Post by: Petrochemicals on 23/11/2021 15:17:59
Post by: alancalverd on 23/11/2021 17:25:51
Post by: sceptic-eng on 04/12/2021 20:57:09
Post by: wolfekeeper on 06/12/2021 20:45:13
Partially, but Britain's electric cars are mostly charged at night, on economy 7 or similar, when the grid is greener and cheaper and wind is a bigger percentage of the production than during the day. Over time the grid will green up more and the electricity will be greener still.
Also, some people charge their electric cars predominately or even exclusively on their own, or sometimes other people's solar panels.
"With 1 million electric powered cars on UK roads, have they placed exessive pressure on the electrical supply? "
No, the UK grid can easily handle a lot more electric cars than we have at the moment. So far as the grid is concerned, it's the average electric car that matters, and the average electric car only needs a few kilowatt hours per day anyway and the grid has far less demand at night than during the day- it can take it easily.
In future there certainly will be more solar on the grid, and charging may happen more during the day.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/12/2021 12:24:07
Post by: wolfekeeper on 13/12/2021 01:24:52
Post by: alancalverd on 13/12/2021 12:57:23
Having demonstrated the feasibility of fully synthetic and repurposed-waste fuels in the most demanding application short of space travel, it should be a short trip to turning sewage fatbergs into bunker oil for ships and trains.
Post by: wolfekeeper on 13/12/2021 23:48:33
c.f. with batteries which are about 98% efficient.
Horrible efficiency, really ghastly efficiency.
And because efficiency and cost are interrelated, super expensive as well.
Post by: Iannguyen on 21/01/2022 12:00:30
An electric car is a great liability but we have to consider its fuel too. Often people either do not discuss it often or clearly take it out of the books. But an electric car needs fuel too, though in the form of electricity. For that, there is no proper mechanism to assist the users of electric vehicles. For instance, if you really want to cut out the ties to petroleum products, then you need to think ahead. Placing charging booths is not the solution. Rather you are giving them the same medicine as the petrol pumps are giving to the regular users.
Plus, they are also making wider use of electricity and claiming the authorities to produce so their usage can be compensated. For this, electric car owners must make sure that their houses contain enough solar panels to charge their cars. And electric car manufacturers need to ensure that they infuse some small solar panels in the vehicles so people can charge on the move. This will limit if not reduce the electricity consumption from charging booths.
This sort of action and behavior is the requirement from both the manufacturers and users of electric cars.
Post by: Johnmo89 on 22/02/2022 09:44:25
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2022 11:08:19
Electric motors are not so "green" and valuable: 1. There simply isn't enough lithium and cobalt in the world to make batteries, 2. Electric vehicles don't have a viable sales model. In other words, they are simply unprofitable to produce and sell. 3. Countries for which trade in gas and oil is the main source of income will simply not give a chance for development. 4. Due to the transition to electric vehicles, electricity consumption will increase dramatically, which will lead to a crisis. 5. In the production of batteries, the amount of harmful emissions into the atmosphere is several times higher than their amount from cars with internal combustion engines.Oh look!
Unsupported assertions.
Post by: Johnmo89 on 23/02/2022 03:48:23
Do you have any solid evidence of my wrongness or just empty words? Yes, I expressed my personal opinion! In your posts, I also did not notice irrefutable evidence! Oh look! Statements from category: "You're wrong, because I don't like it..." . The commenting function was created so that people can express their opinion and discuss this topic! If your message does not contain any fact or reasoning on the topic, think about whether it is worth sending ...Electric motors are not so "green" and valuable: 1. There simply isn't enough lithium and cobalt in the world to make batteries, 2. Electric vehicles don't have a viable sales model. In other words, they are simply unprofitable to produce and sell. 3. Countries for which trade in gas and oil is the main source of income will simply not give a chance for development. 4. Due to the transition to electric vehicles, electricity consumption will increase dramatically, which will lead to a crisis. 5. In the production of batteries, the amount of harmful emissions into the atmosphere is several times higher than their amount from cars with internal combustion engines.Oh look!
Unsupported assertions.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2022 08:52:43
So... still no evidence...Do you have any solid evidence of my wrongness or just empty words? Yes, I expressed my personal opinion! In your posts, I also did not notice irrefutable evidence! Oh look! Statements from category: "You're wrong, because I don't like it..." . The commenting function was created so that people can express their opinion and discuss this topic! If your message does not contain any fact or reasoning on the topic, think about whether it is worth sending ...Electric motors are not so "green" and valuable: 1. There simply isn't enough lithium and cobalt in the world to make batteries, 2. Electric vehicles don't have a viable sales model. In other words, they are simply unprofitable to produce and sell. 3. Countries for which trade in gas and oil is the main source of income will simply not give a chance for development. 4. Due to the transition to electric vehicles, electricity consumption will increase dramatically, which will lead to a crisis. 5. In the production of batteries, the amount of harmful emissions into the atmosphere is several times higher than their amount from cars with internal combustion engines.Oh look!
Unsupported assertions.
Post by: Johnmo89 on 23/02/2022 09:19:49
I don't see yoursSo... still no evidence...Do you have any solid evidence of my wrongness or just empty words? Yes, I expressed my personal opinion! In your posts, I also did not notice irrefutable evidence! Oh look! Statements from category: "You're wrong, because I don't like it..." . The commenting function was created so that people can express their opinion and discuss this topic! If your message does not contain any fact or reasoning on the topic, think about whether it is worth sending ...Electric motors are not so "green" and valuable: 1. There simply isn't enough lithium and cobalt in the world to make batteries, 2. Electric vehicles don't have a viable sales model. In other words, they are simply unprofitable to produce and sell. 3. Countries for which trade in gas and oil is the main source of income will simply not give a chance for development. 4. Due to the transition to electric vehicles, electricity consumption will increase dramatically, which will lead to a crisis. 5. In the production of batteries, the amount of harmful emissions into the atmosphere is several times higher than their amount from cars with internal combustion engines.Oh look!
Unsupported assertions.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2022 10:32:05
My evidence was to quote those statements (so that the reader may see that there is no evidence there).
It's not that you can't see my evidence, it's that you are looking for the wrong thing.
You were looking for evidence regarding cars and gas- but I didn't offer any opinion about those, so I don't need to offer evidence about them.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/02/2022 12:33:04
Do EVs cost more to fuel? EV vs GAS
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/02/2022 12:37:09
1. There simply isn't enough lithium and cobalt in the world to make batteriesThere's still more unmined lithium and cobalt than what's already used as battery. They simply incentivize the search for alternative chemical combinations, such as sodium and iron.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 23/02/2022 12:53:27
5. In the production of batteries, the amount of harmful emissions into the atmosphere is several times higher than their amount from cars with internal combustion engines.
If you prefer more quantitative data, here it is.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 23/02/2022 14:35:16
If you want to initiate this debate, then be ready for some fireworks.I have to say that this is the wrong attitude. A scientific debate is not a argument and "fireworks" are more associated with agrivation and and conflicted positions.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 23/02/2022 14:41:16
I have no resources to do the research myself, but someone else does.Petrol is about 30p a litre maximum even with exessive profits from sources of Brent crude from land based wells, if most cars achieve 10 miles per litre they are about 3p per mile.
Do EVs cost more to fuel? EV vs GAS
Post by: alancalverd on 23/02/2022 17:16:01
It's quite easy to convert a petrol engine to run on LPG, so it would make more economic and ecological sense to do so rather than burn the gas in new power stations to make electricity to power 20,000,000 new cars through a new charging system.
*i.e. whilst Vladimir Putin is allowed to invade Europe and his friends own the Premier Division.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 23/02/2022 20:19:33
Johnmo didn't quote sources, but it's worth noting that Polestar state the amount of carbon dioxide emitted in the production of one of their electric cars: it's about the same as a diesel car would emit in 100,000 miles.as stated earlier, electric cars run on fossil fuel produced electric (which is all at present, as we cannot even keep the lights on at night on wind) are currently increacing co2 and fossil fuel usage. Presumably the government envisage a trebling of wind capacity between now and 2030 when petrol cars are banned for sale.
Oil is not such a bad CO2 emission comparison to gas. It does emit more nasties, diesel being the worst. It however is easily transported from states who are not such agrivationists.
It's quite easy to convert a petrol engine to run on LPG, so it would make more economic and ecological sense to do so rather than burn the gas in new power stations to make electricity to power 20,000,000 new cars through a new charging system.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/02/2022 05:42:56
Johnmo didn't quote sources, but it's worth noting that Polestar state the amount of carbon dioxide emitted in the production of one of their electric cars: it's about the same as a diesel car would emit in 100,000 miles.May be they should stop making cars. Or consider improving their process.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/02/2022 10:02:58
It is a fact that it requires as much energy to make the average petrol car as it will consume in its service life, and there's very little difference between ICE and electric vehicles apart from the drive train and fuel tank. What you save on the gearbox, you spend on the battery, which has a probable life of 80 - 100,000 miles - about half that of a petrol engine and a third that of a diesel.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2022 12:53:06
Oil is not such a bad CO2 emission comparison to gas.Not really, no.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 24/02/2022 22:44:20
This backs up the theory that all money is energy, either expended or potential.
Petrol is about 30p a litre maximum even with exessive profits from sources of Brent crude from land based wells, if most cars achieve 10 miles per litre they are about 3p per mile.
Electric powered natural gas fueled cars achieving about 3 miles a kwh for the Nissan leaf, it comes from gas generation at about 0.45kg Co2 per kwh with a distribution/charge/discharge efficiency of 0.8x0.85x0.9 is about 0.73kg co2 per kwh or about 0.24kg co2 per mile. It cost about 4p per mile prior to the exorbitant gas prices.
