[Scottish Scientist]

And BTW Boris appears to be our own personal version of Trump.

I just took a pop at "Tory-boy" BoJo in my latest blog post.


https://scottishscientist.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/industrial-vandalism.jpg

Hey Tory-boy, there's a CLIMATE EMERGENCY!

[Bored chemist]

It is $1.5+ billion of world tree-hugger bribes which have corrupted the Brazilian law-makers to enact fake laws that the government has no intention of enforcing, to pretend to limit the scale of the logging sector.

They were doing it anyway.

[jeffreyH]

And BTW Boris appears to be our own personal version of Trump.

I just took a pop at "Tory-boy" BoJo in my latest blog post.


https://scottishscientist.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/industrial-vandalism.jpg

Hey Tory-boy, there's a CLIMATE EMERGENCY!

Wooo! Boris must be quaking in his boots. There are thousands of protesters on the streets. So why are you typing posts on a forum?

[Scottish Scientist]

It is $1.5+ billion of world tree-hugger bribes which have corrupted the Brazilian law-makers to enact fake laws that the government has no intention of enforcing, to pretend to limit the scale of the logging sector.
They were doing it anyway.

Well they didn't want to let Leonardo DiCaprio down. 

[Scottish Scientist]

Wooo! Boris must be quaking in his boots. There are thousands of protesters on the streets. So why are you typing posts on a forum?

Well I wouldn't want the authorities to mistake me for the "controlling mind" of Extinction Rebellion and hold me accountable for all the inconvenience.

The "controlling mind" of the global transition to 100% renewable energy I can live with and to achieve that, my blog is of much more use than a police cell all to myself.

[Scottish Scientist]

It is $1.5+ billion of world tree-hugger bribes which have corrupted the Brazilian law-makers to enact fake laws that the government has no intention of enforcing, to pretend to limit the scale of the logging sector.

They were doing it anyway.

Well they didn't want to let Leonardo DiCaprio down. 

Can I just add that I have already pencilled in another star for the public relations aspects of my South American renewable energy giga-projects.


South America – GREAT for Renewable Energy

[evan_au]

I don't support "fracking" caring or otherwise. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, remember?

I think that natural gas (eg from fracking) is a useful transition from coal towards renewables:
- Less environmental impact than coal: Coal tends to dig big holes (which later cave in, destroying homes), and produce lots of rock spoil and mine water. Natural gas has a much smaller impact, provided you take care of the water table and water waste.
- As a fuel, coal is mostly Carbon. Natural gas produces much of its energy from the Hydrogen atoms
- Coal often has impurities like sulphur, mercury and arsenic, which goes up the smokestack, and affects nearby populations.. Natural gas is much purer.
- Burning coal produces lots of ash, which must be stored for the long term. Natural gas doesn't have as much residue.
- It takes a long time to get a coal-fired station up to speed, so it is really only useful for base load (ie really inefficient overnight). Natural gas turbines can get up to speed much more quickly, and can be used to fill in for evening peak demand (the Sun is going down, and solar power infeed is dropping), and morning peak (the Sun is coming up).

But I agree that natural gas should not be seen as a long-term goal.

At best, expensive energy storage from batteries can cobble together wind and solar generators as bit-part generators in a grid system

Maybe, but they are now being installed in larger numbers.

Batteries are still useful, because they can offset short-term variability in wind and solar output, reducing the number of times quick-response hydro or gas is needed.

This will allow grid operators to increase renewables beyond the current approx. 30% of load which they see as the renewables limit without batteries.

It doesn't hurt that:
- The price of batteries and their associated electronics is dropping rapidly
- they can be installed more quickly than a GW power station (they basically need a concrete slab)
- They are modular, and can be expanded incrementally
- They have lower visual impact (less NIMBY impact)
- So they can be installed near existing substations
- They can be installed near existing population centers, ironing out glitches in the long-distance transmission network

On a slightly different tack, I heard a discussion (in English) with Maja Göpel, a German advocate of environmental change (who is apparently well-known in Germany).

She believes that environmental costs must be factored into our economic calculations.
- While "externalities" like the environment are not included in costings, businesses and economists will continue to treat them as "free", and will continue destroying them with gay abandon.
- That then brings up the big political question about how companies that have been getting all this good stuff "for free" will campaign vigorously against any legislation that would see them paying for the same stuff.
- Anyway, an interesting discussion of this multi-faceted issue:
Listen (1 hour): https://omegataupodcast.net/321-societal-change-and-the-climate/

[Scottish Scientist]

I don't support "fracking" caring or otherwise. Natural gas is a fossil fuel, remember?

