Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Sigmetnow

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
1
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: December 08, 2019, 10:52:47 PM »
Well it is a holding company so they can still call the factory Gigafabrik. I think it is the lure of the Ringel-s which all germans i know call the Eszett. Where else in the world can you use that nice letter?

Sort of looking forward to Tesla expanding to Wales already.  8)

2
Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but Germany ....
« on: December 05, 2019, 04:04:44 PM »
Never thought i'd live long enough to actually experience it, but here we go! \o/

Germany's Social Democrats Are Moving Left. Will it Save the Party?

As you can imagine the mainstream media doesn't like the move left. But this is IMHO the only possibility for them to survive. And the further left the better.




3
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: December 03, 2019, 07:53:01 PM »
I googled for Tesla Solar Roof with the option "News".

What a load of crap opinion with no data or evidence until I found..

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/01/tesla-is-hiring-solarglass-installers-across-the-us-in-support-of-version-3-launch/

4
Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but, China....
« on: November 26, 2019, 10:33:12 PM »

ps: Ken, how do you rate the chances of reducing CO2 emissions in 2030 by 55% (7.5% p.a.) for +1.5 celsius, 25% for +2 celsius ?

With solar and wind now cheaper than fossil fuels in about three quarters of the world (already cheaper in the developed countries and now at grid parity in China), pretty good.

Given that we're already seeing drops in global coal consumption (down 3% in 2019) and softening of demand for oil and a huge glut in natural gas, the major wildcard is how quickly battery electric vehicles take over the transportation market.  The forecast year for cost parity between BEVs and ICEs is now 2022.  So we should see peak oil demand within the decade.

I doubt we'll see a new coal power plant built after 2025 or a new natural gas power plant after 2035.  Sales of new ICE vehicles will probably be banned in most countries in the 2030s.

I suspect that we wont hit the 7.5% annual decreases needed for the 1.5 degree C target until the 2030s, but we should be able to hit the 2.0 target for emissions reductions in the 2020s and exceed them in the 2030s and 2040s.  With global temperatures increasing at around 0.18 degrees per decade and the five-year average increase around 0.9 C, we'd hit 1.5 degrees in the 2050s. So we'll end up somewhere by 1.5C and 2.0C temperature increase before looking at options for carbon dioxide removal (CDR).

When people think of CDR, they usually think of artificial leaves or other large machines to suck CO2 from the air and pipe it underground (or deep under the sea).  However, there are much better options that can be used to increase global carbon sinks from better agricultural practices, which are increasingly being used.  Look up regenerative agriculture, biochar, sustainable grazing, renewable natural gas, or reductions in methane from rice farming. 

And there are possibilities in kelp farming, with the kelp reducing acidity in the oceans and then being fed to ruminants to reduce their methane emissions.

In the past decade, a lot of progress has been made in all of these areas.  Keep that in mind when you read a gloom and doom report.  We must continue to press our leaders for more rapid changes to reduce greenhouse gases and improve carbon sinks, and we shouldn't give up hope that it can be done.


5
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 22, 2019, 11:40:49 PM »
While the closure of the huge Navajo coal plant got a lot of attention, the installation new solar farms on Tribal lands is an increasing source of revenue for the Tribes.

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/11/22/As-coal-dwindles-Southwest-tribal-solar-farms-pump-out-power/9411574198476/

Quote
U.S. News Nov. 22, 2019 / 2:30 AM
As coal dwindles, Southwest tribal solar farms pump out power
By Jean Lotus

DENVER, Nov. 22 (UPI) -- New, large-scale solar farms are bringing jobs to reservations and electricity for the first time to families living on tribal lands in remote areas of the Southwest.

Along with selling renewable energy on a large scale to cities like Albuquerque and Los Angeles, solar power generated by tribes pays for infrastructure to power up homes that have been waiting decades for electricity.

The Navajo Tribal Utilities Authority successfully brought online two large solar projects that generate 55 megawatts in Kayenta, Ariz., over the past year. The two sites now provide enough electricity to power the entire 17-million-acre reservation.

Building the two solar farms employed more than 400 people, most of them tribal members, said Deenise Becenti, the utility's spokeswoman.

Quote
"Tribal lands in the Southwest are the Saudi Arabia of solar because they're largely under-developed and undeveloped," said Karl Cates, a Santa Fe-based energy analyst for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a think tank that studies sustainable energy.

"Solar is gaining market share much faster than anyone thought it would have as recently as a year ago, and it's all market-driven," Cates said.

New Mexico's Public Regulation Commission heard a proposal earlier this month to approve the Jicarilla Solar Project, a 500-acre, 50-megawatt solar farm on Jicarilla Apache Nation tribal lands in northern New Mexico's Rio Arriba County.

Through an agreement with Public Service Co. of New Mexico, the deal will provide electricity to supply Albuquerque with 54 percent of its electric demand.

6
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 20, 2019, 08:16:46 PM »
And I think traditional auto makers can scale up their production faster than Tesla can.

Where do they get the batteries?

7
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: November 20, 2019, 08:06:26 PM »
Also, it would help if policymakers made the whole process easier for folks! 
Tesla lets you order an EV, solar and batteries with a few clicks, and they are working to get more municipalities to accept their generic electronic installation-proposal document, so permitting can take days rather than weeks.  More installers should be made able to do this.

