Questions regarding Global Warming

a reply to: rnaa

Try coal-fired without carbon sequestration.

The Tennessee Valley Authority can, and has on multiple occasions, erected coal-fired steam plants with two years. It has been done. You can get a stack of signed affidavits ten miles high from everyone from Barrack Obama to the bum lying in the gutter, and it will not change history.

We are talking about a hypothetical situation here: what would be the fastest, cheapest, and best method to get plentiful electrical power to undeveloped South Asian nations? I maintain it is not tonly use the social mechanisms we use here today. It is to use older technology redesigned to allow for refitting, considering the ecological impacts as only one of the weighting factors. Our present methodology in the US uses ecological impact as a major weighting factor, acceptable only because we have power availability at present. We are in the innovation stage, not the introduction stage.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Try coal-fired without carbon sequestration.

The Tennessee Valley Authority can, and has on multiple occasions, erected coal-fired steam plants with two years. It has been done. You can get a stack of signed affidavits ten miles high from everyone from Barrack Obama to the bum lying in the gutter, and it will not change history.

I thought you wanted to design in the capability for retrofit for future technology. New plants are not designed without sequestration. The figures I quoted are for plants started in 2016. Some level of sequestration is absolutely designed into EVERY new plant. Why would you even want to consider building billions of dollars of brand new obsolete infrastructure? That's just insane.

We are talking about a hypothetical situation here: what would be the fastest, cheapest, and best method to get plentiful electrical power to undeveloped South Asian nations?

South Asian nations are not stupid, they do not want new coal plants. They do, however, have entrenched coal lobbies (presumably payed for by exporters Australia and Russia) and strong pressure to buy technology from China, Japan, and South Korea through subsidized financing.

China has no intention of putting more coal plants into development, once the ones that are under construction are online, that is it. India is the same.

Vietnam and South Korea have already taken steps to downsize their plans for new coal-fired power plants, out of concern for local impacts and climate change.

Vietnam has set ambitious renewable energy targets, while Japan’s solar power industry has seen truly impressive growth.

Indonesia’s program to add 35,000 megawatts of new capacity by 2020, a key driver of new coal-fired power plants, is running into trouble and costing ratepayers more than anticipated, while the need for the targeted amount of capacity is increasingly questioned.

Southeast Asia is planning 400 new coal power plants — what does that mean?

As you can see from those figures, the demand for "the fastest, cheapest, and best method to get plentiful electrical power to undeveloped South Asian nations" just isn't there. India has enough capacity for now; so does China - they don't need anything "fastest, cheapest" - they can afford to move to "the best". Vietnam doesn't need or want coal - they have already decided that renewables are "the best". Indonesia, with the most ambitious current coal expansion program (under heavy pressure from Australia coal exporters especially) is reevaluating its need for capacity currently on the drawing board - as are other nations.

Sure, they all want cheap power, but they are also far more advanced than the USA and Australia in their idea as to what is the "best" method to get there. The numbers in my previous post demonstrate that renewables are less expensive than coal. They are cheaper to build, cheaper to operate, and don't pollute.

There is absolutely NO BUSINESS CASE that supports new coal fired plants. NONE. Especially obsolete designs that do not include carbon sequestration - that is just insane (and possibly illegal?). At a time when head-in-the-sand apologists scream that the USA and Europe shouldn't reduce carbon emissions until developing nations do, YOU want to ensure that developing nations INCREASE carbon emissions.

If I were a suspicious person I might come to the conclusion that you are a disinformation lobbyist for the Carbon Pollution Industry.

a reply to: rnaa

Firstly, this was a hypothetical. I am not going to Asia tomorrow to begin construction. The hypothetical question was what was the cheapest, fastest method to get electricity to poor nations.

Secondly, law is national. Non-sequestered coal plants would only be illegal if the countries they are built in made them illegal. Not everyone has the advantages we take for granted, or the luxury of placing as high a value on social constructs as we do.

