'belief' as you put it that climate change is a threat gives power to those who are in a position to use the crisis to gain control and profit.

There's ton's of denial as a part of the discussion. What would make you think otherwise?

They get scoffed at for the same reason flat-earthers do, the science doesn't support their arguments. That's when they have arguments, a lot of it is emotional BS, attempts to discredit scientists, or bamboozle people with half-truths and cherry picked data.

Refer to equitorial mount above. The Earth is a sphere of course. Flat Earth is a PsyOp used for discrediting people and ideas based on association.

A government conspiracy? Mainly it's Occom's razor. For all scientists and all governments to be in on it (even North Korea) is so unlikely compared to other possibilities. Plus, our government is so dysfunctional/divided it couldn't pull off a hoax of this magnitude. I'm sure you'll point to the one or two scientists that say it's a hoax, but they've been debunked... that is shown to be taking money from oil companies and usually not ever climate scientists.

Now the oil companies, knowing their world dominance is threatened and bamboozling you? Yeah, that's believable.

I do not buy the theory. It hasn't been demonstrated to my satisfaction.

Occoms razor still applies to this scenario. The simplest answer is probably the correct one, and the simple answer is often the correct one.

The alleged consensus is not true. The conclusions of impending climate catastrophe are decided by a few scientists on panels like the UN IPCC. That doesn't mean that all scientists in the field are coming to these conclusions. Just that some in positions of power are. The simple answer is that scientists as a whole are serious people doing serious work in serious fields and assume that the scientist in other fields must also be honest and virtuous, and by extension their climate science colleagues must be as well.
Do not corruption, ego, bribery, racketeering, and incompetence fall in to the category of 'the simplest answer?

 

[D71]

Tommy…….. Carl Sagan said a nuclear winter can cure our woes and Agenda 2021 was already drawn up to reduce population. Imagine them only wanting 500 million ppl on Earth. Who would they want to exclude from Noahs next Ark? Who would they want to include? Does the future world need a bill gates?. Do they need a tommy more or less? Who gets to shelter in next Noah’s Ark? Won’t be me. I’ll be driving a stolen concrete truck to seal off their air shafts.

Carl Sagan Winter Storm.

 

[TommySr]

sweet visual aides D71

Does the future world need a bill gates?

I'm not sure he's needed now, IMO Gary Kildall gave him MS Dos, and steve jobs invited him to his
garage shop one night to show of his apple system, thats where he got windows idea. now excel was
a sweet software, but lotus 123 was out 3 years before excel

 

[MTM98290]

So, not really seeing any facts as to why climate change is false or more importantly news on climate change which is what the thread is about.

Nonsense, at 80% efficiency in heat extraction that would be 76.8 kWh. But, you could use a heat pump with a COP of 5, so 76.8 kWh of heat would take 15.36 kWh of energy. Or, perhaps that was where you were going?

But... don't forget, 4.5 gallons over 3000 cycles at $2.60/cycle is $35,000. From Will's numbers, the 15.36 kWh battery is only $860. Plus, at it's end of life it has value in it's recycle. Whereas the CO2 from propane has a cost to be removed from the air. ; -)

Seems good to me.

You make a good point about the heat pump system. It is superior from an efficiency standpoint. I was considering resistance heat, but the heat pump system will outperform propane it seems as it is COP of 5.

This system still requires thousands of dollars worth of equipment. If one can not afford the equipment, and most of the world can not, then It really isn't relevant.

I'm glad that these things are options for many of us, but how are you going to sell this system to somebody who is destitute?

Not in a crisis. I'll get sunshine after a hurricane, but power to pump propane and telephone lines for credit card readers aren't there. That's the way it worked in the last hurricane anyway.

Good. It sounds like your system is working well for your needs. IF you needed propane I'm sure that you, living in hurricane territory, would have a spare tank.

We do that now with coal/oil/gas/nuclear. It's not like if we turn off all the lights those things stop consuming fuel. Peaker plants sit mostly offline until there is a demand and they fire up (at enormous cost which is why utilities are deploying batteries).

Yes I know that. Hydroelectric can meet demand very quickly without the need for radiation or 1000 year mistakes.