I think that natural gas (eg from fracking) is a useful transition from coal towards renewables:

Dream on. The harsh reality is that natural gas is being misused by profiteers to set back the transition to 100% renewable energy by the demolition of coal-fired power stations instead of converting them to burn renewable energy biomass, to operate on stand-by to provide back-up power.

- Less environmental impact than coal: Coal tends to dig big holes (which later cave in, destroying homes), and produce lots of rock spoil and mine water. Natural gas has a much smaller impact, provided you take care of the water table and water waste.
- As a fuel, coal is mostly Carbon. Natural gas produces much of its energy from the Hydrogen atoms
- Coal often has impurities like sulphur, mercury and arsenic, which goes up the smokestack, and affects nearby populations.. Natural gas is much purer.
- Burning coal produces lots of ash, which must be stored for the long term. Natural gas doesn't have as much residue

Natural gas would better than coal but not as good as biomass and therefore natural gas is not good enough.

- It takes a long time to get a coal-fired station up to speed, so it is really only useful for base load (ie really inefficient overnight).

Solid-fuels - coal or biomass, but I am making the argument only for biomass not coal - can vary their power output smoothly if not rapidly according to the rate at which fuel is fed into the furnaces.

Coal-converted-into-biomass-burning power stations can also start up from cold within hours and that time can be reduced with co-firing with gas for a rapid fire-up. Therefore for extended periods of low wind and solar power biomass power stations can serve effectively as back-up power when supplemented by instant power regeneration from energy storage - pumped storage hydroelectricity and hydrogen from electrolysis.

Natural gas turbines can get up to speed much more quickly,

Indeed, gas turbines - natural gas or hydrogen from electrolysis - can ramp up their power from spinning reserve quickly enough to serve as frequency response automated back-up power in the event of a generator trip.

and can be used to fill in for evening peak demand (the Sun is going down, and solar power infeed is dropping), and morning peak (the Sun is coming up).

The sun going down is predictable and so that's no problem for solid-fuel power stations to be ready in time for.

However the utility of biomass power and the fact that it is renewable energy counts for nothing with the profiteers who are demolishing the world's coal-fired power stations with an unseemly haste. Government help is required - either rigging the market to favour biomass or if that fails then the government must accept its mission to nationalise the coal power stations before the profiteers asset strip and demolish them.

But I agree that natural gas should not be seen as a long-term goal.

We disagree if you are content to turn a blind eye to the sabotage of the transition exemplified by the demolition of coal-fired power stations.

https://scottishscientist.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/industrial-vandalism.jpg
We disagree because you have no plan to replace natural gas any time soon and whether you admit it or not, you are binding in fossil fuel natural gas generation for the long term.

[Scottish Scientist]

At best, expensive energy storage from batteries can cobble together wind and solar generators as bit-part generators in a grid system

It's worth quoting me in full.

At best, expensive energy storage from batteries can cobble together wind and solar generators as bit-part generators in a grid system where most of the power must still come from conventional dispatchable generators, usually fired by fossil fuels. Therefore "largest ever batteries" or other battery sales in this context are a commercial marketing deception and a fraud driven by the profit motive which trick and lock-in grid managers into continuing fossil fuel dependence. Such batteries offer no "100% renewable energy solution" at reasonable cost. The established technologies to expect to be deployed for wind and solar energy storage are pumped-storage hydro and power to gas. So Elon Musk is every bit the enemy of renewable energy as Donald Trump is. At least Donald Trump is honest about supporting coal.

Another golden opportunity to be gleefully unimpressed by little rocket man's biggest-ever battery. 

Maybe, but they are now being installed in larger numbers.

Not now and never in large enough energy storage capacity for the transition to 100% renewable energy.
Recently, the UK suffered a nation-wide power cut despite the investment in 472MW worth of batteries. The problem with batteries is that you can never afford enough and you will bleed your budget dry trying to.

Batteries are still useful, because they can offset short-term variability in wind and solar output, reducing the number of times quick-response hydro or gas is needed.

Batteries don't remove the need for hydro or gas - they just allow time for the turbines to spin up from a dead-stop while maintaining exemplary frequency response.