+1

Another idea would be to subsidize people more who make their charging port public.

8
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: November 20, 2019, 07:52:57 PM »
Anecdotal but real-world home-charging reports. 
I thought this was interesting, so I decided to make my own graph. I only have one year of data for solar and one for EV/PHEV, so it's not very smooth (August is an outlier because we were away from home).

9
Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: November 19, 2019, 04:57:27 PM »
<snip>
All the tech executives tend to be raising their kids tech free.

That is very significant and should make consumerist parents scratch their heads and change their ways.

Maybe interesting in this context:

"Apple's Tim Cook says he wouldn't let a child use social media"
May I ask why the suggestion to prohibit teens from using social networks is now such big a topic in this thread? Is this an attempt to hinder Greta's work? It should be obvious that without social networking there would be no Friday for Future and only a few locals in Stockholm would have noticed Greta's school strike. Her superpower was multiplied by social media. And FFF is build on the ability to communicate effective and international.

Thus this kind of critics by some "tech executives" is a bit strange. And I would like to discuss with them directly which kind of addiction they practiced when they were in the teens. And what is the purpose of their critics? Internet only for people with drivers license or for the people of age 50+? Or for whom?

And does "tech free" include television, cars, computers, any other electrical things or only communication? What is bad with communication? No communication would be worse.

10
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: November 19, 2019, 02:00:19 AM »
The existing grid is built on receiving power from a relatively few large power sources. The grid will have to be redesigned to take power from a vast array of large and small wind and solar power plants and perhaps take power from and give power to of millions of individual houses / offices / factories.

I love this description of the challenge.  This is exactly what must be done. While doing it, we will gain resiliency for free.

11
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: November 18, 2019, 07:21:01 PM »
avoiding cascade failure

Driving the grid close to 100%


the grid must be more robust


Neil, when one reads that, they could get the impression it's hard to install plugs.

Turns out, mankind is pretty good with installing plugs. There are plugs all around you.

With 100% EVs we need 20% more power. It takes like 10-15 years to get near to this 100%. Are you really believing that mankind isn't able to install 20% more (slightly different) plugs in 15 years? C'mon...
Plugs ?
We are talking about the grid. Transmission lines, large transformers etc etc.
We are also talking about far more than 20% more power.
We are also talking about replacing the majority of current fossil fuel electricity production with renewables.

The existing grid is built on receiving power from a relatively few large power sources. The grid will have to be redesigned to take power from a vast array of large and small wind and solar power plants and perhaps take power from and give power to of millions of individual houses / offices / factories.

This will take real money and real hands-on management. Both are in short supply.

C'mon. Plugs- really.

12
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: November 18, 2019, 03:33:00 AM »
This is why Terry is on my ignore list .
He is full of it and adds nothing of any value .

Terry has in the past claimed he lives in an apartment specifically he said he would stop anyone installing a charger in his basement garage due to fire risk.

How much do solar panels cost for the average house in California in 2019?
Quote
As of November 2019, the average cost of solar panels per watt in California is $3.45/watt. A typical 6000 watt (6 kW) solar system is $20,673 before the federal solar credit and $14,471 after claiming the federal solar tax credit.
More panels installed the less the cost per W.
 https://www.solarreviews.com/solar-panels/solar-panel-cost/cost-of-solar-panels-in-california

Average mileage driven in the USA.
Quote
According to United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Americans now drive an average of 13,476 miles per year. Nov 1, 2018

 Tesla Model 3 Standard Range Plus - 253 Wh/mile(157 Wh/km) EPA

13476/ 365 = 37 miles per day. Miles driven times 253 Wh = 9.4 kWh

At only 3 hours direct sunlight daily  a 4 KW array would easily provide for the average users transport needs.

Full of shite....


13
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: November 18, 2019, 03:16:40 AM »
The more rapidly EV's take over, the sooner someone needs to come up with buckets of cash needed for new infrastructure - at a time when the infrastructure now in place can't be maintained.

Regardless, my argument didn't address any specific EV manufacturer or the suitability of their particular vehicles. If California skewes it's purchases in favor of the PHEV/Hybrid segment my grid argument will fall on its face. If however the governor's edict swings purchases heavily in favor of BEV vehicles, then PG&E and others will need to find bankers with deep pockets who are willing to bet that the utilities can handle a very large, very rapid buildout while remaining solvent and paying their debts.

Lower costs/mile driven regardless of what you're driving is a Wonderful Vision, but just how this occurs while electrical suppliers face the staggering costs of rapid expansion & fossil fuel suppliers face costs associated with lower sales volume must be far beyond my pay grade.

California's addition to the already rapid growth of BEVs simply requires an equally large addition to California's already stretched electrical grid.

Gerontocrat's excellent chart shows that the largest addition to California's grid comes not from solar, wind, or renewables, but from importing ever larger quantities of electricity from outside the state. This isn't cheap and it may not be sustainable if the surrounding states find that domestic EV usage is cutting into their exportable power.

Who is going to lend them money for a massive expansion when they can't even cover their existing liabilities?

Terry, your whole argument is centered about a repeat assumption (underlined in the quotes above) that I recommend to check, as I believe it is simply wrong. The California electrical system is undergoing a slow contraction for the past few years, even while EVs are added in large numbers throughout the state. (I would not be surprised at all if PG&E's problems stem from this very fact - their business is shrinking while their infrastructure requires constant maintenance.) Part of the reason for the contraction is the addition of solar behind the meter (BTM), whether by EV owners or by others. The other reason is increased energy efficiencies.