With renewables and the grid and batteries I'd even argue we can much more precisely right-size. Sun not shining over Miami? Borrow some from Tampa. Not saying it's not a complex problem, it already is. Managing is the FERCs responsibility.


When I lived near LA every morning the window sill was gritty with black soot. Couldn't wait to get out of there. ; -)

Pollution, the actual environmental threat.

That might have been true with some early trials. But the ones built nowadays are paid for by investors expecting return on their investments.

I'm sure they are, and they will. They are still a disgusting eyesore.

Storage prices have fallen dramatically to the point where it's cost effective...again, I'll refer you back to the LCOEs.



How so? I agree they have negatives, but as a believer in GHGs causing climate change seems the negatives of burning fossil fuels is worse.

Modern humans require energy to flourish. We can't make enough batteries without destroying vast swaths of land and poisoning humans and the environment in the process. As a non believer in Co2 induced catastrophe I would like to see every little boy in the Congo able to afford a propane stove to cook with, not for him to be slaving away in a cobalt pit until he is poisoned to death.

Agreed. But you keep throwing energy storage out rather than seeing it as a part of the solution.

Because energy storage is not at parody with hydrocarbon fuels across the board.

Sure it is!


Ah! That's where our disconnect is. That $1000 is what you can get off Amazon today. You can't take the premium numbers you pay as if that's what utilities pay. They deal in volumes and get substantial discounts. As batteries become more mainstream those lower costs are passed to consumers (similar to how EV batteries are almost at that cost, e.g., a model Y has a 75 kWh battery and the car costs $43k).

Consumer prices are the important factor here.
Unless you are suggesting that we take the profit made on viable products (Ford Bronco) and use them to fund non viable products (Ford Lighning)

The government will take our money and buy what they choose with it, and their donors will benefit greatly in the process.

So lets take your numbers and let's use natural gas which which is cheaper than buying propane. $5000 in batteries @ 3000 cycles, vs. $1.452 to $9.52 per therm a consumer pays for natural gas (ref). for 3000 nights is $2,831 to $18,000. The prices are highly susceptible to world events (e.g., war or cold weather drives it up). So batteries still sound pretty good to great. Throw in the 30% tax incentive and that $5k drops to $3600.

If you use Will's numbers for batteries (which are still dropping) then it's closer at $1209 ($850 with tax incentives) and a hands-down winner. I know, as a consumer you can't access those prices today. But the point is utilities can and do, and before long you will be able to as well.

Yes cost wise over the long term. Lets say that Tp can be purchased at 80% off by the shipping container full. I could save money on TP if I were to just lock in the price today and buy 6 containers. I will never have to buy it again, and lifetime TP costs will plummet for my family. Yet I can't afford any of that so I will buy a few packs at a time.

Safety is an interesting question. We've all heard about lithium fires, natural gas fires, and CO poisoning, so hard to say which is best. If you believe in climate change the best solution and lowest cost seems pretty obviously.

Very complex topic. I could argue for and against all options. I am not really a fan of Natural gas in distribution systems as it presents a lot of points of potential failure. Although I have lived in a home with it and found it to be fine for heating, but complex gas systems make me a little nervous.

I'll have you know I did turn the heat on this winter! For about 5 minutes just to cycle it. Don't worry... next month you'll be laughing at me as I'll become imprisoned due to NWS heat warnings. Who knows, maybe this year I'll find a real cool coat I can go fishing in ; -)

AC is the easy part. PV-inverter-ac. Done. When the sun is making you hot the PV is running the AC, this is the epitome of success in renewable energy.

I don't really worry about any of it, just to old and won't probably won't see how any of it turns out. At 3mm sea rise per year (yeah yeah I know the rate is increasing) it's a little hard to get worked up about it.

Buy a couple of bottle jacks and lift your house up a foot and reattach. 12 inches will buy you 100 years. Never worry again!

 

[42OhmsPA]

"The duration of solar minimum may also have an impact on Earth's climate. During solar minimum there is a maximum in the amount of Cosmic rays, high energy particles whose source is outside our Solar system, reaching earth. There is a theory that cosmic rays can create nucleation sites in the atmosphere which seed cloud formation and create cloudier conditions. If this were true, then there would be a significant impact on climate, which would be modulated by the 11-year solar cycle."