Me myself in a VW polo get around 50mpg, 4.5 litres, plus it takes around half a litre in refinery energy, so i achieve 10 miles a litre, which has 2.31 co2 per litre, or 0.231 kg per mile. Broadly both comparable cars come out about the same.
As for the cost, electricity is going through the roof and has various charges on it for distribution and green levvies and petrol is taxed beyond credibility.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/02/2022 00:03:50
Things might have been different if we had built electric windmills 100 years ago and restricted the growth of transport to whatever could be supported by an electrical grid, but the future starts from where we are, not where you would have liked to be.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2022 08:32:17
Making and moving stuff in the real world consumes energy, and the only viable sources of energy in the quantities needed for modern transport, are fossil fuels.No. Fossil fuels can't supply that much energy.
Even if you refuse to accept the reality of harm from the CO2, the fuels run out.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/02/2022 09:52:11
No. Fossil fuels can't supply that much energy.Does your car run on fairy dust? Do you heat your home with good intentions? As I write, fossil fuels are providing about 90% of the transport power in the UK, as they have done for the last 100 years or so, and 50% of all electricity. Not to mention whatever is left of fishing, farming and manufacturing.
They will indeed run out eventually (or as soon as Putin turns off the tap and Biden turns his back on Europe) but there is no alternative.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 25/02/2022 13:58:14
The are also about to do a similar thing with heat pumps, which achieve about twice the energy output when you need it, (ie when temperatures are low) ,than the electrical input which will be produced from gas again at present. Take out the losses for distribution and reserve capacity and it is already beneath the 90 percent efficiency of a modern condenser boiler.
Things might have been different if we had built electric windmills 100 years ago and restricted the growth of transport to whatever could be supported by an electrical grid, but the future starts from where we are, not where you would have liked to be.
It is diesel cars all over again. Cogeneration on electric is obviously a better path.The powers that be really need a good slap.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/02/2022 15:43:46
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2022 18:27:11
When the fossil fuel runs out will it still heat your home + run your car?No. Fossil fuels can't supply that much energy.Does your car run on fairy dust? Do you heat your home with good intentions? As I write, fossil fuels are providing about 90% of the transport power in the UK, as they have done for the last 100 years or so, and 50% of all electricity. Not to mention whatever is left of fishing, farming and manufacturing.
They will indeed run out eventually (or as soon as Putin turns off the tap and Biden turns his back on Europe) but there is no alternative.
No?
Why not- you said it could.
You said it was the only thing that could.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2022 18:28:44
The powers that be really need a good slap.Just for the record, this is one of the very few cases where PC has said something which is correct.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 25/02/2022 20:56:36
I'm guessing it runs on condusive idealism, trolling and puppy dogs that fart rainbows?No. Fossil fuels can't supply that much energy.Does your car run on fairy dust?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2022 23:17:50
That's how good your guesses generally are.I'm guessing it runs on condusive idealism, trolling and puppy dogs that fart rainbows?No. Fossil fuels can't supply that much energy.Does your car run on fairy dust?
Post by: alancalverd on 26/02/2022 16:58:22
When the fossil fuel runs out will it still heat your home + run your car?Precisely, and when it runs out, we will have to rethink our way of life. There were no fossil-fuelled road vehicles before 1820 (steam engines could be fuelled with wood in the absence of coal) nor any gas or electricity grids. If we rely on electric windmills and don't reduce the human population, our descendants will have to significantly reduce their power consumption and possibly abandon personal transport altogether.
No?
Why not- you said it could.
You said it was the only thing that could.
Several friends are horse enthusiasts, but the problem with horses is that they generate as much carbon dioxide as a small car even when they are standing still, and defecate in the street when they are moving - 19th century London traffic jams sometimes lasted for days, and there was a major industry involved in clearing the streets at night, even though the human population was a sixth of its present number in 1800. Not sure how I could get 150 horses into a small plane, or how I could feed them.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2022 19:56:46
Precisely, and when it runs out, we will have to rethink our way of life.Or we could be less stupid and start thinking about it now.
Not sure how I could get 150 horses into a small plane, or how I could feed them.You seem to be the only one who is considering it.
Post by: alancalverd on 26/02/2022 23:41:20
{quote]Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 16:58:22Or we could be less stupid and start thinking about it now.
Precisely, and when it runs out, we will have to rethink our way of life.
[/quote]
Agreed.
More windmills or fewer people? How many of each? Or what will life be like with, say, 12 billion humans and no fossil fuel?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2022 09:57:15
More windmills or fewer people?Both, though you seem to think we don't need the windmills because we have coal and your only suggestions about the latter only affect a couple of small islands with a lower birth rate than death rate.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/02/2022 12:34:43
As I see it, windmills cannot supply the prospective world population with the continuous 5 - 7 kW per capita always on tap, required to sustain a reasonably aspirational lifestyle. That's a longterm question, and your calculation would be appreciated.
The medium-term problem in the UK and Europe generally is dependence on fossil fuel imports from unreliable or undesirable sources such as the Friends of Putin and various Middle-Eastern theocracies and dictatorships. If democracy and freedom to dissent are a part of our desirable lifestyle, said lifestyle should not hang by such a thread controlled by criminals and dictators.
The sadness is that Margaret Thatcher destroyed the UK's major strategic fuel reserve (coal) and successive governments have encouraged excessive exploitation of another (oil), reliance on "cheap" gas, and putting profit before strategy by privatising everything.
Your UK population statistics are shallower than superficial. You have previously quoted the UK per capita birth rate but taken no account of longevity. When my mother-in-law died recently, she was survived by 10 grandchildren and 3 great-grandchildren, and this is by no means unusual. What has happened in the West is that most people survive more than one generation, so as long as the birthrate exceeds 1 child per female, the population increases.
Why are my concerns and solutions based on a couple of small islands? Because this is (a) where I live and (b) where the best innovations (steam engine, railways, industrial revolution, antibiotics, vaccination, civil nuclear power, programmable computers, the English language, soccer, rugby, cricket, tennis, golf....) come from.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 27/02/2022 16:26:07
As I see it, windmills cannot supply the prospective world population with the continuous 5 - 7 kW per capita always on tap,I think that is a bit much Alan. True enough we only use 20 percent of our of our energy in electricity, about 35gw in the uk and we do not provide most of the energy in our cunsumed products because we no longer have a manufacturing base, but I think that's a little much.
I am aware that energy and power GW are not identical.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2022 16:31:56
As I see it, windmills cannot supply the prospective world populationYou already said that you don't know how many that is.
So you can't calculate the power requirements and you can't count the windmills needed.
Why are my concerns and solutions based on a couple of small islands? Because this is (a) where I live and (b) where the best innovations (steam engine, railways, industrial revolution, antibiotics, vaccination, civil nuclear power, programmable computers, the English language, soccer, rugby, cricket, tennis, golf....) come from.Among the innovations are state pensions and free birth control; That's largely why anything that happens in the UK is largely irrelevant.
The medium-term problemWhat timescale is that?
Is it long enough for the grandmothers and mothers to die and invalidate your argument on population numbers?
in the long run, the women need to have an average of (about)1 daughter to maintain a constant population and that pretty much means two children. In the UK the number is below 2 and so the population will eventually shrink.
You seem to be happy to be short termist about something, but not others.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/02/2022 18:37:59
And that is the scene for an advanced industrial society with plenty of wind.The rest of the world is mostly starting from a much lower base.
2. Anything that happens in the UK is relevant to the UK. Whether the rest of the world wants to follow is pretty much up to them, as we don't have a empire to insist.
3. So why has the UK population increased by an average of 0.4% per year since 1950, and is projected to continue to rise until 2100? The reason is simple: whilst the birth rate has remained fairly constant at about 1.2% per annum, the death rate has decreased from 1.2 to 0.9% pa. The remaining 0.1% can be ascribed to net immigration.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2022 18:44:16
The reason is simple: whilst the birth rate has remained fairly constant at about 1.2% per annum, the death rate has decreased from 1.2 to 0.9% pa.Good to see that you have recognised the importance of the birth rate exceeding the death rate.
Post by: alancalverd on 27/02/2022 19:51:41
Post by: Petrochemicals on 27/02/2022 22:54:16
1. Total UK power consumption before COVID was about 5 kW per capita - 325 GW total. We currently have about 15 GW of installed wind power capacity, delivering on average 20% of its rated output. so to generate 325GW average we will need 325 x 5 /15 = 108 times as many windmills as we currently have,I think that is a bit high, I do accept that wind power is only 20 percent of capacity, but burning fossil fuel is not 100 percent direct energy delivery, this will aslo need to be factored. UK energy demand is also factored to 80 percent non electrical fossil fuel use, which varies between about 80-90 percent efficient for heat and hot water use, to somewhere around 33-45 for vehicles.
I get a figure of 4kw demand for the uk, averaging around 0.7 conversion gives a convenient 3kw demand per person of utilised energy.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2022 17:49:08
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2022 18:06:53
5.36kW per capita for the UK
I don't see where the windmills might be put.
Well, I could put mine on my roof.
https://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/wind-turbines/9064242?cm_mmc=UK-PLA-DS3A-_-google-_-CSS_UK_EN_Fallback-_-All+Products-_-9064242&matchtype=&pla-293946777986&gclid=CjwKCAiAgvKQBhBbEiwAaPQw3Ok2_x3q7S8COXLc8vzIQ8fZbuihjXJeaXO7VsIZDVUJprxJpgKANRoCdTUQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
I realise I'm lucky to own my own house and that I'd need several (and solar PV and heating panels) to take account of when the wind's not blowing, but it does put the problem into perspective
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2022 19:25:52
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2022 21:03:14
That one will deliver about 1kWh per day, according to its data sheet. Enough to drive your electric car 3 miles in summer, or heat a bath every 3 days.So... you didn't understand this bit.
