Alfa Romeo Forums banner

2881 - 2900 of 2954 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
"Do the electrical systems in your car go out when the engine isn't running too? (those where rhetorical questions BTW. The answer is NO. That's why there are batteries. To store energy. I know that and so do my 10 and 12 year old children.)"

This is one of the strangest comments I've ever read, equating car batteries to what would be needed to power an energy grid.

Read up on the what the residents of Georgetown, Texas are going through: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/green-new-deal-preview-texas-town-environmentalism-chuck-devore

But this is from Fox News (!) so can't be trusted, supposedly, so here's something from the folks at MIT's Technology Review: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/

The problem in a nutshell:

The California projects are among a growing number of efforts around the world, including Tesla’s 100-megawatt battery array in South Australia, to build ever larger lithium-ion storage systems as prices decline and renewable generation increases. They’re fueling growing optimism that these giant batteries will allow wind and solar power to displace a growing share of fossil-fuel plants.

But there’s a problem with this rosy scenario. These batteries are far too expensive and don’t last nearly long enough, limiting the role they can play on the grid, experts say. If we plan to rely on them for massive amounts of storage as more renewables come online—rather than turning to a broader mix of low-carbon sources like nuclear and natural gas with carbon capture technology—we could be headed down a dangerously unaffordable path.


Another: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610366/relying-on-renewables-alone-would-significantly-raise-the-cost-of-overhauling-the-energy/
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
380 Posts
"Do the electrical systems in your car go out when the engine isn't running too? (those where rhetorical questions BTW. The answer is NO. That's why there are batteries. To store energy. I know that and so do my 10 and 12 year old children.)"

This is one of the strangest comments I've ever read, equating car batteries to what would be needed to power an energy grid.

Read up on the what the residents of Georgetown, Texas are going through: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/green-new-deal-preview-texas-town-environmentalism-chuck-devore

But this is from Fox News (!) so can't be trusted, supposedly, so here's something from the folks at MIT's Technology Review: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/611683/the-25-trillion-reason-we-cant-rely-on-batteries-to-clean-up-the-grid/

The problem in a nutshell:

The California projects are among a growing number of efforts around the world, including Tesla’s 100-megawatt battery array in South Australia, to build ever larger lithium-ion storage systems as prices decline and renewable generation increases. They’re fueling growing optimism that these giant batteries will allow wind and solar power to displace a growing share of fossil-fuel plants.

But there’s a problem with this rosy scenario. These batteries are far too expensive and don’t last nearly long enough, limiting the role they can play on the grid, experts say. If we plan to rely on them for massive amounts of storage as more renewables come online—rather than turning to a broader mix of low-carbon sources like nuclear and natural gas with carbon capture technology—we could be headed down a dangerously unaffordable path.


Another: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610366/relying-on-renewables-alone-would-significantly-raise-the-cost-of-overhauling-the-energy/
Couple of points:

1. Energy storage technology has improved exponentially in my lifetime and the laws of physics in that arena have yet to be broken so expect further exponential improvement.
2. Articles appearing in that publication aren’t peer-reviewed scientific papers produced by MIT researchers. That article was written by a professional journalist on staff that doesn’t even necessarily have a science degree in the field, much less from MIT. In fact, if care to look under the rug, the editorial board’s credentials aren’t too impressive either. They largely appear to be journalists with business backgrounds and none of their bios include an MIT university degree. And his argument is the current energy storage technology is too expensive? Sounds like something a business person would say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,138 Posts
Oh, the perils of virtue signalling. Georgetown, Texas which is hip deep in oil and gas resources decided to go become totally renewable. The experiment didn't work, despite sharply rising utility bills for its citizens. Now the politicians are ducking and running, the city is several million bucks in debt and faced with the embarrassing task of unwinding from its folly. From Fox News:

In Georgetown’s case, for it to truly go 100 percent renewable energy using today’s state-of-the-art mass-produced batteries from Tesla’s Gigafactory, the city would need a $400 million battery farm weighing some 20,000 tons to avoid a blackout on a quiet winter night. And, after spending $15,600 for each household to build such a battery farm, its backup power would be drained in 12 hours, with a second windless winter night leaving residents shivering in the dark.

Funding, building and relying on such a lithium-ion battery farm would likely lead to a change in city leadership in the first election following an inevitable blackout. Which, perhaps, is why so many of today’s environmentalists aren’t big fans of democracy – the freely expressed opinions of people stand in the way of their agenda.
[Emphasis mine[
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
"1. Energy storage technology has improved exponentially in my lifetime and the laws of physics in that arena have yet to be broken so expect further exponential improvement."

Moore's Law doesn't apply to batteries: https://www.pnas.org/content/110/14/5273

Scientists and battery experts, who have been optimistic in the recent past about improving lithium-ion batteries and about developing new battery chemistries—lithium/air and lithium/sulfur are the leading candidates—are considerably less optimistic now. Improvement in energy storage density of lithium-ion batteries has been only incremental for the past decade. A large-scale research consortium (the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research) has been created with an ambitious goal of improving energy storage density by a factor of five and reducing cost by a factor of five in 5 years. This can only happen if there is a terrific, wonderful, and amazing breakthrough in battery technology. One can only hope.

"2. Articles appearing in that publication aren’t peer-reviewed scientific papers produced by MIT researchers. That article was written by a professional journalist on staff that doesn’t even necessarily have a science degree in the field, much less from MIT. In fact, if care to look under the rug, the editorial board’s credentials aren’t too impressive either. They largely appear to be journalists with business backgrounds and none of their bios include an MIT university degree. And his argument is the current energy storage technology is too expensive? Sounds like something a business person would say."