Space Weather Impacts On Climate | NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center

www.swpc.noaa.gov

 

[aenyc]

The (Anti) Social Cost Of Carbon​

Forty-two was the mystical number that explained “life, the universe, and everything” in Douglas Adams’ comic novel, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Today, another mystical number, the so-called social cost of carbon (SSC), is providing the excuse for the Environmental Protection Agency and green-energy-enamored state regulators to enact crippling energy policies.


The SCC is the thumb on the scale that can justify virtually any policy aimed at eliminating fossil fuels. When the EPA first proposed its rule to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, the agency’s cost-benefit analysis determined the benefits would be minuscule. Any putative benefits, it turns out, would come instead from reductions in carbon emissions and, here’s the key, based on a calculated value for the SCC. The same was true for the EPA’s earlier attempt at carbon regulation via a “Clean Power Plan,” which was shut down by the Supreme Court. But here we are again with the agency’s newest rules trying to force coal plants to further reduce mercury emissions and to force both coal and natural gas-fired power plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions. The technology to accomplish this doesn’t exist and EPA Administrator Michael Regan admitted the rule will force the closure of fossil-fuel power plants.

The SCC values used by the EPA are derived from calculations in integrated planning models (IPMs). Those models assume a simplistic linear relationship between carbon emissions and world temperature (never mind that the validity of that linear assumptions is a subject of deep debate in scientific circles). The models then assume that the resulting temperature increases cause all forms of environmental doom – rising sea levels, more disease, and declining agricultural production – for which yet more estimates are made to assign future cost consequences. Here’s the key: the IPMs project these costs out for the next 300 years (not a typo). Then, those far future costs are “discounted” to estimate a value in today’s dollars by using truly absurd assumptions about such things as inflation and economic growth.

A tongue-in-cheek forecaster’s creed is “Give them a number or give them a date. Don’t give them both.” Attempting to predict the future three centuries hence may be standard fare for science fiction writers, but basing energy policies on such predictions is insane.

Imagine someone in the year 1724 predicting life – and technology – today. Benjamin Franklin was 18 years old and working in his father’s print shop. George Washington would not be born for another eight years. The French scientist Antoine Lavoisier, who first identified carbon as an element in 1789, would not be born until 1743. The first patent on a flush toilet would not happen for another half-century. Thomas Edison would not invent the light bulb and the telephone for another 150 years. Could anyone in 1724 have imagined automobiles, mobile phones, and MRI machines? How about integrated circuits, nuclear power, and B-2 bombers?

To presume we can accurately predict, or even imagine, what the world will look like 300 years from now is just as preposterous. Yet, simplistic models and arbitrary assumptions are being used to drive energy policy decisions today. Using the SCC estimates, and assuming that new technologies will magically appear, the EPA can justify virtually any pollution control regulation, including those that effectively mandate electric vehicles. Similarly, even though offshore wind generation costs five times more than natural gas and coal, the SCC can “prove” the benefits of offshore wind exceed its costs. New York State, for example, assumes that, by 2040, thousands of megawatts of “dispatchable emissions-free generators” (the equivalent of a natural gas generator burning pure hydrogen) will provide the necessary backup for unreliable offshore wind, even though no such generators exist.

Contrary to the economic fantasies peddled by green energy advocates, policies to eliminate fossil fuels based on the supposed benefits captured by the SCC will cripple the U.S. economy. Electricity prices, coupled with ill-considered plans to electrify virtually everything, will soar. Supplies will dwindle, requiring rationing, either explicitly or through rolling blackouts, such as those experienced every day in South Africa. Rather than creating some green energy nirvana, the lack of adequate and affordable electricity will cause societal decay.

All of this based on a made-up number.

 

[Bongbong]

I love my truck based SUV. Thank you government regulation.

We could save more energy by reducing the size of government. Think how many MWh could be saved if there weren't as many government workers to provide power for. Lowering the demand on the system is always a simpler solution to building a bigger system.

I could be wrong but I don't think most commercial PV installs allow for backup during grid outage, so unless an office building is off grid I'm not sure that helps anybody.

Yes the grid is a great reason to install an off grid system. It not a great time to invest in using the grid as your battery.

