EDAboard.com | EDAboard.de | EDAboard.co.uk | WTWH Media

OT: regulating CO2 emissions.

Ask a question - edaboard.com

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: regulating CO2 emissions.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8


Guest

Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:15 am   



On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:20:49 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 04:13:52 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 12:09:46 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:

If people want to contribute a donation to such work they can. Almost everyone chooses not to. That's the reality of what people want.

"What people want" has been unsubtly influenced by climate change denial propaganda for a couple of decades now - every last bit of it bought and paid for by the fossil carbon extraction industry, out of the profits they make out of making climate change even more dramatic.

NT seems to have absorbed every last bit of that propaganda - he seems to be a gullible as John Larkin, if less inclined to post links to denialist web-sites (or to any kind of traceable evidence - he's as willing to rely on his own built-in misinformation as krw).

another evidence-free koolaid post there


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

http://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial-61273

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf

are just a few of many sources that document the way the fossil carbon extraction industry has bought NT's easily influenced opinion.

The Murdoch media serve up NT's koolaid - he'd have to make an effort to find out how enthusiastically he is being deluded, and intellectual effort isn't something NT can manage - there doesn't seem to be any kind of intellect in there to manage it, for a start.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:30 am   



On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:29:09 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
Quote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 09:19:13 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 04:03:50 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 12:07:28 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 20:59:55 UTC, rickman wrote:
On 1/10/2017 6:44 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 10/01/17 11:26, rickman wrote:
Photovoltaic solar is already producing electricity at a profit..

"Costs" are a very variable concept. IMNSHO renewables costs
ought to include the cost of keeping conventional plant available
for when the renewable has gone AWOL.

Depending on the role of the renewable energy. I believe I've already
indicated photovoltaic can be used for some particular purposes that
match its output closely. If the sun doesn't shine for a few days there
are many car uses that won't need to charge for those few days. They
get a cheaper rate than uses that require energy on a schedule or at
inconvenient times.

This is not a new concept, we just don't bother much with it when we
burn dinosaurs. My family house had this in the 60's.

It's not new, and it's yet another of the glossed over prices to pay for this kind of technology.

NT is happy to gloss over the price of not moving over to renewable energy sources, less happy about paying for any extra cost that might come up along the way.

If his waterfront property was eventually going to be submerged by the 10 metre sea level rise that is now looking pretty much inevitable, one could see it as poetic justice. Since he will probably be dead before this happens, justice will probably be too delayed to be particularly satisfying.

NT just doesn't buy your hole-filled beliefs.

Let's see... 10 meter rise at 2 mm per year. There must be a
mathematical solution to that.


John Larkin hasn't realised that sea level rises faster when ice-sheets start slipping off into the ocean in large chunks, as they did at the end of the last ice age. There were centuries where the sea level went up by 2.5 metres.

Admittedly, the total sea level rise was 120 metres, and the average rate was about one metre per century, but there were a lot more ice sheets around, and each one seems to have hit the sliding-off point at a different time.

We've only got two left - the Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheets - but both seem to be getting close to sliding off into the sea.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-rise-james-hansen-climate-change-scientist

http://www.livescience.com/57016-west-antarctic-ice-shelf-melting-inside.html

> Unless we have another ice age first; that would mess up the math.

Only John Larkin could be dumb enough to think that we could go into an new ice age with an atmospheric CO2 level of 400ppm.

The tipping point between ice ages and interglacials is a rather delicate balance, and 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is a rather indelicate thumb on the inter-glacial side of the scale.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Guest

Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:41 am   



On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:30:35 AM UTC+11, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
On Thursday, 12 January 2017 07:02:44 UTC, rickman wrote:
On 1/10/2017 7:55 PM, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 11:26:22 UTC, rickman wrote:
On 1/6/2017 11:13 PM, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 7 January 2017 00:53:01 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

Wind turbines and photovoltaic cells are perfectly viable. Thermal solar power stations with big tanks of molten nitrate salts have been built - essentially as prototypes - and are generating power. Your idea of viability seems to be that if something hasn't already dominated the industry, it hasn't shown itself to be viable.

That's a rather brainless comment.

Your reply seems to match your claim. Why are these technologies
unlikely to be viable? Photovoltaic solar is already producing
electricity at a profit. The costs will continue to fall and
installations will increase.

One nice thing about photovoltaic is that it matches the timing of the
work day. That means we can stop discouraging electricity use during
the day which will be business friendly. It also can provide power to
charge electric cars which don't need power on demand some 90+% of the
time. They can be charged at a time that best suits supply.