You asked for my credentials. I have a mfg and engineering background and now work in the space industry (having come from first the auto industry and then aerospace). As such, when evaluating an argument or claim, I consider the objective data, how sound the premises and methodology, etc. What I don't do is say, "I don't care how good the analysis, Ted is a (fill in the blank) so he's got an agenda! I'm not going to even begin to evaluate his root cause analysis!" That's what you seem to only do, pre-judge arguments and analyses based on suppositions around someone's motives, like some amateur cable pundit.

Re MIT's Technology Review, you might be right, don't know don't care. Where I work I have access to a very extensive technical library. I'll browse from time to time and over the last several years I've come across many articles discussing the challenges and hopes surrounding renewable energy. I understand that the manufacture batteries and windmills is very energy and materials intensive. I seem to remember that to make one lb of batteries you need to mine 50 lbs of earth, or maybe it was 50 lbs of raw minerals and metals. In either case, if the numbers in the Devore article are accurate, that would mean that ONE MILLION TONS of earth would have to be mined to produce enough batteries to make a small city of 75,000 fossil fuel independent. Now extrapolate across the U.S.; again, an ecological nightmare.

Last thing. While I don't buy the alarmism (how are the polar bears doing? Last I heard they're doing better than ever, yet fifteen years ago they were front and center in every global warming scare article) I am interested in clean, efficient, affordable energy. I'd love to see lesser developed nations continue to modernize, and they can only do that with affordable energy. I'm Catholic but I'd tell Pope Francis that if he's worried about AGW's threat to the world's poor, the threat is coming from the Greenies wanting to take India's cheap energy away (among others). The harm people like you do, IMHO, is that if you get your way, cheap energy will disappear (hurting poor people most, the world over), there will be much harm done to the Earth mining all the rare earth metals and other needed materials needed to replace the existing energy infrastructure, and in the end it won't help one bit. It's estimated that windmills will take thirty years to break even in terms of carbon footprint, and that's optimistic. To make solar work (and it would take A LOT of solar) you'd have to produce all those millions of tons of batteries; batteries which have a useful life of a few decades at best. Then there's what seems to be 180OUT's main concern, being loss of individual freedom and autonomy in the face of a centralized all-powerful government bureaucracy, which in light of the evidence of the 20th century is not an illegitimate or paranoid concern (every College student should read Solzhenitsyn; instead they get Zinn and whatever "intersectional" social justice tripe their $20k or more a year is buying). In short, you care about the environment and reducing industrial carbon production? Nuclear power is the ONLY realistic option, until we have fusion (if that ever happens; re natural gas, it's pretty clean but it won't last forever). Reduce the mountain of punitive regulation (of course there's legitimate regulation) so nuclear is again attractive economically and like France, we can have a (mostly) nuclear-powered largely carbon-free energy grid. Wouldn't it be nice?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
380 Posts
Let it go my Alfisti brother and lets just agree to disagree.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,243 Posts
The problem is that too many are determined to impose their vision of Utopia upon those who do not share the same vision.
The closest anyone can get to Utopia has been through a voluntary system, with a constitution that tries to limit the ambition of those who are driven to force their belief system upon those who remain indifferent.
Which is a polite way of saying "minding their own business".
And throughout history when the righteous make a drive for perfection, evil has happened.
In the early 1900s, International Socialists were determined to create the "perfect man". Although Marxist doctrine is not Malthusian, International Socialists murdered some 100 million of their own people. Well, only the ones who were not "perfect".
Then, National Socialists insisted upon having the "perfect" race and living space.
And now International Socialists (Globalists) are compelled to set the temperature of the nearest planet at the "perfect" setting.
At, and can you believe this, at plus or minus half a degree Kelvin, where the freezing point of water is at 273 degrees.
How perfect, how disturbing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
^^ I'm not a huge George Will fan in all things, but he did have one of the best rejoinders to an alarmist I've ever heard: "The climate is always changing; what is the right temperature, and why?"

That's right, the temperature is always changing, and we are very fortunate indeed that temperatures are going up and not down, as they're going to do one or the other. Periods of relative cold in human history are periods of scarcity and strife.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
763 Posts
It's all B.S. I live directly on San Francisco Bay with a private boat dock for 40 years and study tide charts daily ...Nothing has changed here. In fact it is one of the coldest California winters ever. NO sea level change here.
Unfortunately the left wing thinks suckers are born by the minute...
As sure as i believe in the tooth fairy i'm sure of global shmobal warming shmurming,Being in San Fra. i'd check that bay with a geiger counter from time to time.Fukashima is no laugh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,138 Posts
The problem with the climate solutions being discussed by activist politicians and their governments is that their plans are likely to be actively opposed or ignored by 50 percent or more of their populations. In order to reach the "zero carbon" state being widely discussed, governments will have to become much more authoritarian in order to establish compliance with their new political agendas. This is why fascists and progressives find the police-state model to be so attracive. With 50 percent of you citizenry resisting your climate change efforts, you will need the coercive power of the state---i.e., a police state---to get stuff done.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
101 Posts
Ken, thank you for posting the link to the article. The video was very good too.

But wait, Gore stated most emphatically many years ago that the "science is settled." It seems that he was referring to junk science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
I believe it's getting a little warmer (for now).... and for the record, I like it a little warmer! I have bad memories from my college days when they tried to scare us and get us all out to protest due to the imminent 'ice age' we were about to enter. I guess I'm a little guarded after that (though I never did buy in back then either). It's all politics, seriously.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,317 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,598 Posts
If only facts and science made a difference to some who seek power.....or the sheeple who gobble their scare tactics up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,138 Posts
We need more bike lanes. Our formally 4 lane streets are now reduced to 2 lane streets because of bike lanes that almost nobody uses.
 
2881 - 2900 of 2954 Posts
Top