While I am truly happy that you love your truck, I just have no idea why people would love inanimate objects like vehicles, they are noisy, stink, are dangerous and are generally bad for our health. EV's are slightly better in that they don't spew fumes and are quieter. By the same token, I do not understand why people would hate government regulations to increase safety for the driver, passengers and others.

I disagreed that government should not have solar on their offices, which seems foolish as solar is cheaper regardless of the size of the government. I am not here to debate on the ideal size and role of your government.

 

[Bongbong]

And an observation, calling CO2 plant food is nonsense, plant growth is not generally limited by CO2, it is limited by all or some of the other elements and light. Adding CO2 to greenhouses is only beneficial when the growers add fertilizers, water and light. Those plant foods (fertilizers) would be unhealthy for us, or outright poisonous in large enough concentrations (even CO2 is unhealthy in large concentrations, not that we are at risk of that at current emission levels)

 

[MTM98290]

While I am truly happy that you love your truck, I just have no idea why people would love inanimate objects like vehicles, they are noisy, stink, are dangerous and are generally bad for our health. EV's are slightly better in that they don't spew fumes and are quieter. By the same token, I do not understand why people would hate government regulations to increase safety for the driver, passengers and others.

I do love the GMT 800 platform vehicles.
Yes vehicles can be dangerous, although generally the bigger and higher quality models are much safer than the 'green' alternatives.
They stink only if you put your face in front of the tailpipe, which I don't do, and are only as loud as they need to be. If it were any quieter it would be dangerous.

The reason people love their cars and trucks is because they are the embodiment of freedom and self sufficiency. Without the ability to travel freely we are essentially subjects. The ability to drive to another place at will is the essence of prosperity. What is not to love?

I drive 24 miles a day for my commute to a job that pays well, that would not be possible without the automobile, unless I would be willing to live in the terrible area closer to my place of employment, but I am not. I can travel to the dangerous downtown areas that have things that aren't available elswhere, then I leave in my car or truck and travel back to my home. I have no need to live close to anything in particular and so I can choose a place which is good for my family, not the place close to this or that.

I disagreed that government should not have solar on their offices, which seems foolish as solar is cheaper regardless of the size of the government. I am not here to debate on the ideal size and role of your government.

I agree, if it is cheaper, but it isn't cheaper unless it is reliant on the grid. If a system has energy storage, it likely cost more than using the grid. If it does not have energy storage then it just feeds the grid, which doesn't really help as it is still subject to all the downsides of being grid connected.

The only government buildings that should have solar are ones that would be cost prohibitive to connect to the grid, In that case, Im all for it.

 

[Bongbong]

I do love the GMT 800 platform vehicles.
Yes vehicles can be dangerous, although generally the bigger and higher quality models are much safer than the 'green' alternatives.
They stink only if you put your face in front of the tailpipe, which I don't do, and are only as loud as they need to be. If it were any quieter it would be dangerous.

The reason people love their cars and trucks is because they are the embodiment of freedom and self sufficiency. Without the ability to travel freely we are essentially subjects. The ability to drive to another place at will is the essence of prosperity. What is not to love?

I drive 24 miles a day for my commute to a job that pays well, that would not be possible without the automobile, unless I would be willing to live in the terrible area closer to my place of employment, but I am not. I can travel to the dangerous downtown areas that have things that aren't available elswhere, then I leave in my car or truck and travel back to my home. I have no need to live close to anything in particular and so I can choose a place which is good for my family, not the place close to this or that.


I agree, if it is cheaper, but it isn't cheaper unless it is reliant on the grid. If a system has energy storage, it likely cost more than using the grid. If it does not have energy storage then it just feeds the grid, which doesn't really help as it is still subject to all the downsides of being grid connected.

The only government buildings that should have solar are ones that would be cost prohibitive to connect to the grid, In that case, Im all for it.

Bigger cars are generally safer for the occupants of that car and more dangerous for every one else, that is in addition to being louder and dirtier. I am all for freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility and giving you the benefit of the doubt, sadly not every one is as responsible as you are.

Why put arbitrary limits on government owned and run buildings? If they can save money and allow people to work when the grid is down, it would seem like a double win to me. I genuinely fail to see any harm by government being more efficient with the tax money.