Thirdly, you seem to believe that dual-usage is not possible. I assure you it is. The whole point was to get electricity online as quickly as possible, while planning for cleaner alternatives in the future. All combustion plants, as well as nuclear and geothermal plants, use similar technology: steam turning turbines. The only difference is how the steam is generated: geo-thermal heating, combustion, or controlled nuclear decay. The turbines, generators, and main steam lines are the same (with some additional radiation shielding in the case of nuclear).

And finally, the entire concept is to switch from dirty to clean production as fast as possible. The horror stories we hear about China gagging on their smog are the result of decades of uncontrolled pollution; I suggest a few years of high pollution at most, in an initial tradeoff of effectancy vs. efficiency.

TheRedneck

ETA: there is no "Carbon Pollution industry." There is also no superhero named Captain Planet.

a reply to: TheRedneck

And finally, the entire concept is to switch from dirty to clean production as fast as possible.

And you think the fastest way to switch from dirty to clean is to keep building more incredibly dirty plants? Here's a suggestion to help you get rid of your headache faster: keep hitting your head with that hammer, only harder and faster.

The horror stories we hear about China gagging on their smog are the result of decades of uncontrolled pollution;

Yes. They are killing themselves and have realized it. They are working on fixing it - not fast enough, but they are getting traction.

TheRedneck ETA: there is no "Carbon Pollution industry."

Of course there isn't. Just like there was no "Nicotine Addiction Industry". Don't be silly.

There is also no superhero named Captain Planet.

Oh sure. Next you're gonna tell me there's no Great Pumpkin either.

a reply to: rnaa

The fastest way to get electricity is to get the plants online as quickly as possible. The fastest way to then get clean electricity is to have those plants designed for quick upgrades.

You seem to have this irrational, dare I say, phobia about coal. It's just a flammable mineral. No demonic forces are lying in wait inside it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The fastest way to get electricity is to get the plants online as quickly as possible.

That sentence has absolutely no content in it what-so-ever. The fastest way to do ANYTHING is to do it as quickly as possible.

The fastest way to then get clean electricity is to have those plants designed for quick upgrades.

The fastest way to achieve a result is to do it RIGHT THE FIRST TIME. Doing things twice ALWAYS costs more and takes longer. Putting up shonky, dirty, obsolete plants is not the quickest way to get clean electricity; building clean plants in the first place is the quickest way.

If we grant, for the sake of argument, that your dirty plants can be built quickly and start delivering electricity to industries that will then become reliant on that electricity, tell us please, how is the operator going to justify shutting that plant down for a year or two while it gets 'upgraded'? And why would they bother, when a new clean plant can be built for less than the upgrade? And how long will the plant operate in 'dirty' mode before it gets shut down for that upgrade? And who is going to pay for that upgrade? What operator, what government, is going to want to pay twice for the same utility?

Your entire scenario is so far fetched that I suspect you must have taken my prescription to cure your headaches seriously.

You seem to have this irrational, dare I say, phobia about coal. It's just a flammable mineral. No demonic forces are lying in wait inside it.

You seem to have this irrational, dare I say, predjudice about Asians being able to think for themselves. Every developing Asian nation is reducing its dependence on coal. EVERY SINGLE ONE. There are still new plants being built because they are well advanced in the implementation pipeline. But no one is adding to that development pipeline - not China, not India the biggest by volume. Even Australia, the biggest polluter per capita and whose government is in complete thrall to the coal industry is beginning to decommission its coal plants.

Ha! Talk about irrational phobia! The world is moving on Redneck. Get with the program.

Both Solar and Onshore wind is cheaper and faster to build and cheaper to operate than coal plants. Why on earth would any rational, responsible government or utility operator saddle their citizens and customers with dirty expensive lesser alternatives?

You seem to have this irrational, dare I say, phobia about renewable energy. It's just a fusion reactor that the planet is orbiting once a year. No demonic forces are lying in wait inside it.

a reply to: rnaa

That sentence has absolutely no content in it what-so-ever. The fastest way to do ANYTHING is to do it as quickly as possible.