For PG&E a rapid growth in EVs could potentially be the savior - the grid is already there, and for the same infrastructure could deliver many more GWh for EV charging, which is especially done during the night (time of lowest grid usage) or during office hours for those charging at work (time of the solar peak). This is almost ideal for a utility which gets paid by delivered GWh. A rapid buildout in the grid will only be needed much later, and quite possibly the extra demand from EVs is exactly what could pay for this expansion when it is finally needed.

California saw a peak of total system generation (in-state plus imports) of 302,000 GWh in 2012, after the recovery from the Great Recession. Since then it was mostly downhill, and in 2018 came in at 285,000 GWh. In the meantime solar BTM in 2018 was estimated at 13,500 GWh, roughly similar to the missing system generation. In-state generation (excluding solar BTM) fluctuated around 200 GWh during the period, mostly dependent on changes in precipitation (=hydro power).

On the other hand, in 2012 California had 12,000 EVs, while in 2018 the number grew to 286,000 EVs (and 237,000 plug-in hybrids). According to your assumption electricity demand should have rapidly expanded. However, quite the opposite happened. Maybe EV owners compensated by installing solar behind the meter. But be that as it may, your scary scenarios are not playing out in real life.

Sources:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_electric_vehicles_in_California#Sales_and_market_share

14
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 18, 2019, 02:34:20 AM »
Quote
That truth said, they are already losing ground,

If this is losing ground I would  hate to see winning ......


Your idea of truth is only your delusions showing.




15
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars Part Deux
« on: November 17, 2019, 04:27:37 AM »
Quote
SimCity is often deployed in an educational context, integrated in some higher-ed and K-12 curricula. And it’s by far the most visible “face” of urban planning. Copies of SimCity were preloaded on computers bound for India during the One Laptop Per Child program, a techno-optimistic initiative to solve rural education deficits by giving every child a computer. An educational version of SimCity called SimCityEDU leads children through a series of challenges like planning school bus routes, “increasing jobs,” or reducing air pollution. 

But only certain kinds of cities are possible in SimCity and its successors. The city of your dreams must be car-centric, modernist, and usually grid-based. Vehicles in SimCity conveniently don’t emit pollution, or even need parking: When cars reach their destinations they simply disappear.

The disappearing cars of the simulated city are a way to make the game more accessible by preventing eternal gridlock. But they also elide many of the most heated debates in real-life urban planning. Parking spaces are battlegrounds, and drivers fight for them against more bike or pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. Students playing the base game or the educational version of SimCity are presented with an environment where cars are neutral, unproblematic, and essential, rather than a deliberate policy choice.

Other elements of SimCity are more troubling. Worker sims have no permanent homes. They cycle endlessly between whatever businesses or dwellings have available slots. Homeless sims are created when a house becomes “abandoned” due to falling property values. These sims lose their identity, gender, and “citizenship” within the game. They wander aimlessly between public spaces and abandoned buildings, eating garbage on their way. They cannot be helped, only removed through stringent trash collection and bus depots out of town. Race, social mobility, real estate speculation, and community aren’t simulated at all. Omissions like this aren’t just matters of design. Their absence from the game is a statement of its own.
currentaffairs.org/2019/10/education-gamification

16
Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: November 16, 2019, 02:55:16 PM »
We are living in a world of change. Adults can't guide the kids through this. We don't know the internet, it's too new and ever-changing. It's a whole new cultural technique we have to learn as humanity as a whole. And then climate change. We know nothing. We can only assume.

The kids feel that. No fucking wonder they are insecure.

It's time to listen to the kids for once. Let's be insecure together.

No. It's time for parents to wake up and take the smartphones away from their kids.
Kids don't need smartphones.

They need a dumb phone so they can communicate with parents as needed. Yes, they may send sms's also.

Plus a strict limit on screentime. 40 minutes per day. After schoolwork is done.

That will give your kids back to you, among other positive effects.

Kids will scream at first and protest at your new regime, but they will accept it. And eventually they will enjoy being different.
OK, Boomer.
😁

17
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: November 15, 2019, 11:53:03 PM »
Fracked shale wells deplete quickly, often losing 75% to 90% of their initial producing capacity within a year.  So to keep production level, oil and gas companies need to be constantly drilling new wells to replace production losses due to the rapid depletion.  In the US, hundreds of fewer wells are being drilled this year compared to last year.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-Rig-Count-Crashes-Again-Loses-Nearly-100-Rigs-In-3-Months.html

Quote
U.S. Rig Count Crashes Again: Loses Nearly 100 Rigs In 3 Months
By Julianne Geiger - Nov 15, 2019, 12:20 PM CST

The US oil and gas rig count continued its downward slide this week, according to Baker Hughes, as the rig count piles on a string of losses with a drop of 11 rigs for the week, according to Baker Hughes.

For oil rigs specifically, this week marks eleven decreases out of the last thirteen weeks, falling 96 rigs in that timeframe.

The total oil and gas rig count now stands at 806, or 276 down from this time last year.

The total number of active oil rigs in the United States decreased by 10 according to the report, reaching 674. The number of active gas rigs fell by 1 to reach 129.