 

[MTM98290]

Bigger cars are generally safer for the occupants of that car and more dangerous for every one else, that is in addition to being louder and dirtier. I am all for freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility and giving you the benefit of the doubt, sadly not every one is as responsible as you are.

Freedom does come with responsibility, and we exercise that responsibility every time we successfully pilot an automobile in a safe manner.

Why put arbitrary limits on government owned and run buildings? If they can save money and allow people to work when the grid is down, it would seem like a double win to me. I genuinely fail to see any harm by government being more efficient with the tax money.

What I mean here is that if our local government puts solar on a building, it is just offsetting hydroelectric power from the grid. The turbines at the dam are making power, and really don't need any boost in the middle of the day when the sun is shining. At our latitude the time that we need electricity is when we don't have it. Our heaters do not run when solar is at its best potential.

I am against the Idea of governments taking our money to put solar on a government building only to have it feed into a grid, giving them a credit for power when it is actually needed. The building will still need to be heated at night and that will come from the grid anyway, so it is really just a way to save money for a given organization, at the cost to taxpayers or ratepayers. I could be wrong but I do not think that most government building installs are anything but grid tied and useless when the grid is down.

Now if a government has an off grid building in the tropics, it should by all means be powered by solar. All daytime consumption would be covered and there would be very little need for power overnight.

It may make sense, but usually government isn't very good at making the most economical decision, and left to it's own devices government will come up with ways to benefit itself and justify it's existence. The US has a lot of 'use it or lose it funding" which also invites massive waste.

 

[MTM98290]

And an observation, calling CO2 plant food is nonsense, plant growth is not generally limited by CO2, it is limited by all or some of the other elements and light. Adding CO2 to greenhouses is only beneficial when the growers add fertilizers, water and light. Those plant foods (fertilizers) would be unhealthy for us, or outright poisonous in large enough concentrations (even CO2 is unhealthy in large concentrations, not that we are at risk of that at current emission levels)

CO2 is required for plant life, CO2 is not a 'carbon emission' to be feared, it is a building block of life on the planet. While supplementing CO2 into greenhouses without other considerations will likely do little, it is just one thing that one does to increase yields. Fans in greenhouses are used to control humidity, temperture, and to clear out Oxygen rich air while replacing it with less oxygen dense air.

We can't add sunlight to plants in the greenhouse but can use artificial light. We can use fertilizers that are organic without much issue. And yes water requirements will increase as plants become larger and more productive.

Another thing to consider is the generational evolution of said plants on the long term. If the plants in a greenhouse are kept at high CO2 levels for many generations, their offspring will adapt by increasing the number of stomata that utilize CO2 for photosynthesis.

 

[fpgt72]

The electric car thing is interesting. They have been in the wild enough and in the "common mans" hands long enough for the truth to be out there. They can't hide it any longer. They just flat suck at being a car when asked to do the things a petrol car can do. There is no getting around the issues in the cold. No matter what spin is put on it people now know they will burst into flames for what looks like no reason at all. There are reasons but those are invisible to the user.

Reading people that still buy into this is just not even funny anymore, it is more sad then anything else. If they come to the conclusion that they have been lied to, then then need to question what else has been a lie. They can't handle that.

fpgt72, it's possible that making our air and water cleaner by removing fossil fuels from the
transportation and energy production mix could have long term negative effects on us.

example:
by making this world habitable for the future mankind there would be no reason to venture
out of our solar system looking for a new home, there is a big space rock heading our way and
when it get here all of mankind would be lost.

if we continue as we have in the past we'll have to start looking for a new home planet within 200year and
that could save mankind from extinction from a single space rock
View attachment 214296
View attachment 214297

Good diversion. Just where does your power come from for your green dream. Do you want to talk about the rape of the land to mine lithium, and the huge waste of fresh water in that process. How many go thirsty just so you can be trendy.

Here is something from that very right wing site....google on the use of water in lithium mining.

It is all just perfect as long as you don't see it.