(and solar PV and heating panels)
And I still don't have a car.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 28/02/2022 21:23:08
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use works out at 5.36kW per capita for the UK pre-covid. Even if we only needed 50 times as many windmills, and a storage and distribution system and total conversion of all vehicles, machines and heating systems happened at zero cost by magic, I don't see where the windmills might be put.
Yep, far too many windmills, and probably far too much connecting infrastructure, that is a lot of cables switchgear etc.
I think the discrepancy is raw energy, power delivery, efficiency etc.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2022 22:39:22
So... you didn't understand this bit.Not sure about heating panels but an average UK house roof covered with PV panels generates 350W averaged over a year, less than a tenth of your needs. Probably better to cover the roof with water heating panels but they seem to be out of fashion these days. And folk who live in a block of flats really can't benefit from local solar or wind - same roof area, maybe 10 times as many people!
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 18:06:53
(and solar PV and heating panels)
Not having a car probably means that you rely on buses and trains. Very fuel-efficient when full, absurdly wasteful when empty, and annoying if the Powers that Be don't run empty-ish trains outside peak hours. Remember my objective (and that of many others) is a Western standard of convenience and comfort, which doesn't involve walking more than a couple of miles to go shopping.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2022 22:46:57
And folk who live in a block of flats really can't benefit from local solar or wind - same roof area, maybe 10 times as many people!So... you felt the need to repeat this bit.
I realise I'm lucky to own my own house
Post by: Petrochemicals on 01/03/2022 14:49:11
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use works out at 5.36kW per capita for the UK pre-covid. Even if we only needed 50 times as many windmills, and a storage and distribution system and total conversion of all vehicles, machines and heating systems happened at zero cost by magic, I don't see where the windmills might be put.Does this include aircraft fuel and goods manufacture. Aircraft fueling could be considered as international.
If 30 million buildings have them that is 100 terrawatt hours Alan, that is suprisingly good.So... you didn't understand this bit.Not sure about heating panels but an average UK house roof covered with PV panels generates 350W averaged over a year, less than a tenth of your needs.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 18:06:53
(and solar PV and heating panels)
Post by: alancalverd on 01/03/2022 16:39:24
Does this include aircraft fuel and goods manufacture. Aircraft fueling could be considered as international.It is reasonable to assume that as many aircraft leave the UK as arrive here, and good management means you arrive almost empty. Thus all fuel delivered to aircraft in the UK may be assumed to be consumed by UK citizens.
Quote
If 30 million buildings have them that is 100 terrawatt hours Alan, that is suprisingly good.If the 30 million buildings contain 65,000,000 citizens (which they do), with one windmill on each building, that equates to 162 watts per capita, well short of the 4 - 5000 we need. And you still need storage capacity.
Post by: wolfekeeper on 02/03/2022 03:24:09
Of course solar will produce more electricity in the summer, and less in the winter, but almost everyone in the UK is on the grid, and sharing electricity is the entire whole point of the grid. And off-shore wind produces more electricity in the winter and less in the summer, so it averages out.
I do accept that wind power is only 20 percent of capacity
Wrong, a lot more than that. The UK gets virtually 25% of its electricity from wind (or did in 2020, and it's increasing), and the capacity factor of offshore wind power in the UK is about 40% now, so by nameplate capacity it's going to be a lot more than 20%.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 02/03/2022 17:13:38
. A solar panel in the UK produces about 1000 kWh per installed kW, so to make 10 kWh per day needs 3 kW peak. That's 15 square metres.I do not follow
Wrong seems a little bit judgemental. 40 percent of the uks 330twh electrical yearly demand is 132terrawatt hours.I do accept that wind power is only 20 percent of capacity
Wrong, a lot more than that. The UK gets virtually 25% of its electricity from wind (or did in 2020, and it's increasing), and the capacity factor of offshore wind power in the UK is about 40% now, so by nameplate capacity it's going to be a lot more than 20%.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 02/03/2022 17:27:36
But is that international or domestic listing. For some reason I think that figures, especially for government figures relating to government promises or favoured industries may be massaged, but maybe I need to take a leaf from your book and have more faith.Does this include aircraft fuel and goods manufacture. Aircraft fueling could be considered as international.It is reasonable to assume that as many aircraft leave the UK as arrive here, and good management means you arrive almost empty. Thus all fuel delivered to aircraft in the UK may be assumed to be consumed by UK citizens.
Yep, but if we increace the solar on buildings throughout, ie factory roofs and offices you could have it doubled, storage would help we could up the pumped storage at our reservoirs, but the solar potential is easily judged by sticking your head out of the window. Demand for electric is about 500 Watts a person.QuoteIf 30 million buildings have them that is 100 terrawatt hours Alan, that is suprisingly good.If the 30 million buildings contain 65,000,000 citizens (which they do), with one windmill on each building, that equates to 162 watts per capita, well short of the 4 - 5000 we need. And you still need storage capacity.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2022 22:54:04
But is that international or domestic listing.The total energy consumption figure I quoted for the UK includes all known fuels for all purposes. Its actually surprisingly low per capita compared with some of our neighbors.
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2022 23:06:53
A solar panel in the UK produces about 1000 kWh per installed kW, so to make 10 kWh per day needs 3 kW peak. That's 15 square metres.
So far, entirely credible. Problem is that the average UK citizen currently consumes almost 100 kWh per day and doesn't have 15 square meters of optimally aligned roof. To meet UK energy demand from solar panels, you would need to cover about 5% of the country. That is, every existing road and building - except that half of the buildings are facing the wrong way.. Almost feasible, if you started 50 years ago. And you still need to install storage and distribution, and convert all your existing machinery to run on electricity, so the time to do it was about 150 years ago.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 02/03/2022 23:11:22
But is that international or domestic listing.The total energy consumption figure I quoted for the UK includes all known fuels for all purposes. Its actually surprisingly low per capita compared with some of our neighbors.
Yes, we do not manufacture or transport, as I have said before, but we consume, unlike China where massive amounts of energy are employed in manufacture and construction, which is something that we have already completed.
Is the aircraft included in the figure Alan do you know?
Post by: alancalverd on 02/03/2022 23:57:24
Post by: wolfekeeper on 03/03/2022 04:09:27
No, that's not feasible but that's not it. The UK as a whole is going to be install solar on most buildings, and install a load of wind turbines both on-shore and off-shore, and install solar in fields and there will a variety of types of storage and there will be additionally more and more links to other countries to share power in either direction. TOGETHER they will meet the demand.A solar panel in the UK produces about 1000 kWh per installed kW, so to make 10 kWh per day needs 3 kW peak. That's 15 square metres.
So far, entirely credible. Problem is that the average UK citizen currently consumes almost 100 kWh per day and doesn't have 15 square meters of optimally aligned roof. To meet UK energy demand from solar panels, you would need to cover about 5% of the country. That is, every existing road and building - except that half of the buildings are facing the wrong way.. Almost feasible, if you started 50 years ago.
And the solar thing- I recently priced up solar for my retired parent's house. I haven't been formally quoted yet, but the economics look exceptionally favorable, any electricity exported to the grid is paid at cost (5.7p/kWh), and any electricity used is FAR cheaper than importing from the grid. No storage is needed. I mean, it's a few grand, solar is SO expensive right? No, given the likely tariffs from April, the payback period is just over five years (give or take, might be ten for some people), which is ridiculously short for such an investment.
And the economics are only going to get better, the panels are still dropping in price. Solar's been going through the doldrums in the UK, but from here on out, from what I've seen, solar is likely to EXPLODE in the UK now.
It's not 'oh dear I will have to put solar panels up' it's more 'WHEN can I put solar panels up???', 'Maybe I should put some in the garden as well!!!'.
It's quite a different mindset. The panels themselves are super cheap now, about £0.3/watt at single panel prices and sticking up lots of panels that only see sunlight at non optimal angles is becoming economic. East-West facing roofs are not a problem at all, indeed they are better in some ways because people use domestically electricity in the mornings and evenings.
These solar panels won't pay all your bills, or anything like but they can make a significant dent in them, and they will be contributing towards making the UK energy neutral quite a bit.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 03/03/2022 12:36:24
And the solar thing- I recently priced up solar for my retired parent's house. I haven't been formally quoted yet, but the economics look exceptionally favorable, any electricity exported to the grid is paid at cost (5.7p/kWh), and any electricity used is FAR cheaper than importing from the grid. No storage is needed.I should get storage, 5.7p is a bargain considering they can sell it back to you at 20p now, probably 30p in the autumn. 2000kwh per year will soon be 400 quid.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 03/03/2022 13:31:33
The figure I gave is what it is: the total energy input to the UK in a year from all sources, divided by the number of citizens. The breakdown by consumption sector isn't important but for what it's worth, aviation accounts for about 1 - 2% of the total, worldwide.Aviation makes up about 10% of our usage, it also makes a significant ammount of Mexico Kenya Egypt and Brazil who for example do fly fresh fruit and vegetables.
Post by: alancalverd on 03/03/2022 17:14:13
No storage is needed.So your parents will only be using lights in the daytime?
Post by: wolfekeeper on 03/03/2022 20:36:05
TBF 5.7p is about the actual generation cost of other technologies, including gas.And the solar thing- I recently priced up solar for my retired parent's house. I haven't been formally quoted yet, but the economics look exceptionally favorable, any electricity exported to the grid is paid at cost (5.7p/kWh), and any electricity used is FAR cheaper than importing from the grid. No storage is needed.I should get storage, 5.7p is a bargain considering they can sell it back to you at 20p now, probably 30p in the autumn. 2000kwh per year will soon be 400 quid.