Oil rigs have seen a loss of 214 rigs year on year, with gas rigs down 65 since this time last year.

18
Policy and solutions / Re: Robots and AI: Our Immortality or Extinction
« on: November 15, 2019, 08:59:51 PM »
It'll be nice to program the car I'm in to go the speed limit, and then leave the driving to AI.
Then I only have to deal with my exploitation of resources funded by past exploitation accumulations.

19
Policy and solutions / Re: Better Tomorrows
« on: November 14, 2019, 07:13:08 PM »
Software Helps Planners Design Walkable Cities
https://techxplore.com/news/2019-11-software-planners-walkable-cities.html
https://www.urbano.io/

Walkable cities reduce traffic congestion, which causes around 3.3 million deaths and $121 billion in economic losses every year. But when architects are developing pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, they often rely on trial and error, intuition or specialized simulations that are hard to use and to incorporate into their designs.

Urbano, a free software package launched Oct. 26 by Cornell researchers, employs data, metrics and an easy-to-use interface to help planners and architects add and assess walkability features in their designs as effectively as possible.

The tool is the product of a collaboration between the College of Architecture, Art and Planning's Environmental Systems Lab, which Dogan directs, and the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering in the College of Engineering.

The researchers sought to create a tool that works well with the design process, which can be fast, messy and circuitous. Simulations that are difficult to perform or take too long to produce aren't practical, Dogan said.

"We worked on new algorithms that are fast," he said. "We worked on user interfaces that are intuitive. And we made sure the software can be integrated smoothly into the design process, so from the very first ideas and sketches you can get some feedback and nudge the design in the right direction."

Urbano relies on three metrics to assess walkability: Streetscore, which calculates how streets are used for certain routes; Walkscore, a customizable measurement that rates whether popular amenities are within walking distance of homes and workplaces; and AmenityScore, which considers demographics to estimate the usefulness of various services.


Walkscore (Brewster et al. 2009) is a walkability rating on a scale of 0-100 based on the proximity to different amenities. Urbano allows customized weighting to compute a personalized Walkscore or to adapt the amenity demand to local and demographic preferences indicated by ADP.

Urbano- A New Tool to Promote Mobility-Aware Urban Design, Active Transportation Modeling and Access Analysis for Amenities and Public Transport. Conference: SimAUD 2018, At Delft, Netherlands

https://www.urbano.io/

20
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 14, 2019, 12:49:01 PM »
Save your money. The report is as worthless as used toilet paper.
 IEA is totally  incompetent at projecting future energy use and renewable generation.

The E Tron one of the worlds less efficient electric SUV's has an EPA rating of  283 Wh/km or 74 MPGe
A BMW X3 SUV does 25  MPG EPA.
I doubt you will even be able to buy a new mainstream  ICE car by 2040 in the developed world.
Economics will kill ICE  before governments do.
EV's are projected to become directly cost competitive long before 2030.

21
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 04, 2019, 12:28:37 PM »
Solar Electric Air Heater! (100W 12V) - 100W Solar Panel runs it! - PV space heating!! Ez DIY


22
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 02, 2019, 03:58:50 PM »
Can You Survive Off-Grid with Tesla Solar & Powerwalls?


23
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: October 24, 2019, 05:52:15 PM »
It will become obvious that certain areas of Calif. are very fire prone and cutting off power may actually decrease the number of fires caused by utility wires in those areas. It is a choice between risk and dependability ( bau ) and who pays the bill.
 At this point even if the blackouts are called off there are going to be lots of people adding batteries to their solar systems, there are also going to be many more who add a gas generator. This shift will make people more independent and collectively , with blackouts ,should reduce fire risks. In addition the cost of this transition will be borne by those people who live in high fire risk areas. People might even start to think they can stay and fight the fires with their own water and fire control systems. They might even start to think about where they build their homes or whether they should rebuild .
 Archimid, If there are still fires during blackouts PG&E or SCE won’t be liable to pay the costs. If they leave the power on they will be liable. From a corporate perspective it’s a no brainer. 
 

24
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: October 22, 2019, 02:05:51 PM »
Quote
What can they do?

Wait until prices are low enough. The more rich and middle-class people buy these systems, the cheaper they will become.

  If we are talking about homeowners living in poverty, once these systems become so good that they become part of the house like water heaters the initial cost of the system will be included in the mortgage.

 If we are talking about renters or people that live in government housing, once again the problem is on the people owning the housing, wether it is government, corporation or other not so poor people.

That is precisely the reason I cheer for Tesla with all my heart. If they succeed the chances that I, a relatively poor person, can achieve energy independence increase exponentially. Once energy is secured the most important layer of security against climate change is covered.

CO2 benefits are just the cherry on top.

27
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: October 16, 2019, 11:12:42 AM »
Fuel cells for cars are a dead end.
Hydrogen production, storage and compression  is inefficient use of power and always will be because unalterable laws of physics .
No infrastructure extremely costly to provide .
Limited charge capacity of refueling stations.
Limited life expectancy of the cells themselves .
Last but not lest.
Hydrogen is  highly explosive as recent events have proven .
These factors are uncontroversial and easy to work out if you are not blinded by your  dislike of battery electric cars. 
 