 

[TommySr]

Just where does your power come from for your green dream.

fpgt72, in my personal green wet dream energy comes from a mix renewable resources and technologies. (some not even envisioned yet)
IMO Nuclear and Lithium are renewable, keeping with my space theme I see a day when mining asteroids
for resources is a thing

this whole green drive away from fossil fuels is a investment in our future, with limited benefits to people
alive today, I get some would find that unpalatable even immoral to invest in something with no present
return, it may have to fall on governments to make it happen

which brings me to MTM98290's line.

I am against the Idea of governments taking our money to put solar on a government building only to have it feed into a grid

MTM98290, what if the government did the math and found adding solar to the roofs of public buildings
would reduce the need to increase energy production facilities (power plants) and reduced the loads on
power transmission infrastructure (power lines), would that change your thinking?

PS: I may not agree with you, but I enjoy your posts.

 

[aenyc]

fpgt72, in my personal green wet dream energy comes from a mix renewable resources and technologies. (some not even envisioned yet)
IMO Nuclear and Lithium are renewable, keeping with my space theme I see a day when mining asteroids
for resources is a thing

this whole green drive away from fossil fuels is a investment in our future, with limited benefits to people
alive today, I get some would find that unpalatable even immoral to invest in something with no present
return, it may have to fall on governments to make it happen

which brings me to MTM98290's line.

MTM98290, what if the government did the math and found adding solar to the roofs of public buildings
would reduce the need to increase energy production facilities (power plants) and reduced the loads on
power transmission infrastructure (power lines), would that change your thinking?

PS: I may not agree with you, but I enjoy your posts.

Is the lithium-ion battery having a positive impact on the environment?

There are a number of questions surrounding whether the Noble Prize-winning lithium-ion battery is having a positive environmental impact.

www.nsenergybusiness.com

The Problem with Current Lithium Extraction Methods - EnergyX | Energy Exploration Technologies, Inc.

Lithium is a critical mineral needed for electric vehicles and renewable energy - but what is the environmental footprint of lithium...

energyx.com

https://archive.ph/OnewW

If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?

Environmental scientists and solar industry leaders are raising the red flag about used solar panels, which contain toxic heavy metals and are considered hazardous waste. With recycling expensive, most solar panels end up in landfills. Will they be exported to poor nations?

www.forbes.com

Not so green: Renewable energy’s land use problem

Wind and solar require clearing vast swaths of wildlife habitat, while fossil fuels produce reliable energy AND enable environmental stewardship.

lifepowered.org

Electricity Shortage Warnings Grow Across U.S.

Electric-grid operators are warning that power-generating capacity is struggling to keep up with demand, a gap that could lead to rolling blackouts during heat waves or other peak periods as soon as this year.

www.wsj.com

 

[svetz]

I may have made an error in my wording,

No worries ; -)
If I had a nickle for every time I did that it would pay for my morning coffee.

...based on the idea that ...CO2 is causing detrimental harm.

That idea is based on some pretty solid science whereas none of the other possibilities global warming make sense.
Not sure why some are so quick to dismiss it.

You are making an argument based on an appeal to authority.

Not seeing that.

I do not necessarily accept such arguments, as many have motives, i.e. funding, reputation to consider.

Well, two things...first keep in mind those promoting disbelief also have motives. Secondly, most of that funding is what the government throws to keep universities running, not like they have to cry wolf to get funding. They'd just ask for a new collider or something.

I can not test their hypothesis in any way

If you can't test it and are unsure, then the you also can't disprove it. So why so passionate about it? Why believe only one side of it?

If a scientist tells me that the water in my cooking pot will boil at 212F and begin changing state into water vapor, I do not have to believe him. I can just test the hypothesis, and observe that the change of state of the liquid to a gas does in fact happen at 212F.. This makes it verifiable. This makes it Science.

Yes, and other scientists have repeated experiments and verified it. Lots of scientists, and lots of citizen-scientists. But, if you need a hadron-collider to test then yeah, it's difficult for everyone in the world to personally confirm the theory.

But that's not needed for climate change. For example, didn't you do greenhouse experiments in high-school? If you didn't, there are still lots of experiments you can try at home.

Sabine recently did a video on this very topic confirming your position of disbelief.

All human language could be categorized as propaganda,

Indeed. That's why it's important to have concensus of science facts where experiments have been repeated and to see the margins of error and understand how they were calculated.

The alleged consensus is not true.