Exactly right, and exactly my point.

The fastest way to achieve a result is to do it RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.

True, unless the phrase "do it right" is interpreted the way you seem to be interpreting it. In order to "do it right" your definition would seem to include waiting on new technology to become available.

Will my idea produce electricity? Yes. Will yours? Yes. Which will produce it faster? Coal.

If we grant, for the sake of argument, that your dirty plants can be built quickly and start delivering electricity to industries that will then become reliant on that electricity, tell us please, how is the operator going to justify shutting that plant down for a year or two while it gets 'upgraded'?

Please show me where I suggested shutting down one plant to build another?

It is possible to design plants in phases... it's done all the time.you build the generation facility, a quick low-cost coal burner to drive it, then while that is producing power, you build a natural gas burner, a geothermal generator, or whatever heat source you think is best. Once it is complete, you turn two valves and the plant continues to produce using the new fuel.

Every developing Asian nation is reducing its dependence on coal.

That's a good thing. It would be better if the plants already under construction were refitted during construction, but I can't speak to the economics of those specific decisions without being more familiar with the individual situations.

Both Solar and Onshore wind is cheaper and faster to build and cheaper to operate than coal plants.

Nope.

Solar remains one of the most expensive technologies to implement. The panels themselves are astronomically priced relative to the amount of power they produce. They are also fragile and must be protected from the elements while still receiving sunlight, another high cost due to the materials needed to do this without UV degradation over short time spans. The power produced is low-voltage DC, which then must be converted to high-voltage AC for transmission. The inverters required to convert industrial amounts of electrical energy are tremendously expensive. And finally, even under perfect weather conditions, one can at best hope for a 50% duty cycle, and a 50% time yield during daylight hours due to changing solar inclination angles. The remainder must be stored in batteries, the only technology I can think of that is more expensive than photovoltaic cells, and which use heavy metals in their construction and thus produce more environmentally hazardous waste than a coal-fired plant could dream of over it's lifetime.

Wind does a good job of generating, but only huge government subsidies keep the prices low (while environmental regulations raise the cost of fossil fuel plants) in the US. But it is limited by area.

The best solutions we have, again, are hydro-electric and their new offspring, wave power. Hydro-electric is limited in area, and wave power is emerging. But both would be good in these circumstances.

You seem to have this irrational, dare I say, phobia about renewable energy. It's just a fusion reactor that the planet is orbiting once a year. No demonic forces are lying in wait inside it.

No, I just understand the various choices (Electrical Engineer, specializing in research). And if you're thinking nuclear fusion, please develop it! It would change the world.

TheRedneck

a reply to: rnaa

Both Solar and Onshore wind is cheaper and faster to build and cheaper to operate than coal plants.

That's the first time I hear that.

How about the unreliability?
What are you going to do when there is no sunshine or wind? Storing isn't an option either.
I can agree both solar and wind could be used as supplements to coal but to fully replace isn't yet possible as their efficiency/reliability is just too low.
Or how about the environmental costs caused by the manufacturing of solar panels and wind turbines?
Most forget about those.
It isn't really 'green' how the raw materials are harnessed to create wind and solar or the production of batteries?

a reply to: intergalactic fire

I completely agree with solar being awesome for supplemental or specialized applications. Especially for low-voltage DC items in remote locations, it's pretty hard to beat. I use solar a good bit in my designs, including a network of WiFi repeaters to access cameras in my mountain. As long as my usage is low enough, a single lead-acid battery connected to a solar charger does the trick.

It just fails miserably when applied to large-scale industrial power. Unfortunately it seems most people have little to no working knowledge of the technology.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Solar remains one of the most expensive technologies to implement.

Wrong - see my charts that are already posted earlier. Solar is cheaper to build, faster to construct, and almost level pegged with coal on continuing operating costs - and all WITHOUT the subsidy advantage that coal gets.

Wind does a good job of generating, but only huge government subsidies keep the prices low

Renewables of any kind get almost ZERO subsidies anywhere in the world, especially in the U.S.