A more cost-effective solution to the same end may be to keep enough turbines on spinning reserve and match those with super-capacitors / ultra-capacitors.

This will allow grid operators to increase renewables beyond the current approx. 30% of load which they see as the renewables limit without batteries.

Keep your eyes on the prize - 100% (no less) renewable energy and have a plan to get there.

Many a climber celebrated at Everest Base Camp before dying on the way to or from the summit.
The Soviets were first into Earth orbit but the Americans were first on the moon.
Do not lead your army up a dead-end from where they cannot win the war.

For the transition to 100% renewable energy we need more energy storage capacity than can be afforded with batteries and we need renewable energy back-up power, in the proportions illustrated by my Wind, solar, storage and back-up system designer.

[alancalverd]

A minor point of disagreement. Apart from lithium-ion batteries, which are inherently selfdestructive, most batteries fail predictably as their internal impedance rises with use. Using bypass diodes, you can produce very robust high voltage stacks where the failure of a few elements simply reduces the opencircuit voltage of the stack. Supercapacitors, on the other hand, tend to fail suddenly and completely, albeit less often than batteries.

[Scottish Scientist]

Supercapacitors, on the other hand, tend to fail suddenly and completely, albeit less often than batteries.

Really? Well Wikipedia "Supercapacitor" says

Evaporation generally results in decreasing capacitance and increasing internal resistance. According to IEC/EN 62391-2 capacitance reductions of over 30% or internal resistance exceeding four times its data sheet specifications are considered "wear-out failures", implying that the component has reached end-of-life. The capacitors are operable, but with reduced capabilities.

Is sudden failure your experience with supercapacitors or do you have a source for "sudden failure"?

[alancalverd]

Experience, though it was some time ago. The essence of a supercap is a very thin dielectric layer

C = ε_mε₀A/d

where ε_m is the relative dielectric constant of the dielectric material m and ε₀, of the vacuum. A is the area of the plates and d is the thickness of the dielectric. Modern dielectrics can have very high values of ε but the manufacturing process is always a compromise between practical values of A and d. Mechanical fracture or chemical failure at a point in the dielectric produces a local short circuit through which the capacitor discharges, with catastrophic results.

Things may have improved - I hope so!

[evan_au]

I am making the argument only for biomass

Burning wood or other biomass produces lots of ash.

This requires good ash filters, and careful disposal of the ash. (Can it be used as fertiliser?)

[alancalverd]

Partly-burned wood ash (potash) is a useful feedstock for all sorts of processes, though it represents an inefficient initial combustion process. Fully-burned "fly ash" from wood or coal is a useful building material - the basis of "breeze blocks" - but not a lot  of use as fertiliser as it has a high metal and silicon content but very little nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium.

[Scottish Scientist]

I am making the argument only for biomass

Burning wood or other biomass produces lots of ash.

This requires good ash filters,

Required in the power stations now being demolished by misgoverned profiteers.

and careful disposal of the ash. (Can it be used as fertiliser?)

Yes wood ash can be leached to make potash fertiliser.
Fly ash can also be used to make concrete.

[Scottish Scientist]

Partly-burned wood ash (potash) is a useful feedstock for all sorts of processes, though it represents an inefficient initial combustion process. Fully-burned "fly ash" from wood or coal is a useful building material - the basis of "breeze blocks" - but not a lot  of use as fertiliser as it has a high metal and silicon content but very little nitrogen, phosphorus or potassium.

Snap.

[pensador]

The failure mechanism on capacitors is due to applying an over voltage which causes the dielectric to momentarily break down, and damage the plates, reducing the surface are of the capacitors, careful design can avoid over voltage and careless dielectric breakdown. Thermal cycling is another common failure mechanism on the connections. Which could cause an over voltage on other caps connected in series etc. They are not expensive and could be checked at service intervals for capacitor tolerance etc. Caps failing could be switched out. It just requires a bit of engineering.

South America as a great renewable energy continent, but is prone to political problems. ie Lake Titicaca 4000m high borders Peru and Bolivia. The Peruvians own 60% and the Bolivians own 60%. 

For Biomass to work it needs to be commercial viable. Brazil was making huge amounts of biodiesel from sugar cane, until the world fuel price dropped a few years back. They dumped all there sugar on the world market causing a slump in world sugar prices, and moved back to using oil.

The artificially low price of none renewable energy is preventing a large scale adoption of renewable energies. A global political solution is required to address this problem. Tax none renewables at increasing higher levels, and introduce laws to prevent global tax avoidance.