Peak electricity use here is in the evening in winter. Solar PV output then? Zero. Here it would not replace a single watt of conventional generation. So loads more generating plant & the endless stream of activity that goes to support it, AND more grid capacity.

And fwliw charging cars overnight makes far more sense than daytime charging. If you don't know why you're in much the same camp as Bill.

If you can't see the advantage of charging cars from photovoltaic power,
then you are the one who is having trouble. It is only "best" to charge
cars at night if those cars are being powered by excess capacity in the
fossil fuel powered plants. Yeah, it is great to reduce the requirement
to have other power plants, but that is a separate issue from reducing
the release of carbon into the atmosphere.

Currently businesses are billed at a rate defined by their peak use. If
we have more capacity during the day this won't be such a problem for
businesses and they may in fact add their own solar capacity.

So you think it best to charge cars when the grid is already at its max capacity, and thus will need a huge upgrade. And at the times when the most vehicle are busy driving. And using one of the most expensive sources of power. OK.

Reminds me why I said little first time round.


Photovoltaic power generation isn't the most expensive source around, even though it's only supplying 1% of the world energy demand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:LCOE_comparison_fraunhofer_november2013.svg

German solar cells were bought before China had tooled up to make them in ten times the volume, so the German costs are out of date, and roughly twice what they ought to be - and Germany isn't a great place to build solar farms.

The US has some notoriously cloud-free areas rather closer to the equator.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Jasen Betts
Guest

Tue Jan 17, 2017 8:30 am   



On 2017-01-16, Jeroen Belleman <jeroen_at_nospam.please> wrote:
Quote:
On 16/01/17 18:16, tabbypurr_at_gmail.com wrote:

According to that the latest 2 deaths were 1 person in 2011, 1 in
1986.


It might be useful to express that in deaths per passenger*kilometer,
and compare it to the rate for modern airplanes.


It might be more sensible to compare it with that figure for other
experimental aircraft.

--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software


Guest

Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:28 am   



On Monday, 16 January 2017 19:04:38 UTC, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Quote:
On 16/01/17 18:16, tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 01:36:07 UTC, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:59:37 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 11:58:11 UTC, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 5/01/2017 2:00 PM, bill.sloman_at_ieee.org wrote:

Mass air-tourism does seem to be a luxury that we will all
have to give up until somebody designs a plane bulbous enough
to accommodate liquid hydrogen fuel tanks - liquid hydrogen
offers good energy density per unit mass, but not per unit
volume.

There's no great point in running them on hydrogen, given that
the hydrogen has to be produced in a way that consumes energy.
The existing jet engine technology will pretty much run on
bio-diesel out of the box, with at most a few tweaks.

Sylvia.

Hydrogen filled lighter than air machines have potential.
Hindenberg has terrified people, but in reality it's not hard to
not make the same mistakes twice - the Hindenberg was a crude and
ill researched machine by today's standards. And the hard truth
is all other types of air transport have the same horrible
results as the Hindenberg at times.


NT

Recent airbags have had silly accidents too. The surface area to
power ratio is awful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents

According to that the latest 2 deaths were 1 person in 2011, 1 in
1986.


It might be useful to express that in deaths per passenger*kilometer,
and compare it to the rate for modern airplanes.

Jeroen Belleman


It would :)


NT


Guest

Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:34 am   



On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 00:56:01 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:12:24 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 01:26:19 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 11:51:21 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 January 2017 11:44:34 UTC, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 10/01/17 11:26, rickman wrote:

Photovoltaic solar is already producing electricity at a profit..

"Costs" are a very variable concept. IMNSHO renewables costs
ought to include the cost of keeping conventional plant available
for when the renewable has gone AWOL.

At the risk of stating the obvious, if they're genuinely profitable then any need for subsidy is over.

Photovoltaic cells are now manufactured in large enough volume to make the power they generate essentially competitive with fossil fuel burning power stations. It's not as dispatchable. If we upped the volume produced by a factor of 100 - which is what would be required to let them generate enough power to supply all our needs, the unit cost per cell would be reduced by a factor of four.

What we'd save on what we pay for fossil carbon would pay for quite a bit of dispatchable back-up generation.

This can't be absolutely guaranteed, but the last two tenfold increases in manufacturing scale have had precisely this effect.

It will take deliberate subsidy to get this to happen - it did in Germany around 2000, and again in China more recently - but the investment was recovered rapidly.