(while environmental regulations raise the cost of fossil fuel plants) in the US. But it is limited by area.

Coal, Gas, and Oil get HUGE subsidies EVERYWHERE in the world. Especially Coal. Especially in the US.

OK, my two assertions above are really simplistic and the actuality is much more complicated than that.

See: Wikipedia: Energy Subsidies

There are a lot of studies quoted there, and comparing then is like comparing apples to donuts. The part I want to draw your attention to is the paragraph on the International Energy Agency remarks:

Fossil-fuel consumption subsidies were $409 billion in 2010, oil products being half of it. Renewable-energy subsidies were $66 billion in 2010 and will reach $250 billion by 2035, according to IEA. Renewable energy is subsidized in order to compete in the market, increase their volume and develop the technology so that the subsidies become unnecessary with the development. Eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies could bring economic and environmental benefits. Phasing out fossil-fuel subsidies by 2020 would cut primary energy demand 5%. Since the start of 2010, at least 15 countries have taken steps to phase out fossil-fuel subsidies. According to IEA onshore wind may become competitive around 2020 in the European Union.

According to the IEA the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies, over $500 billion annually, will reduce 10% greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

All of these reports seem to include ethanol as renewable, which strictly speaking it is, but it is bar far and away the most expensive way to produce energy and exists solely as a funding source farmers. It is actually taking affordable food off the table of American consumers, and consumers world wide. A lousy trade-off I'd say.

Another report tries to show how America divides the pie:

The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:

Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

The three largest renewable fuel subsidies were:

Alcohol Credit for Fuel Excise Tax ($11.6 billion)
Renewable Electricity Production Credit ($5.2 billion)
Corn-Based Ethanol ($5.0 billion)

That list shows $26.5 billion for fossil fuel subsidies, and $5.2 billion for renewables excluding biofuel or $16.8 with the Alcohol Credit included. Corn-Based Ethanol is a vote buying exercise unrelated to renewable energy subsidy and should not be considered. I am unsure how to classify the Alcohol Credit - isn't it a way to get the price of Ethanol into the cost range of petroleum?

So I'll go with $26.5 billion for fossil fuel subsidies and $5.2 billion for renewables in 2009. Not a comparison that yields a subsidy edge to renewable energy supplies in any way.

If you want to argue subsidies, fossil fuels are the kings and solar and wind are competitive ANYWAY.

But it is limited by area.

Yeah, wind isn't for everywhere.

And if you're thinking nuclear fusion, please develop it! It would change the world.

Don't hold your breath. Fusion has been "5 to 10 years" away for the last 50 years and it will be so for the next 50 at least. I don't like fission either, but there are at least some useful improvements coming along. They will be hellaciously expensive though, and decommissioning the current inventory (many of which are nearing end of life) is going to be a fiscal and physical nightmare.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The panels themselves are astronomically priced relative to the amount of power they produce.

Photovoltaic panels are not the only kind of solar generation at the moment (currently Concentrated Solar Power is cheaper) but their cost is going down rapidly. The crossover of $/MWh for PV vs CSP is 2017. By 2022, PV is expected to cost around $85/MWh against $95/MWh for coal. Onshore wind is already cost equivalent with coal and by 2022 is expected to be around $69/MWh.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

That's the first time I hear that.

Yes, many folks don't realize it because the fossil fuel industry is vocal about keeping it quiet and obfuscating the message. Please refer to the charts I have posted in previous posts; they aren't too difficult to follow.

How about the unreliability?
What are you going to do when there is no sunshine or wind?

Large-scale base load generation is not the same as rooftop generation on your home. Photovoltaic cells are not the only way to generate electricity from solar energy. The energy is often stored in some heat sink, for example molten salt maybe, for night time and no-sun use.

Storing isn't an option either.

Why not? Whole suburbs are being built TODAY that have large communal battery storage. Every building has PV panels and feed into the battery farms.