Biomass needs to be grown commercially as a cash crop on a large scale and requires fertile land near to the generation plants. It could work where the land is available, and the biomass is not prone to catching fire like in mainland Europe Portugal and Spain for example.

Alternatively if you want to look at using none commercial land why not use the desserts and large scale solar power, if there was a global electrical grid as the day becomes night the next solar array around the planet could start generating without a power outage. This would give an income to poorer countries, without oil reserves. It is possible to do this but again a global political will would be required and some very high voltage transmission lines.
Another alternative would be to change working practices, where by factories only consume electricity when lots is available, they could bid for it in an auction every day.
The human race could all move to areas where solar was readily available, work from home, or find jobs closer to where they live.

Alternatively perhaps nuclear fusion might work at some distant point in the future (dream on Boris).

[pensador]

I am making the argument only for biomass

Burning wood or other biomass produces lots of ash.

This requires good ash filters,

Required in the power stations now being demolished by misgoverned profiteers.

and careful disposal of the ash. (Can it be used as fertiliser?)

Yes wood ash can be leached to make potash fertiliser.
Fly ash can also be used to make concrete.

Sorry cant help this, you have an interesting thread running. But Is this the scots man coming out in you, looking for the cheapest alternative, 2nd hand power stations!.

Serious Question  has anyone ever tried to develop a small scale biomass generation station. something like Combined heat and power sometimes used in hospitals. Maybe could be scaled to individual environmentally minded peoples pockets. allowing more people to go off grid.

[Scottish Scientist]

ie Lake Titicaca 4000m high borders Peru and Bolivia.

South America – GREAT for Renewable Energy

Put Lake Titicaca for pumped-storage together with the Atacama Desert for solar PV, Patagonia for wind power and the Amazonian etc rainforests for biomass and conventional hydroelectricity and South America would seem to be blessed by natural renewable resources (and therefore riches) which are second to none in the world.

If South America can get their political act together and link those renewable energy assets up, they could supply the world energy market very profitably.

It would be easy enough to make synthetic fuels from South American renewable energy and ship them all over the world.

It would even be possible – now hold onto your hat – to run a 6,000 mile long distance power transmission cable from Lake Titicaca (as the obvious central hub for South America’s renewable energy distribution network) to Europe

For Biomass to work it needs to be commercial viable.

Biomass for stand-by back-up power could be made commercially viable by the government and OFGEM requiring the National Grid to contract for stand-by back-up power from biomass power stations.

Alternatively, biomass would also work as a nationalised industry.

It is fossil fuel back-up power that will never work to complete the transition to 100% renewable energy but forever to delay it.

Biomass ... requires fertile land near to the generation plants

Actually, Drax Power Station in England imports its biomass fuel from North America.

perhaps nuclear fusion might work at some distant point in the future

The only nuclear fusion technology that works is nuclear weapons.
For energy generation, the Sun is the only nuclear fusion reactor that we need.

But  Is this the scots man coming out in you, looking for the cheapest alternative, 2nd hand power stations!.

It is the scientist in me who has looked for and found the cheapest and quickest 100% renewable energy solution.

It would be absolutely cheaper in the terms understood by Englishman Ebenezer Scrooge to neglect the terrible cost to the environment of burning fossil fuel natural gas for decades more, as advocated by the foolish Tory boys who misgovern the UK's energy policy.

The Scot in me would like to take this opportunity to celebrate our common English language spoken and often correctly spelled all across these British Isles.

all there sugar

all their sugar

none renewable

non-renewable

desserts and large scale solar power

deserts and large-scale solar power

Serious Question  has anyone ever tried to develop a small scale biomass generation station. something like Combined heat and power sometimes used in hospitals. Maybe could be scaled to individual environmentally minded peoples pockets. allowing more people to go off grid.

Could this little-known biomass generator start an energy revolution?

[alancalverd]

It could work where the land is available, and the biomass is not prone to catching fire like in mainland Europe Portugal and Spain for example.

Lots of other questionable statements in that posting, but forest fires are common in Europe - even in the soggy British Isles. The difference is that the wild forests are pretty small and separated by thousands of years of arable development, and the big managed forests are carved up by firebreaks and patrolled by rangers, so the damage is usually controlled and limited.

The Brazilian problem seems to be commercially intentional fires that get out of control.