Both investments were eventually "genuinely profitable", but were a bit big for venture capitalists. Governments are a bit too susceptible to the influence of people who are making a lot of money digging up fossil carbon to be all that interested in making a large investment that will cut the fossil fuel cash flow.

Let them proliferate in the market, and the manufacturers fund their own research. What do you mean they're not?

The market is too small to fund the final step to manufacturing renewable energy generation on a scale that could slow down global warming.

waffle waffle it's not there really. It might be if we poured gargantuan sums of money into it. One could say that of many things.


Quote:
Germany and China both spent substantial sums of money to fund successive ten-fold expansions in solar-cell manufacturing capacity. Both dominated the market for a few year afterwards, recovering the investment, as their manufacturers could make money selling units at half the price of their competitors, and the market expanded because more people could make money out of cheaper solar cells.

The next step is going to require even more substantial capital investment, but the market clearly exists.


can be said of many things Bill. If only we all had a monstrous pile of money.

Quote:
https://cleantechnica.com/2015/06/12/solar-power-passes-1-global-threshold/

The step after that - boosting solar cell capacity to cover the remaining 90% of world energy production - is more interesting.


or more unrealistic

Quote:
It's a bit silly really - 10 metres of sea level rise, when it happens, is going to wipe out valuable real estate on a scale that beggars the investment that might stop it, but the market doesn't bother looking all that far ahead.

NT doesn't know anything about any of this, but he's convinced that what he does know is all that he - or anybody else - needs to know.

It's you who has swallowed the koolaid.

You may like to think that, but your own contact with reality is clearly limited,


ah, more of your childishness

> and your capacity for argument is down there with krw's -

ditto

> everything that you posted here could be paraphrased as "I don't agree but can't be bothered saying why",

Pretty much, there is so very much wrong in this thread it would take all day just to do one round of replies. Debating with someone that doesn't get it ain't that high a priority, so I'll just stick to the odd comment.

> if one ignores the rude bits, which are a predictable part of the right-wit nitwit output.

You're a bloke with an opinion riddled with holes. And you have unlimited confidence in it.


NT


Guest

Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:36 am   



On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 01:03:49 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:19:17 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:

NT just doesn't buy your hole-filled beliefs.

NT is happy to buy the whole denialist snake oil line, but suddenly gets sceptical when it comes to scientifically established reality.

The denialist snake oil does leave him free to imagine that the future is just going to be replay of the past - where right-wingers do like to concentrate their attentions.

NT isn't actually up to pointing out the holes in my arguments - he works on the principle that since he doesn't like the conclusions there has to be a hole in the connecting logic, but he's perfectly incapable of identifying even one.


When you actually do know what I think, let us know. Until then you play the fool.


NT


Guest

Wed Jan 18, 2017 7:38 am   



On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 01:15:55 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 4:20:49 AM UTC+11, tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 January 2017 04:13:52 UTC, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 at 12:09:46 PM UTC+11, tabby wrote:

If people want to contribute a donation to such work they can. Almost everyone chooses not to. That's the reality of what people want.

"What people want" has been unsubtly influenced by climate change denial propaganda for a couple of decades now - every last bit of it bought and paid for by the fossil carbon extraction industry, out of the profits they make out of making climate change even more dramatic.

NT seems to have absorbed every last bit of that propaganda - he seems to be a gullible as John Larkin, if less inclined to post links to denialist web-sites (or to any kind of traceable evidence - he's as willing to rely on his own built-in misinformation as krw).

another evidence-free koolaid post there

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

http://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-fossil-fuelled-climate-denial-61273

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2006/09/19/LettertoNick.pdf

are just a few of many sources that document the way the fossil carbon extraction industry has bought NT's easily influenced opinion.

The Murdoch media serve up NT's koolaid - he'd have to make an effort to find out how enthusiastically he is being deluded, and intellectual effort isn't something NT can manage - there doesn't seem to be any kind of intellect in there to manage it, for a start.


too childish Bill. Will you grow up ever?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

elektroda.net NewsGroups Forum Index - Electronics Design - OT: regulating CO2 emissions.

Ask a question - edaboard.com

Arabic version Bulgarian version Catalan version Czech version Danish version German version Greek version English version Spanish version Finnish version French version Hindi version Croatian version Indonesian version Italian version Hebrew version Japanese version Korean version Lithuanian version Latvian version Dutch version Norwegian version Polish version Portuguese version Romanian version Russian version Slovak version Slovenian version Serbian version Swedish version Tagalog version Ukrainian version Vietnamese version Chinese version Turkish version
EDAboard.com map