In Australia there is a skyscraper being built with 'thin-film' batteries built into the very fabric of the building. The whole building is one giant battery farm.

EDIT: Sorry I misspoke. It isn't being built yet, but Lend-Lease, one of the worlds largest construction contractors is absolutely working on it. See: ABC Catalyst: Battery powered homes See the discussion of the zinc-bromine GEL battery at the 23:30 mark. Another reference here: Australian gel-based battery technology attracts major UK finance

I can agree both solar and wind could be used as supplements to coal but to fully replace isn't yet possible as their efficiency/reliability is just too low.

That is simply not true, but there is obviously no way that the transition is going to happen overnight. The main problems are storage, as you pointed out above, and the software that is running the regional grids because the wind and solar production cycles are different to the fossil fuel production cycle and they need to be catered for carefully.

Or how about the environmental costs caused by the manufacturing of solar panels and wind turbines?
Most forget about those.
It isn't really 'green' how the raw materials are harnessed to create wind and solar or the production of batteries?

That is a very real concern, and I don't have a very good answer for that.

But what are the environmental costs caused by the manufacture and burning of coal and petroleum based fuels? Is the environmental cost of coal mines, oil platform spills, black lung disease, water table contamination, and changing the planetary ecosystem on a grand scale (i.e. Climate Change) really less than the manufacturing issues of PV cells and wind generators? Really?

a reply to: rnaa

So be it. I tire of trying to inject facts. You think you have all the answers, and nothing will ever convince you otherwise.

Someday, perhaps you will understand. Until then, I am not going to change an opinion based on years of education and experience because you found some charts.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phage

CO2 data from ice cores is "actual readings."

Ice core data is not the same as direct measurement of the atmosphere.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: rnaa

So be it. I tire of trying to inject facts. You think you have all the answers, and nothing will ever convince you otherwise.

Someday, perhaps you will understand. Until then, I am not going to change an opinion based on years of education and experience because you found some charts.

TheRedneck

I'm sorry, exactly what facts have you tried to inject? You haven't presented one fact. Not one. You have presented nothing but opinion, no fact - and your opinions comprise of recomendations to the people of third world countries that they should accept obsolete, expensive technology instead of current technology that is cheaper and quicker to build.

You haven't even tried to argue alternative interpretation to the facts that I presented. The closest you came is when you claimed that the TVA has built dirty coal plants faster and cheaper than current plants are built. Well duh. Who cares what stuff USED to cost. It ain't the same anymore, and developing nations don't want last centuries technology anymore than you do.

Your desire to stiff these countries with outdated technology just drips with colonialism and "dare I say it" against your fellow humans that used to be identified as the 'yellow hoards'.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Phage

CO2 data from ice cores is "actual readings."

Ice core data is not the same as direct measurement of the atmosphere.

Yes, actually it is exactly that.

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Phage

CO2 data from ice cores is "actual readings."

Ice core data is not the same as direct measurement of the atmosphere.

Yes, actually it is exactly that.

How can you justify that statement?
Ice core data does not have single year resolution, let alone single day resolution.
Why does the Greenland Ice core data differ from the Antarctic record?

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
"What is the norm for planet earth's CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to keep plant and animal life thriving
and flourish?"

Don't know, although I presume that even a massive increase from current levels (10x) will not directly cause plant and animal life to die off. I don't think anyone else is claiming that it will either, rather the indirect consequences are the problem.

If most of the plants(85%, C3-plants) we use for consumption would die off if concentrations dropped below 150ppm,
is it then responsible we aim for a concentration like we had before the Industrial Revolution, around 275ppm?
That's a small margin, no?

The natural world has managed to adapt to changing circumstances just fine for millions of years. It doesn't need our positive intervention to enhance it's existence. Conversely, I imagine minimising our negative intervention would be welcomed with open arms by the natural world.

Despite what some would have you believe, 150-275ppm (0.0125%?) is indeed a small margin, but rest assured, nature is up the task.