28
Policy and solutions / Re: Global economics and finances - impacts
« on: October 15, 2019, 07:42:34 PM »
The investors of the $13.4 billion University of California endowment and $70 billion pension fund are divesting from fossil fuels.  The reasons aren't political pressure but that the investments are too risky.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-09-16/divestment-fossil-fuel-university-of-california-climate-change

Quote
We are investors and fiduciaries for what is widely considered the best public research university in the world. That makes us fiscally conservative by nature and by policy — “Risk rules” is one of the 10 pillars of what we call the UC Investments Way. We want to ensure that the more than 320,000 people currently receiving a UC pension actually get paid, that we can continue to fund research and scholarships throughout the UC system, and that our campuses and medical centers earn the best possible return on their investments.

We believe hanging on to fossil fuel assets is a financial risk. That’s why we will have made our $13.4-billion endowment “fossil free” as of the end of this month, and why our $70-billion pension will soon be that way as well.

Quote
So what’s the bottom line?

In April 2014, when Jagdeep arrived to become UC’s chief investment officer, UC Investments had a total of $91.6 billion in assets under management. As of June 30, the total portfolio stood at $126.1 billion. In five years, that includes $2.4 billion in value added above our benchmarksand a savings of $1 billion in reduced costs of management.

During that same time frame, we made no new investments in fossil fuels and four years ago, we sold our exposure to coal and oil sands. We found them too risky — and it’s worth noting that Jagdeep joined UC from one of Canada’ sovereign wealth funds in the heart of the oil sands region. We continue to believe there are more attractive investment opportunities in new energy sources than in old fossil fuels.

29
Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: October 12, 2019, 11:45:39 AM »
They created a rechargeable world

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/

Quote
The 2019 Nobel Prize in Chemistry are awarded to John Goodenough, M. Stanley Whittingham and Akira Yoshino “for the development of lithium-ion batteries”. Through their work, they have created the right conditions for a wireless and fossil fuel-free society, and so brought the greatest benefit to humankind..




30
Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: October 10, 2019, 06:39:01 PM »
Poland is importing record amounts of electricity because it costs less than the domestically produced coal power.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-poland-energy-imports/polands-cleaner-power-imports-pile-pressure-on-coal-energy-idUSKBN1WP256

Quote
WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland is on track to import a record amount of electricity this year as power traders buy cheaper and cleaner electricity from neighboring countries, reducing demand for the mostly coal-fired energy produced by state-run utilities.

Quote
The majority of Poland’s electricity imports this year came from Sweden and Germany, where average wholesale prices in the first half of the year were 175 zlotys ($44.71) and 165 zlotys per MWh respectively compared to 229 zlotys in Poland.

Exports amounted to 2.9 TWh and 4.2 TWh in 2018 and 2017 respectively. Until 2014, Poland exported more energy than it imported.

Analysts said that while Poland continues to produce most of its electricity from coal, prices will be higher than in neighboring countries, which use more green energy sources.

31
Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: October 09, 2019, 04:35:38 PM »
sigmetnow picked up the latest lunacy from the USA EPA

Here it is & my reply. Also sent this stuff to The Guardian & the UK Extinction Rebellion Press Office
______________________________
Re: Oil and Gas Issues

From: Sigmetnow on Today at 02:19:07 AM

"There Is Not a Climate Crisis': Trump Administration Spouts Brazen Bullshit to Justify Arctic Drilling"

...attorneys with the Sierra Club stumbled upon this tidbit:

“The BLM does not agree that the proposed development is inconsistent with maintaining a livable planet (i.e., there is not a climate crisis). The planet was much warmer within the past 1,000 years, prior to the Little Ice Age, based on extensive archaeological evidence (such as farming in Greenland and vineyards in England). This warmth did not make the planet unlivable; rather, it was a time when societies prospered.”

This text was included five times in this section of the final environmental impact statement in response to public comments legal group Trustees for Alaska submitted. All the All group’s comments revolved around the role drilling in the Alaskan refuge could have in making climate change worse.

This is the first time that the Sierra Club and its partners have identified the use of such blatant climate-denying language in an official federal environmental analysis. Government officials, including Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler and even President Donald Trump, have said such things before, but an environmental impact statement is more than words. It’s the legal support for a project. ...
https://earther.gizmodo.com/there-is-not-a-climate-crisis-trump-administration-spo-1838444325/
___________________________________________
gerontocrat

That might be what is required for a court to set aside the Government's impact statement by accepting the fact of climate change and its impact. There is precedent for such a judgement.

The reality or not of climate change might end up in the US Supreme Court.
____________________________________________________
E-Mail Sent
<gerontocrat@gmail.com>
13:57 (1 hour ago)
to press (Extinction Rebellion)

If you don't want to believe that there is a war going on between the people and the powerful, don't read on...

...... " Listen To The Scientists"

This is the latest from Trump's Environment Protection Agency in their final Environmental Impact Statement justifying resuming drilling in The Arctic , and I quote...

“The BLM does not agree that the proposed development is inconsistent with maintaining a livable planet (i.e., there is not a climate crisis). The planet was much warmer within the past 1,000 years, prior to the Little Ice Age, based on extensive archaeological evidence (such as farming in Greenland and vineyards in England). This warmth did not make the planet unlivable; rather, it was a time when societies prospered.”
As the Sierra Club stated...

This is the first time that the Sierra Club and its partners have identified the use of such blatant climate-denying language in an official federal environmental analysis. Government officials, including Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler and even President Donald Trump, have said such things before, but an environmental impact statement is more than words. It’s the legal support for a project. ...
Sources:-

Arctic Sea Ice Forum...

