Anyone else notice an anti green energy movement starting to form? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 15, 2020, 03:48:57 pm
content: It seems to be running more and more rampant, it's always the same lame excuses too like:"We don't have the infrastructure!" (so uhh, build it? But really, we do have it already)"Lithium mining harms the environment!" (and oil does not?)"How will you heat your house without gas?" (that's the whole point of moving to green energy, to find alternatives)"You can't make plastic without oil!" (nobody says we need to stop using oil for materials)"Your electric car produces more CO2 than gas!" (they usually base it on a worse case scenario like places that still use coal)etc...Am I the only one that just gets super frustrated with those kind of people? You try to correct them and they just have an answer for everything. This could maybe make a good debunking video actually... with all the proper calculations and what not.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 15, 2020, 03:54:28 pm
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on December 15, 2020, 03:48:57 pmI don't think we should move to green energy and thenfindalternatives--it goes the other way around. Put the alternatives in place first. Legislating the demise of an existing system (gas) in order to push the development of 'alternatives' is a bit reckless and silly.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 15, 2020, 03:59:04 pm
content: Yeah of course, I did not really state that in the order it should happen.Thats the problem I have with carbon taxes too, it's basically punishing people for using fossil fuel, without providing alternatives. We need to find alternatives, and make them available. In some cases they do exist (ex: EVs for transportation) but they are not really as easily available due to price and variety. (Ex: no EV trucks on the market right now) so these are things that need to change to make it more available.In the case of heating, hydro is the way to go, it's just too expensive so that needs to be fixed. A lot of what drives hydro prices is politics and not really technical. Like here in Ontario there's tons of politics about how the power grid is managed and the prices keep going up because of bad decisions. This is all stuff that needs to be fixed. Quebec on the other hand knows what they're doing and it's viable to heat with hydro there.

author: fourtytwo42
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 15, 2020, 04:54:21 pm
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on December 15, 2020, 03:59:04 pmHydro may be the way to go in Canada but it isn't an economic alternative for many people/countries. In the UK we are rumoured to have plenty of wind but it doesn't always blow and the infrastructure is so expensive the energy is uneconomic compared to gas.

author: jonpaul
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 15, 2020, 07:26:04 pm
content: AntiEnergy: YES ANTI MATTER!Anti Green: Its called LIBERTY and CONSERVATIVE gov.Been around for centuries.....Solution:a/ nuclear plants (over 50 % energy in France for decades..)b/ Hydroc/ future: Thermonuclear fusion power, Solar microwaveJon

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 15, 2020, 08:05:17 pm
content: Quote from: fourtytwo42 on December 15, 2020, 04:54:21 pmIf only we had a government that had the guts to invest in tidal generation. The west coast has the second highest tidal ranges on the planet.

author: fourtytwo42
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 15, 2020, 08:39:21 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on December 15, 2020, 08:05:17 pmThe trouble is IMOP that by the time it was constructed in typical unfortunately British fashion once again the cost would make the electricity uneconomic, just look at all the cost overruns on every project to see what I mean or the ludicrous paybacks negotiated in cost per Mwh for private investment like some of the nuclear debacles and unfortunately it's not just energy projects, think of HS2 etc. Somehow this country has got itself into a position of not being able to deliver large infrastructure projects, I personally believe that is as a result of no investment in homegrown engineering since the 2nd world war and the country being long since taken over by bean counters and now a new wave of woke artists (artist in the cockney sense like p*ss artist).

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 15, 2020, 08:58:33 pm
content: Quote from: blueskull on December 15, 2020, 04:38:04 pmthe coal plant here from 1998 has 47% electricity efficiency, ~90% CHP with the right mix of electricity and heat