As far as I can tell, adding storage for solar might be more cost effective soon; but not right now, it adds ~20p to the cost of the electricity, but East-West solar panels continue to produce to the early evening in summer, so it's not as big as win as you would think. You always want to use electricity immediately wherever possible. Note that in winter there's little solar, and you want to use maximally use Economy 7 or 10 instead, but adding ~20p to that to arbitrage the price is uneconomic.
For the grid though, grid storage is cheaper due to economies of scale, so the arithmetic is a little different.
I always wonder, do you know how electrical grids work? They're on the grid. What do you think?No storage is needed.So your parents will only be using lights in the daytime?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 04/03/2022 00:11:25
Note that in winter there's little solar, and you want to use maximally use Economy 7 or 10 instead, but adding ~20p to that to arbitrage the price is uneconomic.Does that mean you would be storing it during the summer and not having any during the winter, being forced to buy the bulk of it then, meaning batteries would have to be very large?
Post by: alancalverd on 04/03/2022 00:18:24
My off-grid friends have a garage full of storage batteries to power their forestry equipment, and use wood stoves for all heating and cooking. All you need is a few (about 30) acres of forest to be completely sustainable.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 04/03/2022 23:20:20
Quote
Tesla CEO Elon Musk — whose company makes electric cars and has a new solar roof panel division — told more than 30 state governors at the National Governors Association meeting in July exactly how much land is needed to power the entire country on solar energy.
“If you wanted to power the entire United States with solar panels, it would take a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah; you only need about 100 miles by 100 miles of solar panels to power the entire United States,” Musk said at at the event in Rhode Island. “The batteries you need to store the energy, so you have 24/7 power, is 1 mile by 1 mile. One square-mile.”
Post by: alancalverd on 04/03/2022 23:35:42
Post by: Petrochemicals on 04/03/2022 23:47:11
Quote
Elon Musk and singer Grimes have confirmed they have named their baby X Æ A-12.
The Space X CEO announced the birth of their son on Monday. "Mom & baby all good," he said on Twitter.
He posted that the child would be called X Æ A-12 Musk and his girlfriend later offered an explanation to her followers on social media.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 05/03/2022 02:02:04
100 x 100 miles is more than 10% of the area of the UK. You get lot more sunshine in Nevada. So Musk's figure is fairly consistent with mine - not surprising as the laws of physics are universal.How large is UK compared to US?
If land is a problem, then the solar panels could be installed on water bodies. Installing them on rooftops make energy generation more distributed and reduce loss in transport. Building solar roof above the streets can be an alternative for government, since land acquisition can be free while still being close to the consumers.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/03/2022 08:28:05
Quote
The total area of the United Kingdom is 93,628 square miles (242,500 km^2), with an estimated population in 2020 of 67 million.
You can do the arithmetic. It turns out that the "built area" of the UK, i.e. the area covered by roofs, railways, roads and quarries, is about 5% of the total - quite a neat fit if all the roofs were pitched to the south and all the roads were flat and treeless. Which they aren't. Nearly all the rest is used for growing food or wood - a shockingly inefficient but apparently essential use of solar energy. A bit less than 0.5% is covered by inland water.
The USA consists of about 340,000,000 people living in 3,500,000 sq miles (10,000,000 sq km), so Musk's 10,000 square miles of solar panels could easily be incorporated in a sunny desert.
But the words "sunny" and "desert" are rarely heard in the British Isles.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 05/03/2022 20:20:31
But the words "sunny" and "desert" are rarely heard in the British Isles.The words desert and city are rarely heard, due to there little water water and no crops. I completely agree that there is enough desert in australia to power the entire world on solar, but the problem is one of transporting the energy.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 06/03/2022 04:21:34
But the words "sunny" and "desert" are rarely heard in the British Isles.The solar panel can be built floating on the sea.
Nearly all the rest is used for growing food or wood - a shockingly inefficient but apparently essential use of solar energy.Growing food, especially synthetic kinds, can be done indoor more efficiently. It's more efficient when transport is also considered.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2022 11:00:04
Much of Essex and Kent is already covered with glass for growing high-value food with pure solar power, but it's not economic to grow grasses and root vegetables indoors.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2022 11:02:35
Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 08:28:05QuoteBut the words "sunny" and "desert" are rarely heard in the British Isles.The words desert and city are rarely heard, due to there little water water and no crops.
No, it's because the British Isles are cold, wet, and covered with valuable food crops.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/03/2022 13:47:58
Have you ever floated on the North Sea or the Irish Sea? Have you considered doing it whilst employed to scrub the ice and spray off a thousand square miles of glass?Do the residents of Anglesey have to scrub ice and spray off their (rather less than a thousand square miles) island?
"Have you ever floated on the North Sea or the Irish Sea?"
Both, at Blackpool and Scarborough. It's a bit bracing.
I didn't see any ice on them.
Post by: alancalverd on 06/03/2022 14:27:44
Do the residents of Anglesey have to scrub ice and spray off their (rather less than a thousand square miles) island?Quite frequently, on the coast. It doesn't matter too much on a house, but a bit of salt can spoil the efficiency of a solar panel, and iced rigging has been known to sink ships.
The big problem with seawater is its biological activity. Close to the waterline, structures accumulate all sorts of green gunge, followed by barnacles. Fortunately friend Yusuf has volunteered to scrub the deck of his huge floating powerhouse.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 06/03/2022 17:28:28
Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 08:28:05QuoteBut the words "sunny" and "desert" are rarely heard in the British Isles.The words desert and city are rarely heard, due to there little water water and no crops.
No, it's because the British Isles are cold, wet, and covered with valuable food crops.
100 x 100 miles is more than 10% of the area of the UK. You get lot more sunshine in Nevada. So Musk's figure is fairly consistent with mine - not surprising as the laws of physics are universal.Not sure Alan, but the USA requires 30,000twh of energy a year. Transporting energy from the desert to Massachusetts is the problem
Post by: wolfekeeper on 07/03/2022 19:47:38
See my earlier post, #59. Using Wolfekeeper's efficiency figure, I estimated the area of optimally-oriented solar panels required to supply the UK's present energy needs (100 kWh per capita per day) as 150 sq m per person.OK several things wrong with that:
1) without seeing the working presumably you've done your normal trick of confusing primary energy which is thermal energy and exergy- how much energy you actually need. They are WILDLY different!
2) nobody is saying we're only going to use solar
So just taking those two factors, you're already off by a factor of about 6. So, 25 square metres instead of 150 square metres. Bit of a difference!
And even that is assuming there's no efficiency improvements.
Compare that with arable land. There's about a third of an acre per person in the UK. That's 1348 square metres of arable land per person.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 07/03/2022 20:10:28
I'm afraid that argument is settled hereSee my earlier post, #59. Using Wolfekeeper's efficiency figure, I estimated the area of optimally-oriented solar panels required to supply the UK's present energy needs (100 kWh per capita per day) as 150 sq m per person.OK several things wrong with that:
1) without seeing the working presumably you've done your normal trick of confusing primary energy which is thermal energy and exergy- how much energy you actually need. They are WILDLY different!
2) nobody is saying we're only going to use solar
So just taking those two factors, you're already off by a factor of about 6. So, 25 square metres instead of 150 square metres. Bit of a difference!
And even that is assuming there's no efficiency improvements.
Compare that with arable land. There's about a third of an acre per person in the UK. That's 1348 square metres of arable land per person.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility
Post by: wolfekeeper on 07/03/2022 20:43:34
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/03/2022 22:21:28
Quite frequently, on the coast.And so the clever bit is to make sure that (like Anglesey) most of it isn't on the coast.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 07/03/2022 22:43:06
In what way600mw per day per square mile
Post by: wolfekeeper on 07/03/2022 22:56:54
600 milliwatts per day per square mile!!!
Many congratulations!!! Well deserved!!!
Post by: Petrochemicals on 08/03/2022 00:26:43
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/72612559/congratulations-stupidest-post-award.jpg)
600 milliwatts per day per square mile!!!
Many congratulations!!! Well deserved!!!
Does this mean you are wrong?
Post by: wolfekeeper on 08/03/2022 03:25:57
There's multiple layers to this, and ALL of them make you look silly.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/03/2022 06:49:18
Yusuf's floating solar farm (the point of that particular discussion) would certainly not be on the coast unless something went dreadfully wrong. Good to know that there is less spray and biological gunk offshore, on your planet. Sounds much more hospitable to electronics than the north Atlantic.Quite frequently, on the coast.And so the clever bit is to make sure that (like Anglesey) most of it isn't on the coast.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/03/2022 06:56:05
2) nobody is saying we're only going to use solarIf you want to present your calculations, I'd be delighted. We need to generate 5 kW per capita, continuously, for the population of the United Kingdom. Or Great Britain, or the British Isles. The population and area stats are all well known. So how many windmills,solar panels, batteries, or magic power trees, do we need, and where are you going to put them?
Remember that about half of the UK's energy consumption is used directly for heating,so whatever conversion efficiency you choose for moving stuff, at least 2.5 kW is currently utilised at near-enough 100%.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 08/03/2022 12:10:18
Even if you wrote 600 MW per day per square mile, it would still win. Do you understand why??You asked why the link settled the argument I try and tell you, yet you do noting but insult and agitate. One can assume it makes you look silly and the further diversion looks worse
There's multiple layers to this, and ALL of them make you look silly.
Your post information on solar in Nevada that is clarified by copper spur facility, but refuse to
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_Mountain_Solar_Facility
The USA requires 30,000twh per year in power, a six square mile of solar PV in Nevada produces 1.3 twh per year. Are you wrong troll?