I know you believe that, yet you have no proof of it.

The conclusions of impending climate catastrophe are decided by a few scientists on panels like the UN IPCC.

The IPCC doesn't do "science", that is experiements. They just report on the data assemble data from other scientists all over the world.

That doesn't mean that all scientists in the field are coming to these conclusions.

Again, I'm not seeing facts to back this up other than "I haven't personally tested and therefore disbelief any graph you post as it could be cherry-picked data even it's the last 20 years or 10 million years and it therefore my conclusion is it is false".

Do not corruption, ego, bribery, racketeering, and incompetence fall in to the category of 'the simplest answer?

Does that not also apply to those bamboozling others into believing there's doubt about the actual science?

...how are you going to sell this system to somebody who is destitute?...

If you go to homedepot, is the price difference between a new heat pump and natural-gas new furnace really that different? They look like they're about twice the cost per BTU. But for some, despite the natural gas costing them more, that can be a big difference.

Possibly that's why the government did the tax incentive for them. Depends on where you live, but a lot of states have rebates too. So doesn't look like much difference capitol-wise.

Modern humans require energy to flourish. We can't make enough batteries without destroying vast swaths of land

Destroying vast swaths of land, like we did in Montana with with strip-mining lignite? Or pretty much anything we've ever done to fuel modern society? Remember the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? History is littered with abuses. Can we do better? Pretty sure we can.

But what does less harm over all? Lithium batteries are highly recyclable, so like aluminum, at some point we'll dig less out of the ground just to top-off as we've already got most of what we need. You're never going to be able to say that about fossil fuels unless you start extracting it from air and making green-fuel.

Just focusing on the sins of one and ignoring the worst sins of the other is not good land stewardship. Sounds like you should be for this.

and poisoning ... the environment in the process.

As I recall, Lithium is "mined" from clay deposits and is somewhat toxic. So, wouldn't removing it from surface deposits actually be making the area less toxic? ; -)

As a non believer in Co2 induced catastrophe I would like to see every little boy in the Congo able to afford a propane stove to cook with, not for him to be slaving away in a cobalt pit until he is poisoned to death.

LFP doesn't use cobalt and won't suffer thermal run-away. A lot of the new ESS tech doesn't use anything rare (e.g., sodium batteries).

Because energy storage is not at parody with hydrocarbon fuels across the board.

LCOEs show Solar & Wind with ESS are currently at parity with the lowest form of hydrocarbon fuels (natural gas) and ESS prices are still falling.

Unless you are suggesting that we take the profit made on viable products (Ford Bronco) and use them to fund non viable products (Ford Lighning)

Hell no. We should just add a carbon tax to remove the CO2 emitted by the ICE vehicle to correct the problem it causes. That gives consumers freedom of choice and let economics take it course.

The government will take our money and buy what they choose with it, and their donors will benefit greatly in the process.

Always has, always will. They don't need to make up a climate change boogie man to accomplish that.

Buy a couple of bottle jacks and lift your house up a foot and reattach. 12 inches will buy you 100 years. Never worry again!

Don't worry about it now. ; -)

 

[TommySr]

D71, IMO because of industrial military complex we have here in the US we are still on top of the world food chain
and have little to fear from Russia, china ,north Korea or even global warming . it's our own complacency that will get us.

 

[aenyc]

What "Green" Agenda is really all about

Customers “had no control over the temperatures in their own homes” When Utility Took Control of Smart Thermostats - Activist Post

When customers give control of their thermostats to utility companies, they may find themselves living in dangerously warm homes.

www.activistpost.com

https://archive.ph/0EpNY

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/15/global-decarbonization-negative-agricultural-impacts/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=global-decarbonization-negative-agricultural-impacts

WEF Pushing Carbon Allowance Surveillance System to Track Personal Emissions - Activist Post

Suggestions include giving “individual advisories on lower carbon and ethical choices for consumption of product and services.”

www.activistpost.com

EU set to take steps toward energy rationing with mandatory power-demand cut

Rising electricity prices are putting a strain on households and small businesses across Europe.

fortune.com

 

[TommySr]

aenyc, Lithium like Nuclear or even molten sodium are stepping stones towards our future
energy needs (without innovations you have complacency)


**** MEME