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 15, 2020, 09:30:57 pm
content: Coal probably does make a lot of sense in areas with cold climates where the heat is useful throughout a significant portion of the year. The problem with debates around anything like this is that people laser focus on one aspect and either don't see or deliberately ignore the bigger picture.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 15, 2020, 09:55:34 pm
content: Quote from: Gyro on December 15, 2020, 08:05:17 pmSetting aside the open ended question of the economics of tidal power, the extractable resource isn't that significant:http://www.withouthotair.com/c14/page_81.shtmlFlood protection should have been able to fund much of that, but the money trail gets a little fuzzy there.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 01:23:19 am
content: Quote from: james_s on December 15, 2020, 09:30:57 pmCoal doesn't make sense in any area. The problem with coal is SO2 and NOx emissions; both are toxic gasses and on top of that NOx disturbs the balance in plant variety. If you want residual heat then nuclear is a better option. World wide the use of coal kills nearly 1 million people per year -every year-. There is a good reason that fuel has been made virtually sulfur free and there are strict NOx emission restrictions. But these restrictions are not enforced on power plants so EVs which run from fossil fuels have a really hard time to compete with ICE cars when it comes to SO2 and NOx. For an EV to be on par with the SO2 emissions of an ICE car the coal fired power plants needs to have filters and be part of the electricity mix in the single digit percentages. Unfortunately that is a big picture many are missing.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 01:45:42 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on December 16, 2020, 01:38:53 amNo. If that where true then we had a much better air quality in the NL where such filters are mandatory. At some point filtering more just becomes uneconomic (IOW: electricity becomes too expensive). Just put some numbers on your statement and you'll see that you are miles off. In the NL with around 30% coal an EV produces up to 20 times more SO2 compared to an efficient ICE hybrid.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 01:46:20 am
content: Quote from: Gyro on December 15, 2020, 08:05:17 pmThe UK, France, South Korea and a few other countries have a couple of spots each where tidal seems realistic. The rest of the world has too small a tide for efficient generation from it to be realistic. Those countries blessed with a continental shelf driving a high tide can only get a small amount of their country's needs from the tidal spots that will work, and the economics don't look good. The 5 biggest tidal generator projects (not necessarily functional systems) in the world are:Sihwa Lake Tidal Power Station, South Korea - 254MWLa Rance Tidal Power Plant, France - 240MWSwansea Bay Tidal Lagoon, United Kingdom - 240MWMeyGen Tidal Energy Project, Scotland - 86MWAnnapolis Royal Generating Station, Canada - 20MWThe La Rance one is mature, so we have long term information about it. It opened in 1966. Big tides result in big coastal movements. From what I have read La Rance needs a lot of maintenance to keep it clear and functional. These schemes have the potential to be expanded, but I haven't read of anything that looks like it could expand to many gigawatts. They are quite ecologically disruptive, and they are never going to be a major contributor to any country's power needs.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 01:54:11 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on December 16, 2020, 01:38:53 amWe've burned through much of the world's high quality coal. Power stations are now burning coal with an increasing percentage of sulphur and other pollutants. Most power stations now scrub the exhaust gases, but the filter systems are not 100% effective. This is a genuine problem with coal, which will get worse as the quality of the remaining coal gets worse, unless there is major innovation in the filtering systems. A less solid reason to dislike coal is that it is largely carbon, so nearly 100% of the output is CO2. If you burn natural gas instead you get some CO2 and some water. That reduction in CO2 makes people feel better, but there is a huge amount of CO2 produced either way. Natural gas is not a real game changer.

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 02:21:00 am
content: At very least, coal plants should be converted to natural gas. Makes zero sense to use coal in the 2000's. The 1800's are long gone and there are better alternatives, even non-green. Coal is super dirty.Ideally what really needs to happen is we need to get more serious about large scale storage that can sit on the grid and store excess power and provide power as needed to balance out the grid. Basically like a large "capacitor" but that can last months. Instead of spending billions on fossil fuel related projects that money needs to go towards implementing existing storage tech, and researching better ones. One thing I always thought that could maybe work is giant fly wheels that have a motor/generator. It could either be charging a battery bank or providing power, and the flywheel would always be spinning at grid frequency and basically be able to adapt to changes quickly by inducing power into the motor, or harvesting power from it (as it would act as a generator too). This could probably all be done electronicly too but there is probably a need to have some physical inertia on the grid. Batteries are probably not the best thing for grid level storage though, do need to come up with something better I think.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 05:15:33 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on December 16, 2020, 02:21:00 amOr convert them to burning sustainably harvested wood. California has learned that if you let forests overgrow, they'll become huge flammable masses that burn out of control shortly after something starts the fire.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 06:05:20 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on December 15, 2020, 03:48:57 pmThe problem is "it's complicated".To try and do true end-to-end life cycle embodied energy calcuations for stuff like this is next to impossible.So it can often come down to hand waving belief on both sides, and it's actually very hard to discredit either side if you get down to the details.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 06:06:33 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on December 16, 2020, 02:21:00 amIt does actually, it's pentiful and cheap. That's why it's still used.

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 07:06:38 am
content: QuoteIt doesn't "form", it always existed. It wasn't until 1686 or so that Newton first presented his three laws of motion.The third one specifically stating:"that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction."QuoteSince you asked, yes, I get superfrustrated with ...both kinds of people. (although I may be slightly more biased against swedish environ-mental activists)

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 09:30:58 am
content: Quote from: coppice on December 16, 2020, 01:46:20 amDidn't the government cancel the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon project (lack of guts)?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-53566011