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,861.msg232459.html#msg232459

https://earther.gizmodo.com/there-is-not-a-climate-crisis-trump-administration-spo-1838444325

I think the Extinction Rebellion people need to know how really bad it really is.

32
Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: October 09, 2019, 03:30:19 AM »
Sig, I don’t know fat boy slim but that was quite the video !  A lot of angst though , careful with that.

33
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 06, 2019, 11:16:35 AM »
For some reason, the Dutch bought 10% of all Teslas produced.

Makes it the most sold car in the country.

34
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 06, 2019, 05:39:45 AM »
I imagine this is how some of the bears in here will react the first time they see Smart Summon.


35
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 05, 2019, 06:55:53 PM »
The level of discussion here is not very high unfortunately. As Tesla is a very polarizing subject, it seems haters gonna hate, lovers gonna love, almost no matter what. I would strongly recommend the strong believers on both sides to avoid reacting to opposing one-sided posts. This will greatly simplify and shorten this thread, and innocent bystanders can still read both sides and form their own opinions.
If someone solely posts positive comments on Tesla, or solely negative comments, no need to react with a countering comment. I am sure the readers already know who is who, and can filter accordingly. I am also sure each poster is certain his/her position is objective while the other is totally irrational. Just leave it at that.

Myself, I try hard to avoid reacting to unbalanced posts, unless I feel I have something to say that merits breaking the vow of silence, or when my resolve weakens. Even then I try hard to make responses short. Give some peace to those innocent bystanders.

36
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 05, 2019, 12:52:15 AM »
Just a typo. I use a Paraguayan keyboard and "t" and "p" are next to each other.



 ;D

37
Policy and solutions / Re: Bikes, bikes, bikes and more...bikes
« on: October 03, 2019, 04:58:19 PM »
Brainstorm:  a bicyclist's safety vest with a big orange heart with "I" and "Climate".

38
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: October 02, 2019, 09:54:39 PM »
Thank heaven that salt water isn't corrosive. And that raw sewage won't be flowing through restaurants or soaking into everyone's carpets. ::)


Time to move to higher ground. Permanently.

Terry


The infrastructure along our coasts that is most at risk from sea level rise are waste water systems. As these systems fail more and more frequently in urban areas, we will begin to see outbreaks of some diseases in urban areas that have not been seen since modern waste water sanitation systems were implemented.

How raw sewage can kill you...

https://www.cleansafeservices.co.uk/10-ways-raw-sewage-can-kill-you/

It will only take a few of these outbreaks to essentially destroy the real estate market in cities like Miami.

39
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: October 02, 2019, 06:41:57 PM »
He did! :)

40
Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: October 02, 2019, 05:17:08 AM »
My power walls have been up and running a couple weeks . I can watch my solar input and power uses on my Tesla app.  On most days the powerwalls contribute ~35 % and the solar contributing the remaining 65 % . 100 % solar/battery electric , on most days. When it is really cloudy the power in the powerwalls gets drawn down and two days of clouds results in power being drawn from the grid . Most days however I am putting power back on the grid while still running my home and business freezers with 100% solar/battery.
 The air conditioner is a power hog and on really hot days it can eat all the energy my solar produces.
The pressure pump for my water system uses enough energy that I can see if I left a faucet open on the app. The app is really fun !  It tells me how many kWh my home uses, how much solar is produced,
how much the powerwalls contributes but it doesn’t tell you how much power you put back on the grid .
You can figure it out subtracting power used from power produced with the excess as power to the grid.
I have to start taking meter readings and figure out how to read a “ smart meter “ . It doesn’t take long to figure out where to concentrate future energy saving projects.
 On good days my solar produces ~ 30 kWh my home uses ~ 11 kWh (65%solar/35% batt)according
to the app. The power accrues to run the 3 phase well pumps on a separate meter.  I will be looking to see what my monthly averages are when I get there.

41
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: September 30, 2019, 05:19:36 PM »
Quote
Archimid has a separate agenda - that of exaggerated the effects in order to promote action.

Wrong. My "agenda" is to portray the risk to the best of my understanding to promote action. It is not an exaggeration to say that we may be ice free in the North Pole in September next decade. It is downright likely. The consequences of this event ( or continuum of events that already started) will be catastrophic for the North Hemisphere and the world at large. We are just at the beginning of it and insurance is already failing.

The threat is as real as it gets. Fear is 100% warranted and expected. If you do not feel fear about this, then you do not understand the danger.

As Donald Trump clearly shows fear is one of the most powerful motivators of humans at a society level. Trump exploits xenophobia to make some Americans scared shitless of brown children to such an extent that they exert cruel and unusual punishment and violate their human rights to keep them away. They love it because it appeases fear, however fake the fear is, and Trump takes full advantage of it.

Fear of climate change is completely warranted. That fear will cause action, if properly channeled that fear will produce the correct action against the real threat. Denying the danger blunts the actual fear that we should have, blunting action.

Fear of real danger is very good and a necesary response to activate human defenses.

42
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: September 28, 2019, 07:33:52 PM »
Quote
In case you mean i.e. a Model 3 or a Model S Tesla, they way 1 Ton more and transport the same number of people and a similar payload over a similar distance.