Where would we have been if we didn't add CO2 'unconsciously' into the atmosphere?
By that i mean, isn't there a possibility we are actually helping nature (at least some species) to survive?
Should we call CO2 a pollutant then?

It's not some much that we're adding CO2, but that we are adding it so fast. Anything in moderation. Gradually over time, the environment and it's inhabitants will adapt, but these adaptation skills are strained when timeframes are so restricted.

In my mind, a pollutant is something that serves no positive purpose to it's environments AND causes a negative impact on it. CO2 fails to meet this requirement and thus is definitely NOT a pollutant. One could argue quite successfully that WE are more of a pollutant than CO2.

"How many lives did we officially saved with the research, prevention or boldly the actions we undertake
against global warming? Are there any numbers available?
Does this outweigh the deaths caused by the lack of electricity?" Money better spend elsewhere?

No idea. Sorry I can't elaborate, but I really don't have an answer.

"We know now that almost every model on climate sensitivity and global warming prediction were wrong.
The actual data is far from the predictions, why aren't these scientists relieved it didn't went the way predicted?"

A couple of reasons come to mind.
1. Doesn't fit the fear agenda.
2. Don't like being wrong.
3. Don't acknowledge they are wrong.

QTA; are there members that switched camps during these years, from AGW-skeptic to AGW-believer or the other way round?
And what was the reason that made you change your mind?

Initially, I believed the propaganda being pushed by the AGW-believer crowd.

It definitely feels like the Winters are warmer and the Sun is far more penetrating in the Summer than what I remember in the past. The averages are all higher than they were. So from a personal experience perspective I have no doubt that the globe (or at least my part of the globe) is getting warmer. In addition to this, there seemed to be such a counter-agenda on behalf of Big Oil, Big Money and Big Authority to deny Global Warming that it seemed to be a no-brainer.

However, since then, a massive push (almost overnight - around 2005) has come from the pro-GW crowd. It seemed so fast and so unnatural to me given the path it seemed to be on prior to this time. At first I was wary of it, but that's all. Then they started to push Carbon-Tax solution, and that was when I started to see the light. Now I'm all for protecting the environment, reducing the dependence on fossil fuels and transitioning to renewables, but I draw the line at slapping a big tax on breathing and hoping the market will sort it out.

This was the turning point. We have an abundance of renewable options available to us right now, so if we were serious about AGW we would be using far more resources encouraging investment and research into renewables WITHOUT resorting to the worn-out method of taxation to discourage fossil fuel use.

Currently, whilst not completely convinced that we are having little impact on global warming (despite having a significant detrimental affect on many other aspects of the environment), I heavily favour the notion that no matter what we do, global warming will continue on it's current course largely independent of our actions.

As with most of the worlds ills, money is at the root of this agenda.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to participate in this discussion.

a reply to: rnaa

What facts? Pretty much everything I have said.

Let's see how you do for facts:

• What is a solar cell made of?
  
• What is the standard voltage produced by a solar cell?
  
• What methods are used to convert DC to AC power?
  
• What is the advantage of AC power transmission over DC power transmission?
  
• What are the power specifications of line voltage in the USA? In Europe?
  
• What does RMS stand for? And why is it used?
  
• Why are start and run capacitors used on high-power electric motors?
  
• Define power balancing.
  
• What is the purpose of a transformer?
  
• Define 'doping' as it relates to solar cells.
  
• What type of phase regulation is used in a wind turbine?
  
• What is the difference between a square wave, modified sine wave, and true sine wave? Explain why it even matters.
  
• Why is high voltage needed for transmission of power?
  
• What coating is used to protect solar cells from damage?
  
• How much area is required to create 500MW of power using solar cells?
  
• What is the greatest physical problem with increasing solar cell efficiency at present?

You can probably Google most of those. I don't have to. You know how to use a search engine; I understand the inner workings of (most of) the various technologies, the pros and cons, and how to design and build them.

But that's OK... you still know so much more than I do about it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

What is the greatest physical problem with increasing solar cell efficiency at present?

Interested in the answer to this one.