Post by: wolfekeeper on 08/03/2022 17:14:17
Somehow, in your head you think that all or a significant fraction of the United States' current energy should come from one square mile, when it has 9.8 MILLION of them, that a SINGLE POWER STATION should be able to do it.
I think you might begin along the road to being credible if you even knew the difference between a MWh (a megawatt hour) a megawatt and a milliwatt per day.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2022 19:07:37
Are you deliberately missing the obvious point?Yusuf's floating solar farm (the point of that particular discussion) would certainly not be on the coast unless something went dreadfully wrong. Good to know that there is less spray and biological gunk offshore, on your planet. Sounds much more hospitable to electronics than the north Atlantic.Quite frequently, on the coast.And so the clever bit is to make sure that (like Anglesey) most of it isn't on the coast.
If it's big- like Anglesey- then most of it is far from its own coast.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 08/03/2022 20:10:28
It doesn't REQUIRE 30,000 TWh per year, it CURRENTLY uses 30,000 TWh per year of primary energy and that is overwhelmingly represented by useless waste heat, horrible pollution, and a massive army ready to invade places if they threat their supplies.So you are wrong. 1.38twh per year over 6 Square miles? Are you defeated troll?
Somehow, in your head you think that all or a significant fraction of the United States' current energy should come from one square mile, when it has 9.8 MILLION of them, that a SINGLE POWER STATION should be able to do it.
I think you might begin along the road to being credible if you even knew the difference between a MWh (a megawatt hour) a megawatt and a milliwatt per day.
Post by: alancalverd on 08/03/2022 22:41:24
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2022 22:56:27
but always with small independent elementsThat would work as long as they are fairly close together.
You seem to have introduced a requirement for rigidity just to make the idea seem impossible.
If you can collect wave energy too, so much the better.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/03/2022 17:50:35
And despite a century or so of research
note that nobody has demonstrated an economically viable wave power generator, despite the prospective power density being an order of magnitude greater than wind or solar.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/03/2022 21:59:59
No. If the elements are small and independent, they will all be subject to spray. Anglesey only has a (fairly) dry middle because it is rigid and continuous!I don't know the Young's modulus of Anglesey; but it's finite.
And despite a century or so of researchnote that nobody has demonstrated an economically viable wave power generator, despite the prospective power density being an order of magnitude greater than wind or solar.
Anglesey is not rigid.
So you are wrong.
Even non rigid bodies have dry middles if they are big.
If the elements are small and independent,Again, you are introducing things which only seem to make things difficult.
If the elements are big, compared to the gaps between them, there won't be much spray except at the edges.
Post by: alancalverd on 09/03/2022 22:58:49
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2022 16:30:04
I think you have just got the job. All you need to do now is determine the size of "big", and save the world. Probably no smaller than the Titanic, which had windscreen wipers on the bridge. But you really need a flat deck, so Nimitz class is still too small - they spend a lot of time sweeping crap off the runway.Do you understand that, if you tied 9 Nimitz class carriers together, the one in the middle wouldn't get nearly as much spray as the 8 round the sides?
But if you sailed them in formation in a grid, but a mile apart, there would not be much "sheltering" of the middle one?
In other words did you understand this?
If the elements are big, compared to the gaps between them, there won't be much spray except at the edges.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 11/03/2022 05:54:24
Quote
Solar energy is one of our favorite things, and it's been a great few decades for the proliferation of residential solar. But a new bill proposed by California law makers, might completely alter the future of Solar in the Golden State.Local problems should be addressed locally, while global problems should be addressed globally.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2022 10:29:32
Do you understand that, if you tied 9 Nimitz class carriers together,I asked you to consider a definition of "big" in this context. To supply the UK with all its energy needs from a floating solar power station, you would need 14,000 Nimitz-size vessels. Not entirely impossible. Tying them together can be a bit fraught, as anyone who has sailed two boats close to one another will recall: the Coanda effect, whether of moving water or moving air, tends to pull them towards each other (even if you don't believe in it), so your principal problem is actually to keep them apart. This is usually done at sea by motoring in slightly divergent directions, and the command and control procedure required to maintain constant separation between three ships is fairly daunting. Quite how you manage it with 14,000 units (assuming that an aircraft carrier is the largest single floating structure you can build and move, which seems to be the case) is I think a problem for Yusuf's favoured moral AI system rather than a bunch of matelots looking at the ropes.
So how about 14,000 individual ships? Back to the problem of spray and pollution, and the question of whether any solar-powered vessel can generate enough power to keep station in all weathers, feed the crew, and generate a viably saleable surplus.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2022 10:31:34
Local problems should be addressed locally, while global problems should be addressed globally.I can solve my local problem immediately, by burning coal. Apparently this exacerbates the global problem.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2022 12:59:30
And again, you cite a problem that isn't one.Do you understand that, if you tied 9 Nimitz class carriers together,I asked you to consider a definition of "big" in this context. To supply the UK with all its energy needs from a floating solar power station, you would need 14,000 Nimitz-size vessels. Not entirely impossible. Tying them together can be a bit fraught, as anyone who has sailed two boats close to one another will recall: the Coanda effect, whether of moving water or moving air, tends to pull them towards each other (even if you don't believe in it), so your principal problem is actually to keep them apart. This is usually done at sea by motoring in slightly divergent directions, and the command and control procedure required to maintain constant separation between three ships is fairly daunting. Quite how you manage it with 14,000 units (assuming that an aircraft carrier is the largest single floating structure you can build and move, which seems to be the case) is I think a problem for Yusuf's favoured moral AI system rather than a bunch of matelots looking at the ropes.
So how about 14,000 individual ships? Back to the problem of spray and pollution, and the question of whether any solar-powered vessel can generate enough power to keep station in all weathers, feed the crew, and generate a viably saleable surplus.
Yes, it's difficult to stop the current bringing floating items together.
But what I said I wanted was that the distances between them were small.
Them being "in contact" isn't a problem.
feed the crew,And again...
Is that the crew you need to wash the imaginary spray off?
and the question of whether any solar-powered vessel can generate enough power to keep station in all weathersAnd again...
Are you really not bright enough to understand an anchor?
Stop trolling.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2022 13:09:28
The WAR on Residential SolarQuite well presented, if misleadingly titled. Not a war by any means but a clumsy step towards encouraging folk to install batteries. Looking at "the broad picture" (Civil Service jargon for "how does that affect me?") I can get a 50 kWh battery pack that will do the job of charging at offpeak rates and discharging at peak times, for about £5 - 10,000. But is it worthwhile?
Currently, offpeak costs about half of the peak rate that you pay if you opt for a timed tariff. But the flat rate is only 1p per unit more than the average of a timed rate, so I'd be saving 50p per day on a depreciating £5 - 10,000 investment. Not a good bargain. I could keep chickens in the same space and make £1 per day selling the eggs.
Post by: alancalverd on 11/03/2022 13:10:53
Are you really not bright enough to understand an anchor?
Quote
Them being "in contact" isn't a problem.
You really have no concept of engineering in the marine environment.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/03/2022 00:54:53
What would your second guess be?Are you really not bright enough to understand an anchor?QuoteThem being "in contact" isn't a problem.
You really have no concept of engineering in the marine environment.
What you have put forward so far isn't anything to do with marine engineering, it has just been a set of straw men.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/03/2022 05:16:26
Where did you mine your coal?Local problems should be addressed locally, while global problems should be addressed globally.I can solve my local problem immediately, by burning coal. Apparently this exacerbates the global problem.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/03/2022 05:21:54
Quote
https://www.livemint.com/industry/energy/indias-largest-floating-solar-power-plant-commissioned-in-andhra-pradesh-11631774123853.html
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) has successfully commissioned India’s largest Floating Solar PV plant. Located at NTPC Simhadri in Andhra Pradesh, the 25 MW floating SPV project covers an area of 100 acres. Besides producing clean power, the project will also reduce water evaporation by providing shade to the covered area. It will also have a higher yield as compared to conventional ground-mounted projects due to the cooling effect.
BHEL has designed an innovative floating array to meet the unique requirement of anchoring the support structures without touching or loading, either the reservoir floor or the bund structure.
This complex module array has been designed - for the first time in India - to withstand gusts of wind up to 180 km/hr. In view of the coastal location of the project site that leads to severe corrosion, all the platform structures and other equipment have been made corrosion resistant.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/03/2022 12:05:56
Doesn't matter. If my local problem is a shortage of energy, I can solve it by burning coal I bought on the open market. But there is a widespread belief that doing so will precipitate an international disaster. Somehow, economists manage to turn this into an entire degree program!Where did you mine your coal?Local problems should be addressed locally, while global problems should be addressed globally.I can solve my local problem immediately, by burning coal. Apparently this exacerbates the global problem.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/03/2022 12:16:07
In view of the coastal location of the project site that leads to severe corrosion,Not according to BC.
Anyway, at 60W/sq m peak, they have clearly derated the system to allow for such degradation - full marks!
The context suggests it is anchored over a lagoon or fresh water reservoir. That actually makes sense, and with about 300 square miles of inland water in the UK we could generate almost enough electricity to meet demand. Problem is that half of that water is in Northern Ireland where only 10% of the population lives, but at least it's theoretically feasible.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/03/2022 12:56:00
Not according to BC.How did you come to that conclusion?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/03/2022 14:10:00
It does matter. If you don't obtain it locally, it's not a local solution.Doesn't matter. If my local problem is a shortage of energy, I can solve it by burning coal I bought on the open market. But there is a widespread belief that doing so will precipitate an international disaster. Somehow, economists manage to turn this into an entire degree program!Where did you mine your coal?Local problems should be addressed locally, while global problems should be addressed globally.I can solve my local problem immediately, by burning coal. Apparently this exacerbates the global problem.