Result is that the battery has to be twice as big, materials need are almost double, rubber (micro plastic) production is almost double, space on roads needed is almost double, electricity needed to move the car is double (42kw against 95kw battery back for the same achievement) etc. etc.

Quote
Numbers and factors i mentioned are rough estimates, no time and no mood to make huge calculation only to find someone who will moan over a second digit after the comma

My dear philopek, you are strongly opinionated yet not very accurate in some of your posts.
Yes, the new Zoe Electric is a great car and I hope it sells in the millions.
It just so happens that its battery is 52 Kwh, while the Model 3's battery is 50 Kwh (with a slightly longer range, so more efficient than the Zoe).
Better to stick to facts, that's all.

43
Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but, China....
« on: September 28, 2019, 06:57:42 PM »
From a geopolitical point of view it is very intelligent for China to reorient their natural gas and oil imports to friendly nations with over-land transportation. Same as attempting to ramp up domestic natural gas production. This helps remove their oil and gas imports as a weakness that the USA can utilize in a conflict (just like with Japan just before Pearl Harbour). They have also built up a very large strategic oil reserve.

They should also be going full speed with EV's as they replace imported oil with domestic electricity production (coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewables). Their removal of subsidies to EV's and the renewable sector is very short sighted geopolitically and really bad for the climate. Even at 80% coal share in electricity production EV's generate less CO2 due to the efficiency of the electrical engine (and power generating stations).

Removing subsidies actually makes perfect sense for China, although it does suck for climate. Although, it could potentially even out.

They "plant 1000 seeds", scale up, start to corner markets, and then they drop subsidies to encourage further cost efficiency, separating the wheat from the chaffe, and monopolize global markets. That's how they do it, and it's very efficient. They did it with solar, EVs, and will do it with batteries (probably). And they've cornered silicon, solar, and will outpace everyone in battery production by multiple times, while having the biggest EV market that will dominate exports to SE Asia, and anyone who imports them, as well as having a huge presence in global electric buses.

It's actually very effective, in a cutthroat kinda way. They are very good at it. I say it may even out, because they drop costs so significantly through scale, and then optimization + innovation and iteration in manufacturing. They're basically the reason why solar is as cheap as it is, and why batteries will drop in costs as well, at economies of scale. So, it's a catch 22.

What we can expect is that they'll do a "tick, tock" type installation with renewables. They're also going to scale up offshore wind with all their coastal population. By tick tock, I mean they installed a large amount, now they're letting domestic suppliers scale up massively and corner markets, also dropping costs, and when this new expansion has optimized processes and cost efficiency with a whole bunch more supply, they'll do another series of large installs, so it doesn't hamper their global supply too much and they maximize value domestically.

It also has the effect of letting them catch up on grid utilization. As can be expected, they had a good amount of grid problems adding all those renewables, lot of curtailment, bottleneck issues, transmission/distribution. A period of slower growth means they can alleviate some of these issues, while letting them plan better for the future. In the near term, they'll likely be adding grid storage while building their grid, to try and get the most effective options, to aid in transmission/distribution and ancillary services for example.

I guess the positive with China is knowing that they actually want energy independence. Besides the global markets, their rate of oil consumption was projected to be astronomical, which has pushed them towards EVs more. Removing subsidies was actually to reduce costs as fast as possible. No one should be too surprised if they renew some EV subsidies in the future, when their markets stabilize a bit and EVs are even more cost efficient and producing more at scale.

It's no surprise about natural gas, it allows them to flex their muscles in Central Asia as well as strategic agreements in the Middle East, part of the Belt n Road. It also allows them to get plentiful of cheap supply, and to them it's less damaging than coal, so it's a win/win for them as it also helps influence + good faith with all those countries as well as pipelines and $$.

I don't really agree with their methods, but removing subsidies has been an effective way to reduce costs. They'll probably renew some of them at a later date. They know their current rates of consumption are basically unsustainable, so that's a silver lining I guess. There is a method to their madness though, so we'll see. If the world goes into a recession, it will probably hurt renewables + EVs, but I imagine we'll see efforts pick up again in the near future. Hopefully, anyway.

44
Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: September 27, 2019, 07:19:36 PM »
GE is shifting from producing turbines for steam plants (i.e. coal and natural gas) into batteries for renewable plants.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/27/ge-renewable-energy-wins-battery-storage-contracts-in-california-south-australia/

Quote
General Electric profits have been hammered recently because a large part of its business involved supplying generating systems powered by steam. As the world transitions to renewable energy, steam turbines are less and less in demand and GE’s business has suffered as a result.

But the company is reinventing itself as a provider of grid scale energy storage systems and has recently received two important contracts — one to provide a total of 100 MWh of battery storage at three locations in California and another for 300 MWh of storage in South Australia.

45
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: September 26, 2019, 01:06:16 PM »
Ugly bag of mostly water rif?

46
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 25, 2019, 10:48:50 PM »
Nirvana fallacy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.[1] It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.

By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better".

47
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 25, 2019, 08:44:40 PM »
Totalitarian ?

YES, it's necessary but you don't get it

Democracy at it's current stage is bankrupt and doomed and will lead to less benevolent totalitariism than my totalitarian proposal to put limits to private transport.