The cost, including transport, would be linear to the amount of energy that you use, which is the accumulation of power over time.
On the other hand, cost of solar and wind are more linear to the power, and mostly on initial cost.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/03/2022 16:31:39
There is probably enough sunshine on the Sahara Desert to fully electrify the whole of Europe, but there is no local problem in the Sahara (hardly anyone lives there) and it is not local to Europe.
Indeed, requiring that all solutions to local problems should be obtained locally reduces to a ban on trade and even on specialisation. The world could certainly support a few million hunter-gatherers but even the most traditional of Inuits seem to prefer rifles to spears, and AFAIK there are no steel foundries on the ice cap.
The cost, including transport, would be linear to the amount of energy that you use, which is the accumulation of power over time.Now if you are going to allow trade, let me buy a windmill. The capital cost is fixed by its peak power rating but it doesn't have an indefinite life so I have to consider amortising that cost over, say 30 years, during which it will produce a certain amount of useful energy - cost is indeed related to energy.
On the other hand, cost of solar and wind are more linear to the power, and mostly on initial cost.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 17/03/2022 03:15:20
There is probably enough sunshine on the Sahara Desert to fully electrify the whole of Europe, but there is no local problem in the Sahara (hardly anyone lives there) and it is not local to Europe.Distinguishing between local and global problems is just a rule of thumb. Whenever possible, using local resources can reduce transporting costs. In the end, it aims for efficiency, which is a universal instrumental goal.
Indeed, requiring that all solutions to local problems should be obtained locally reduces to a ban on trade and even on specialisation. The world could certainly support a few million hunter-gatherers but even the most traditional of Inuits seem to prefer rifles to spears, and AFAIK there are no steel foundries on the ice cap.
Mars colonizers would have to localize their resources as far as possible.
Post by: wolfekeeper on 17/03/2022 17:00:45
Post by: Petrochemicals on 17/03/2022 18:04:18
Is it me that lost the track of this thread or is this thread really full of petro-shills trying to push the idea that the whole of America should be fed by a few square miles of the UK, and if it can't, then it means that solar panels are completely useless? Because it sure looks like it's not me.Personal undefined pointless attack.
Post by: alancalverd on 17/03/2022 19:55:15
Post by: mayorovd on 16/04/2022 17:03:12
Partially, but Britain's electric cars are mostly charged at night, on economy 7 or similar, when the grid is greener and cheaper and wind is a bigger percentage of the production than during the day. Over time the grid will green up more and the electricity will be greener still.
Post by: alancalverd on 16/04/2022 18:15:43
night, on economy 7 or similar, when the grid is greener and cheaper and wind is a bigger percentage of the production than during the day.Not in the UK for the last week. Nor for most of March. Electricity is cheaper at night because the nuclear output is constant and overall demand decreases.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 16/04/2022 20:38:42
Electric cars are an addition to the electrical demand, as such they cannot be deemed as green until we forfill our needs. At present petrol car drivers pay tax for diesil cars pollution, tax for electric cars road construction, subsidies Tesla to sell carbon credits to make it profitable so Elon musk can make carbon heavy constructed cars running from gas powered electric at roughly the same efficiency as their ICE car.
Partially, but Britain's electric cars are mostly charged at night, on economy 7 or similar, when the grid is greener and cheaper and wind is a bigger percentage of the production than during the day. Over time the grid will green up more and the electricity will be greener still.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/04/2022 21:49:35
Electric cars are an addition to the electrical demandExcept for those who installed their own solar panels and battery packs.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 16/04/2022 21:57:52
At present petrol car drivers pay tax for diesil cars pollution,But they also get subsidies for oil price, especially in developing countries . I don't mind mining oil as long as it does not end up polluting air and water.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 16/04/2022 22:16:44
And live in a desert, on average solar in the uk only puts out 10 percent of installed capacity. Or you could say exporting to the grid and offsetting the energy, but this is also quite problematic due to the lack of reliability and seasonal fluctuation especially regarding seasonal power demands. You need a very large solar array and battery to give reliable power, all containing copious amounts of carbon* whilst at the same time being eligible for carbon credits etc that are paid for by the users of carbon energy, primarily car users. If we all demanded carbon credit payments the economy would crash.Electric cars are an addition to the electrical demandExcept for those who installed their own solar panels and battery packs.
Edit
Nb. *Copious amounts of embodied carbon
Post by: Petrochemicals on 16/04/2022 22:17:26
Could you point this place out to me.?At present petrol car drivers pay tax for diesil cars pollution,But they also get subsidies for oil price, especially in developing countries . I don't mind mining oil as long as it does not end up polluting air and water.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/04/2022 11:48:29
And live in a desert, on average solar in the uk only puts out 10 percent of installed capacity.Or you can learn from Sweden.
https://sweden.se/climate/sustainability/energy-use-in-sweden
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/04/2022 11:52:07
You need a very large solar array and battery to give reliable power, all containing copious amounts of carbon* whilst at the same time being eligible for carbon credits etc that are paid for by the users of carbon energy, primarily car users.Unless they are produced using renewable energies, which were installed in previous years.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 18/04/2022 11:54:49
Could you point this place out to me.?https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-5-trillion-in-fossil-fuel-subsidies/
Post by: alancalverd on 18/04/2022 12:10:28
Or you can learn from Sweden.
https://sweden.se/climate/sustainability/energy-use-in-sweden
Quote
Sweden has a rich supply of moving water and biomass, which contributes to the country’s high share of renewable energy. Hydropower (water) and bioenergy are the top renewable sources in Sweden – hydropower mostly for electricity production and bioenergy for heating.
and one twentieth of the population density of the UK. It is absolutely true that the UK could be wholly sustainable in energy and food with about one tenth of its present population, but nobody is interested in this simple solution because there is no short-term profit in it - except to the taxpayer.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 19/04/2022 07:33:52
Maybe we could learn from Costa Rica and have a mountainous high rainfall terrain?And live in a desert, on average solar in the uk only puts out 10 percent of installed capacity.Or you can learn from Sweden.
https://sweden.se/climate/sustainability/energy-use-in-sweden
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Costa_Rica
Yes yes, made in China by giant pandas feasting on bamboo, powered on electricity generated by the thanks of the proletariat to the benevolent leaders. It makes you think really, all this new scrutiny of Vladimir putin and Russia is obviously unfounded.You need a very large solar array and battery to give reliable power, all containing copious amounts of carbon* whilst at the same time being eligible for carbon credits etc that are paid for by the users of carbon energy, primarily car users.Unless they are produced using renewable energies, which were installed in previous years.
The countries, is it for example Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or Iran , who basically give free energy to their populace as a trade off because their land is producing the stuff for profitable export. Or is it African countries to try and kick-start the economies, small scale subsidies.Could you point this place out to me.?https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-5-trillion-in-fossil-fuel-subsidies/
Post by: wolfekeeper on 24/04/2022 17:57:39
These days significant fractions of that electricity in China are made using solar panels and wind, and whatever is on that grid is what's used to make solar panels.
ALL grids, everywhere are powered by UNRELIABLE sources: ANY power plant can fail or get disconnected at ANY time.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/04/2022 18:06:23
ALL grids, everywhere are powered by UNRELIABLE sources: ANY power plant can fail or get disconnected at ANY time.Part of the point of a grid is that it is tolerant of failure because it shares a large number of independent sources and rarely requires all of them to be on line.
Problem with solar is that all the sources go off line at the same time, and windmills may not work at all for several days at a time - the primary sources are not independent.
This wouldn't be a problem if renewable generators were backed up with adequate storage, but that would not be profitable, so grid integrity relies on fossil fuels to maintain the profitability of renewables.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2022 19:28:06
ALL grids, everywhere are powered by UNRELIABLE sources: ANY power plant can fail or get disconnected at ANY time.That's also true of non-grid systems.
Post by: wolfekeeper on 24/04/2022 20:35:06
Problem with solar is that all the sources go off line at the same time, and windmills may not work at all for several days at a time - the primary sources are not independent.But you know it's doing that before it happens, because of something called a 'weather forecast'.
Quote
This wouldn't be a problem if renewable generators were backed up with adequate storage, but that would not be profitable, so grid integrity relies on fossil fuels to maintain the profitability of renewables.Thing is, backup generators are relatively cheap, and the grid already has them anyway. It costs fuel, but hydrogen and perhaps other things like ammonia is looking promising for that.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 24/04/2022 21:58:39
It costs fuel, but hydrogen and perhaps other things like ammonia is looking promising for that.That is future tense rather than current, which is the theme of the tread.
Post by: alancalverd on 24/04/2022 22:14:29
Thing is, backup generators are relatively cheap, and the grid already has them anyway. It costs fuel, but hydrogen and perhaps other things like ammonia is looking promising for that.Precisely the point I'm making.
Currently, fossil fuels subsidise renewables because the grid cannot be powered to the required specification by wind or solar. A weather forecast is just that - a statement of forthcoming and inevitable system failure.
I have been advocating hydrogen storage for several years but there is no obligation on the installer of any windmill or solar panel to invest in a storage system, just a one-way incentive to supply power to the grid opportunistically. Nor is there any infrastructure plan to accommodate the requisite storage capacity in any form.
This would not be too much of a problem if the UK still had coalfired power stations and a native coalmining industry, but these have been destroyed by government policy, and the drive towards renewable energy and electric transport for the foreseeable future is dependent on the availability of imported gas.
Post by: wolfekeeper on 25/04/2022 01:46:39
That certainly wasn't historically true not even a few years ago, but it is right now.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/04/2022 08:50:09
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/04/2022 11:20:01
You couldn't sell renewables to the existing grid if they were the only source of electricity. The renewables suppliers would have to build a week's storage to guarantee supply as contracted to the retailers, which would increase the price of the product significantly. Therefore fossil fuels are subsidising renewables.How long do fossil fuel suppliers guarantee supply?
How does the subsidy work?
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
The world has set the goal to zero emission and carbon neutrality. Sooner or later it will happen. You can't prevent it. You can only postpone it.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 25/04/2022 11:34:56
This must be an odd definition of 'subsidy', both natural gas and coal power are uneconomic compared to the unsubsidized price of solar and wind power in the UK. At the moment at least, increased use of solar and wind reduce the cost of electricity.I'm afraid money rules, if renewable where economically superior we would have converted to them already.
That certainly wasn't historically true not even a few years ago, but it is right now.
The subsidy works via the government taxing oil fueled cars and giving it to electric vehicles that are produce more carbon than ICEs, subsidising wind farms and solar installations that may not recoup the carbon that took to create them.You couldn't sell renewables to the existing grid if they were the only source of electricity. The renewables suppliers would have to build a week's storage to guarantee supply as contracted to the retailers, which would increase the price of the product significantly. Therefore fossil fuels are subsidising renewables.How long do fossil fuel suppliers guarantee supply?
How does the subsidy work?
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
The world has set the goal to zero emission and carbon neutrality. Sooner or later it will happen. You can't prevent it. You can only postpone it.
No one is trying to "prevent " low carbon. If it was economically superior it would be happening already.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/04/2022 15:48:00
I'm afraid money rules, if renewable where economically superior we would have converted to them already.It will in a few years, and the progress is exponential.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/04/2022 15:54:24
The subsidy works via the government taxing oil fueled cars and giving it to electric vehicles that are produce more carbon than ICEs, subsidising wind farms and solar installations that may not recoup the carbon that took to create them.Not giving the subsidy can only postpone the progress, and more people will be affected by pollution created by running combustion engines on the streets.
Once renewable energy is large enough to support their own manufacturing process, those solar installation and wind farm don't release much carbon to the atmosphere any longer.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 25/04/2022 15:58:37
No one is trying to "prevent " low carbon. If it was economically superior it would be happening already.All good things take time.
Quote
Many people believe that the global electrical grid will collapse as Tesla and other EVs come online. I decided to run the numbers and determine if this is actually true. Using California in 2016 as my test case, I worked through the math and came up with a result that might surprise you
Post by: alancalverd on 25/04/2022 17:06:08
How long do fossil fuel suppliers guarantee supply?Before Margaret Thatcher destroyed the UK coal industry the strategic reserve (i.e. recoverable fuel within these islands) was about 200 years' worth. It is now guaranteed by not openly defending Ukraine against Russian aggression and not criticising Saudi Arabian executions of journalists, so there is no guarantee. Winston Churchill promoted the change from coal to oil for shipping on the presumption that the UK would always have access to Iraq, but the Bush/Halliburton Corporation now owns it thanks to Tony Blair's support of their invasion.
Post by: alancalverd on 25/04/2022 17:09:00
How does the subsidy work?By using fossil fuels to cover the absence of storage, thus making unreliables profitable.
Not giving the subsidy can only postpone the progress,There is no incentive for anyone to build the requisite storage. All that motivates any private company is short-term profit, and whilst politicians can wave their green credentials by promoting electric vehicles and windmills (in which their in-laws have, of course, invested) there never will be. Five years is a long time in finance.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 25/04/2022 21:09:54
Exponential,I'm afraid money rules, if renewable where economically superior we would have converted to them already.It will in a few years, and the progress is exponential.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
So do bad things, so we must be stumbling around for decades in the dark until realising the reality someone has pulled the wool over our eyesNo one is trying to "prevent " low carbon. If it was economically superior it would be happening already.All good things take time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_emissions_scandal#:~:text=On%2012%20January%202017%2C%20the,limits%2C%20undetected%20by%20the%20usual
Post by: alancalverd on 25/04/2022 23:25:32
Quote
Renault issued press statements reaffirming their vehicles' compliance with all regulations and legislation for the markets in which they operate in 2015.Note the careful wording. The entire "scandal" is a case of smart-arse legislators being caught by their own cleverness and complaining about it. If you prescribe a very specific acceptability test for a product with a wide range of possible performance, you have no right to complain if the product meets that specification but no other. Here's an old story that gets trotted out at purchaser specification meetings:
Man wants to make a new door frame. This usually consists of about 16 pieces of wood of specific thicknesses, cut to mitre angles. So our hero calculates what he wants and specifies each piece to ± 0.05 mm and ± 0.05°. Hands specification sheet to a timber merchant who promises to have it ready in 24 hours. Next day he collects the bundle and is horrified to discover it is composed of bits of knotty pine, green ash, plywood, willow, and whatever else the good Lord chooses to call a tree, twisted, crossgrain, sawn, bodged..... Shop assistant produces a ruler, shows that each piece of crap is exactly the size and shape specified, and demands payment.
As he wonders how to complain, a woman walks in and presents a ticket. Assistant hands over a beautiful piece of polished seasoned oak, 8 x 24 x 1 inch, with radiused edges and a neat hole in each corner. Bloke says "what did she order?" Shop assistant says "a seat for her kids' swing".
The moral: tell the manufacturer what you want, not how clever you are.
Post by: wolfekeeper on 25/04/2022 23:32:26
At this point I'm assuming you're just here to troll all of us.Exponential,I'm afraid money rules, if renewable where economically superior we would have converted to them already.It will in a few years, and the progress is exponential.
While an exponential decay is indeed an exponential, this is what the worldwide solar power looks like on a semilog graph:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FISoeRTWUAIScRi?format=png&name=medium)
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/04/2022 03:16:49
Before Margaret Thatcher destroyed the UK coal industry the strategic reserve (i.e. recoverable fuel within these islands) was about 200 years' worth.By your standard, solar energy is guaranteed for more than 4 billion years.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/04/2022 06:19:08
Quote
A lot of misinformation out there about pollution generated by Electric Vehicles, I spent over a year researching this and was shocked to find out what actually goes into producing the gas we burn in our cars every day.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 26/04/2022 14:58:59
EV or Gas, What Pollutes More?Electric.QuoteA lot of misinformation out there about pollution generated by Electric Vehicles, I spent over a year researching this and was shocked to find out what actually goes into producing the gas we burn in our cars every day.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 26/04/2022 15:00:26
At this point I think you must have scant interlect, selectively cherry picking and antagonistic to further your point or are insultingly slobbish, considering I started the thread. Considering the gas demand seems to be in Europe, during the winter, the solar argument just doesnt make sense.At this point I'm assuming you're just here to troll all of us.Exponential,I'm afraid money rules, if renewable where economically superior we would have converted to them already.It will in a few years, and the progress is exponential.
While an exponential decay is indeed an exponential, this is what the worldwide solar power looks like on a semilog graph:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FISoeRTWUAIScRi?format=png&name=medium)
This graph is mobile phone ownership, true viability, it starts low exponentially rise and then levels off at saturation, unlike the solar installation "exponential" of long and drawn out rise never reaching saturation, peaking and troughing like a whale in the shallows, or is fairly predictable as in your graph.
mobixsubscr_2008x20_800x574.png (5.81 kB . 800x574 - viewed 2890 times)Europe solar installation
500px-Electricity_production_capacities_for_solar_power_in_EU-27,_2000-2019_(MW) (1).png (65.62 kB . 500x274 - viewed 2826 times)Post by: hamdani yusuf on 28/04/2022 09:04:44
Electric.Are you feeling threatened?
Post by: Petrochemicals on 28/04/2022 17:57:11
Are you feeling illogicalElectric.Are you feeling threatened?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 29/04/2022 04:33:01
The points shown in the video seems reasonable to me. You just denied them without saying any reason. Have you watched it yet?Are you feeling illogicalElectric.Are you feeling threatened?
Some media, and even researchers, have shown bias against electrification of transportation. Closer scrutiny often found economical conflict of interest. Some of their income (advertisings, research grants) comes from oil and gas companies, or ICE car manufacturers. That's why I asked if you felt threatened, partially due to your nickname.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 29/04/2022 13:31:00
I only just watched it and now totally concur that my car produces 20,000,000 kegillionsquillion kilowatts because of petrol being bad.The points shown in the video seems reasonable to me. You just denied them without saying any reason. Have you watched it yet?Are you feeling illogicalElectric.Are you feeling threatened?
Some media, and even researchers, have shown bias against electrification of transportation. Closer scrutiny often found economical conflict of interest. Some of their income (advertisings, research grants) comes from oil and gas companies, or ICE car manufacturers. That's why I asked if you felt threatened, partially due to your nickname.
Electric vehicles greeness is judged by supporters as a variable thing, apparently in Poland they are worse for the environment as they use coal for electric generation, yet in Iceland they are good. The problem is iceland has a mopulation at least 100 times smaller than Poland, which is representative of the vast majority of Earth's conditions
Post by: alancalverd on 30/04/2022 12:06:41
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2022 12:29:39
I'm all for the electrification of transport. Underground railways and trolleybuses are great, and electric cars are terrific fun to drive.But we don't have (and can't have) enough electricity from non-fossil sources to abandon gasoline, diesel, and gas-generated electricity to meet current and predicted demand.And when the oil runs out, we won't have gasoline and diesel.
So we had better start planning to decarbonise the economy now, while we still can.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 30/04/2022 16:50:24
I'm all for the electrification of transport. Underground railways and trolleybuses are great, and electric cars are terrific fun to drive.But we don't have (and can't have) enough electricity from non-fossil sources to abandon gasoline, diesel, and gas-generated electricity to meet current and predicted demand.Fun is not efficient nor environmental.