You want changes but refuse anything that has a REAL effect which is why nothing happens, hence you are guilty hypocrites.
I am not sure who the bolded statement refers to, but as it's plural I'll make a response.
Pardon me but I think this statement is not logical. Is the reason that nothing happens really because WE want changes but WE refuse radical solutions with REAL effects? Or maybe because so many OTHERS don't want changes, don't see the need for changes, and don't bother to read your posts or mine on the ASIF?
I would love radical solutions with REAL effects that would actually be deployed. But shooting down partial solutions that can actually get implemented (with severe limitations: too slow, requiring new resources etc.) - just because someone thought of a better and more radical solution that will not actually get implemented - is not logical. In fact, I think it's a bit hypocritical, stopping a small improvement because it's not a big improvement, while the big improvement does not have wide support and is therefore imaginary.
WE are not stopping the radical solutions. WE know they are needed, WE advocate for them, but WE also note they are not happening at the present time, and are not expected to happen in the near future, so WE also support something very partial - but REAL - while still hoping for the radical solutions to find wide support in the future.

Note: I happen to agree that benevolent totalitarianism could be a solution out of the current problem, and that humanity will probably devolve to non-benevolent totalitarianism when the problem plays out in its full manifestation. But how will you achieve this benevolent totalitarianism? Is this a REAL solution with a REAL effect that will be deployed tomorrow? I think not.

Note 2: I support a tourist flight ban, a big home ban, a big car ban, a general luxury ban, a big family ban etc., despite the personal pain it might cause me or my family. But can I use these ideas to prove that nothing else needs to be done? No, because there isn't wide support for these, ergo they will not get implemented, and we are left with the partial and poor solutions.

Note 3: Trying desperately to tie this discussion somehow to the thread's topic, I think there are posters here who truly believe that because of Tesla the radical solutions are not implemented. But these posters are wrong, people support Tesla not because they think this is a complete solution, but because they think a partial solution is better than no solution at all. So best use this thread for its purpose, discussions on Tesla's success or failure.

48
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: September 24, 2019, 05:57:29 PM »
The beginning of the end of the fossil fuel companies?

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-47-Trillion-Death-Sentence-For-Oil-Gas.html

Quote
The $47 Trillion Death Sentence For Oil & Gas
By Cyril Widdershoven - Sep 23, 2019, 5:00 PM CDT

The future of hydrocarbons is becoming bleak if plans presented by international banks, representing around $47 trillion in value, will be fully implemented.

Around 130 international banks, all present at the UN climate change summit in New York, have committed themselves to decrease their support and investments in the oil and gas sector the coming years. The banking groups have signed the so-called Principles for Responsible Banking, which entails a promise by financial institutions to fully support the implementation of the Paris Agreement, by decreasing hydrocarbon investments while promoting renewables. This statement is going to be a major earthquake for oil and gas companies, threatening upstream and downstream operations worldwide, forcing oil & gas producers to either reduce their impact on the environment or to seek new sources of investment. It is already becoming more difficult for oil and gas companies to find new financing, and on top of this, a large group of institutional investors, representing a value of $11 trillion, are already actively divesting their oil and gas assets.

International banks, such as Deutsche Bank, ABNAmro, Citigroup, Barclays, and ING, are joining the framework. Under the title of action against global warming, the largest financial institutions now seem to be headbutting oil and gas operators. The impact of activist shareholders and NGOs is sending shockwaves through the sector. If the framework is successfully implemented, the hydrocarbon sector shouldn’t fear unrest in the Middle East, but rather their current financiers.

49
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 24, 2019, 11:50:36 AM »
I think Tesla should open the Supercharger network to other cars, probably at a higher price than for Tesla cars. The network is subsidized by the purchase price of the cars, so expecting the same price would be unreasonable. I hope they do so ASAP.
I also think thete should be a lot more public chargers installed proactively, so that EV owners will not have to compete with each other.
OTOH, I don't think the 240-mile M3 SR+ has a too-large battery. Tesla's goal has always been to build cars that are desired and bought by normal people, and not just die-hard environmentalists and EV enthusiasts who might settle for any inconvenience. This way there is a better chance of mass deployment of EVs. The performance versions (and Models S, X) are over-specced but they fund the cheaper models, so I think it's unfair to blame the company as elitist for building such models and for not opening their network, while wondering when they will stop losing money.

50
Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but Germany ....
« on: September 21, 2019, 01:44:46 PM »
Germany has (or at least used to have) in its blood and bone the memory of the hyperinflation of the 1920s, that lead to the rise of Hitler & then.......

After WWII the national effort in W. Germany to rebuild the economy and make enough money to repay Marshall Aid was quite extraordinary.

Until the Euro, German economic and financial policy had just one over-riding objective - maintaining the value of the D-Mark - avoiding inflation. They still resist any move that weakens the Euro, and most Germans wish they still had the D-Mark (Deutschmark), and do not like QE (Quantitative Easing).

That is why they will not spend more than they earn. Germany's  Government runs a budget surplus, they have a trade surplus. So there is an emotional resistance to the Government borrowing required to accelerate green energy.

And remember, Chancellor Merkel is from East Germany, which had a very rough time before, during and after unification. After that, indulgence in possibly reckless financial behaviour is just not on.

Mind you, I hope that Germany does embrace the financial and economic logic of getting on with moving to zero-carbon at a faster rate.
____________________________________________

ps: It would be nice if Alexander555 could keep his obviously racist agenda to himself.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11