Post by: alancalverd on 30/04/2022 21:44:12
Post by: Petrochemicals on 30/04/2022 22:16:15
Electric cars are quiet and non-smelly at the point of useAnd require you to drive at least 80,000 miles for the carbon used in construction to be recouped even if powered from a low carbon fuel source such as hydro electric. Oil, tyres chemicals. A horsy may be environmentally neutral but their efficiency precludes the general population from equestrian activities.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 04/12/2022 09:04:13
Https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2022/12/02/switzerland-wonders-if-electric-car-use-should-be-curtailed-in-power-emergencies/amp/
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2022 10:50:42
A horsy may be environmentally neutralIt isn't.
Post by: alancalverd on 04/12/2022 13:27:21
If you want the horse to do anything useful (like take you from A to B) it emits more.
And the car does not emit methane.
Post by: evan_au on 04/12/2022 20:05:10
Quote from: Iannguyen
electric car owners must make sure that their houses contain enough solar panels to charge their carsBy analogy, I assume that every owner of a petrol car needs to ensure that their houses contain enough "nodding donkeys" to fuel their cars?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumpjack#Names
Post by: Petrochemicals on 04/12/2022 21:09:21
A horse standing in a field emits as much carbon dioxide in a year as a small car driving 8000 miles.But at the end of the day it is neutral, it produces much in the way of big piles of steaming fertiliser, oil is not recognised for its byproducts being beneficial to plant growth, nor being a carbon neutral means of transport. The fuel for the horse is carbon renewable much like bio diesel, except it doesn't need to be processed.
If you want the horse to do anything useful (like take you from A to B) it emits more.
And the car does not emit methane.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2022 22:05:07
oil is not recognised for its byproducts being beneficial to plant growthCars are not noted for their nitrogen requirements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_environmental_aspects
Post by: alancalverd on 04/12/2022 23:24:45
oil is not recognised for its byproducts being beneficial to plant growth,Atmospheric carbon dioxide is essential for plant growth. Where do you think all the carbon came from to make coal and oil in the first place?
It is obvious that to get useful work out of a horse, or indeed any other machine that burns organic fuels, you have to generate CO2 from plant material, either living or dead.
Post by: wolfekeeper on 05/12/2022 03:33:04
That's not because the EU has too many photovoltaics. We're NOWHERE near saturation. We'd need three times the amount of photovoltaics and about the same factor of extra wind power to even cover the current demand. The graph is affected by economics, the 2008 crash has affected the installation rate in the EU. But the installation rate is also affected by the cost of panels, and the cost has continued to plummet, as has the cost of batteries. With all the Russian stuff solar panel installations are overwhelmingly likely to shoot up again now, and catch up to the curve. The fundamentals are economic, and they haven't changed.While an exponential decay is indeed an exponential, this is what the worldwide solar power looks like on a semilog graph:At this point I think you must have scant interlect, selectively cherry picking and antagonistic to further your point or are insultingly slobbish, considering I started the thread. Considering the gas demand seems to be in Europe, during the winter, the solar argument just doesnt make sense.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FISoeRTWUAIScRi?format=png&name=medium)
This graph is mobile phone ownership, true viability, it starts low exponentially rise and then levels off at saturation, unlike the solar installation "exponential" of long and drawn out rise never reaching saturation, peaking and troughing like a whale in the shallows, or is fairly predictable as in your graph.
Europe solar installation
So are nitrogen compounds. But tip several times the optimum amount on, and the plants don't grow as well. The evidence is that plants don't, overall, grow faster with extra CO2.oil is not recognised for its byproducts being beneficial to plant growth,Atmospheric carbon dioxide is essential for plant growth. Where do you think all the carbon came from to make coal and oil in the first place?
It is obvious that to get useful work out of a horse, or indeed any other machine that burns organic fuels, you have to generate CO2 from plant material, either living or dead.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 05/12/2022 05:53:04
.
this must be a wind up
https://www.google.com/search?q=why+are+fossil+fuels+bad
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2022 08:40:28
Where do you think all the carbon came from to make coal and oil in the first place?Stars.
Do you see that as somehow relevant?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2022 08:42:00
It is obvious that to get useful work out of a horse, or indeed any other machine that burns organic fuels, you have to generate CO2 from plant material, either living or dead.Congratulations; you just worked out why we need electric vehicles.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2022 11:21:58
Little point in demanding a new product until you have enough supply to make it.
At present, the quantity of CO2 emitted in the production of a medium electric car exceeds that required to keep its existing diesel predecessor on the road for another 100,000 miles or more.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2022 11:28:29
I think you may have missed out a few steps in the process of photosynthesis.Where do you think all the carbon came from to make coal and oil in the first place?Stars.
Do you see that as somehow relevant?
The idea of growing plankton or trees directly from meteorites or cosmic radiation deserves development, but I won't be investing right now: photochemical extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere is a mature and reliable, if inefficient, process.
Post by: alancalverd on 05/12/2022 14:36:41
But tip several times the optimum amount on, and the plants don't grow as well. The evidence is that plants don't, overall, grow faster with extra CO2.All the carbon in coal must have originated in the atmosphere, so it must have been there at the beginning of the carboniferous period and gradually sequestered by plant growth.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2022 17:09:53
I think you may have missed out a few steps in the process of photosynthesis.You seem to have missed one of the early steps.
The carbon came from stars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2022 17:15:40
All the carbon in coal must have originated in the atmosphere, so it must have been there at the beginning of the carboniferous period and gradually sequestered by plant growth.Two problems.
One, it isn't necessarily true- the carbon could have entered the atmosphere gradually from carbide rocks or something. It might not have all been in the atmosphere at that point.
More importantly, your assertion does not actually address the point Wolfkeeper made
"But tip several times the optimum amount on, and the plants don't grow as well. The evidence is that plants don't, overall, grow faster with extra CO2.".
And, here's some evidence.
https://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html
Post by: evan_au on 05/12/2022 20:43:00
This leads plants to move higher up mountains (except mountains have a top) or move polewards (until they run into a sea).
- At which point it is a matter of evolve or die...
Post by: paul cotter on 05/12/2022 21:35:54
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2022 09:39:07
Fortunately, plants are more intelligent than academics (or most humans, come to think of it), and either evolve or migrate to accommodate environmental change.
Post by: paul cotter on 06/12/2022 10:19:49
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2022 11:13:51
Fortunately, plants are more intelligent than academics (or most humans, come to think of it), and either evolve or migrate to accommodate environmental change.I can imagine triffids migrating, otherwise... not so much.
Just as well that the market gardeners of Essex weren't educated at Stanford, or we'd all starve. One nearby glasshouse actually sells electricity to the grid as a waste product. There are several units with "Danger" labels on the doors - you have to ventilate the glasshouse before it's safe to harvest the tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and aubergines. I don't think they raise the CO2 level to inhibit growth.https://dilbert.com/strip/2018-01-25
Fortunately, plants are more intelligent than academics (or most humans, come to think of it), and either evolve or migrate to accommodate environmental change.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/12/2022 11:18:16
Alancalverd, when I became aware of this practice I was very surprised. I know gas engines are relatively clean but there must be a finite amount of lubricant mist emitted and over time I would be concerned about deposition on the veg. It's a long time since I did any chp work but I seem to remember nox at around 500ppm in the exhaust. Do you know if the exhaust is treated in any way?If this
https://www.shentongroup.co.uk/blog/low-nox-chp-engines-explained/
is anything to go by, they use urea and a catalytic convertor to remove NOx.
But I wonder how much would be removed simply by cooling the exhaust fumes and letting the water condense.
Post by: paul cotter on 06/12/2022 12:40:58
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2022 14:01:19
I can imagine triffids migrating, otherwise... not so much.You should live in East Anglia. Happens all the time. Major driving hazard: rampaging wurzels.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 06/12/2022 18:07:48
https://resource.co/article/UK/SITA_UK_incinerator_heat_grow_tomatoes-2491
Co2, due to its miniscule percentage in the atmosphere is usually produced by the method you describe, beer, preservatives etc, maybe wasted on plants if they have enough.
https://www.marketplace.org/2022/10/11/fizzling-out-a-shortage-of-carbon-dioxide-hits-u-k-food-and-drink-industry/amp/
Post by: alancalverd on 06/12/2022 21:24:08
It's odd that the food and drink industry was short of CO2. When I was a lad, breweries produced huge quantities of the stuff. Enough, indeed, to make that cold fizzy urine that Americans call beer.
Post by: wolfekeeper on 07/12/2022 06:19:36
Post by: alancalverd on 07/12/2022 09:47:28
the average plant on Earth doesn't have all that,Whatever sequestered all that carbon into coal and oil seems to have managed without human intervention, whether cow dung or Haber-Bosch fixation, and must have started with a much higher CO2 concentration than we have now.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 07/12/2022 10:21:39
Whare did the oxygen come from? If all plant life vanished, how long before the free oxygen disappears as well.the average plant on Earth doesn't have all that,Whatever sequestered all that carbon into coal and oil seems to have managed without human intervention, whether cow dung or Haber-Bosch fixation, and must have started with a much higher CO2 concentration than we have now.
Post by: Petrochemicals on 07/12/2022 10:22:36
Heat probably helps too, but the warning on the door is about carbon dioxide, not temperature.I believe co2 is a hazardous gas in breweries, people have died due to asphyxiation.
It's odd that the food and drink industry was short of CO2. When I was a lad, breweries produced huge quantities of the stuff. Enough, indeed, to make that cold fizzy urine that Americans call beer.