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 10:14:32 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on December 16, 2020, 05:15:33 amWell, burning wood directly causes a lot of dirty emissions. It is better to convert wood into a gas (methane or hydrogen for example) or liquid (ethanol) and burn the refined product.What is missing from the general debate is that 'we' are actually fighting two battles. Both CO2 and toxic emissions need to be reduced. Until now the main focus has been on CO2 reduction but this causes rise in toxic emissions if governments don't think things through thouroughly.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 10:25:43 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on December 15, 2020, 03:48:57 pmI had university teachers tell me, that if you increase the share of renewable to more than 5% in the grid capacity, the grid would crumble and break all the time. Because they are volatile, and it just wouldn't work.Years later I worked at a company (in Belgium), that was monitoring thousands of solar installations, in a country which has 8% of it's power demand made by solar. And look, the lights are on...There are people and companies with financial incentive to keep the coal rolling. They will tell you that it makes jobs and it is actually green, and so on. People lie for money, they've been doing that for ages.Around every 5MW solar installation creates a job. Maintenance, installation, monitoring, optimization, data science, you name it. And solar is cheaper than coal.Storage of energy is being solved. Germany has plan to install 5GW power to gas in the next five years. That's equivalent to 5-10 nuclear reactors. If you want to build a nuclear power plant now, it is 7-10 years from the start of the constructions, and many more years is the political lobbying and the permits.People are looking at single details and claiming that it is not possible. We have to look at the big picture and see it is inevitable.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 12:31:33 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 16, 2020, 10:25:43 amThat is interesting. I have found this article about this project:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-gas-conference-idUSKBN1Y01UIIt seems the aim is to convert electricity into hydrogen which then can be stored / pipelined to everywhere.Quote from the article:Pipeline operators said they expect the gas pipeline network can operate with hydrogen making up 10% of its fuel without major modification, and 20% with some modifications, up from less than 2% now.This way, industrial processes, home heating and heavy goods transport could be “greened” much more quickly and more cheaply than through electrifying heat pumps or battery-powered vehicles, the gas industry argues.

author: emece67
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 01:26:09 pm
content: .

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 01:38:54 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 16, 2020, 12:31:33 pmI am a huge advocate of power 2 gas. Without any financial motive, I just want this planet be better for us. It is the most logical step in the green energy policies. And we could do so much with it. I only think they should be concentrating on methane, not hydrogen*. Most cars can be converted to methane. Imagine, we could1. Install enough solar panels (do it on all the roofs, do it in the Sahara).2. Make power 2 gas plants.3. Store enough energy for winter with existing technologies. The storage of methane is cheaper than a battery.4. Convert most existing cars to run on it. It takes time to make electric cars, converting existing cars is just more economically friendly without a doubt.None of these steps require us to invent new technologies, or to use strip mine entire countries for the resources. It's just scaling up.*Hydrogen scares me, it is just too volatile.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 01:40:15 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 16, 2020, 12:31:33 pmHome heating with hydrogen is just. Who thought it's such a great idea to convert electricity to hydrogen, and then burn it. Heat with electricity directly, it's 100% efficient.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 01:47:06 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 16, 2020, 01:38:54 pmOne of the dumbest ideas ever. Methane does not make it good too. Give or take, ICE is only 30-ish % efficient. And for heating electricity to heat conversion is 100% efficient. Burning gas is not. Losing energy during conversion, and then losing again when burning it is dumb. IMHO the only viable reason for conversion is when you really need gas and it's not possible or not economical to use electricity directly.QuoteMethane cannot be liquified under ambient temperature. Thus requires a large tank under a very high pressure.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 01:50:33 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on December 16, 2020, 01:40:15 pmLooking at efficiency only is the biggest mistake people make. It is all about costs. Storing electricity is not cheap.This article suggests a price of around US$0.30 per kWh for longer term storage:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09988-zAssuming a price of around US$0.04 to generate 1kWh using wind and solar it is easy to see that trying to make the system as efficient as possible is not very economic.Hydrogen also offers the possibility to convert back to electricity and use the residual heat for heating & hot water.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 01:56:10 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 16, 2020, 01:38:54 pmSome experts are working on converting H2 to NH3 for storage and transport, and back again to H2 for consumption by fuel cells. NH3 is a very common chemical compound used in many production processes and it's much easier to handle than H2. And there's plenty of N in our air anyway. AFAIK, they are planning to build test plants at the moment.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 01:57:12 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 16, 2020, 01:50:33 pmLosing more than 50 % of energy is is not cheap either. Even with current battery technology, battery storage has proven to be economically viable.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 02:04:00 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 16, 2020, 01:38:54 pmI agree with using existing technology. However I don't think existing ICE cars can be converted economically. Gas burns hotter so NOx emission controls will need changing and the valves need to be different types. But other than that new ICE cars can easely be outfitted for use with LNG.QuoteI disagree. The amount of hydrogen in a car like the Toyota Mirai is very low. Things are different in an industrial plant where they have hundreds of kilos of hydrogen present in a single system. The 5kg of hydrogen in a Mirai isn't enough to create an explosive mixture in a small parking garage with just 8 spots.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 02:16:00 pm
content: It's an anti CHURNING movement. Entrenched corporations want CHURN, Politicians want churn, they want to keep the bad old kinds of energy but want to use "green" as an excuse to churn, here in the US, taking advantage of the naive young to do it. Pushing the existing people out and attracting the rich ones in. Especially in and near cities. Green is not sincere for their too well funded fake NGOS. They are just trying to steal the taxpayers money using bait and switch tactics, promising the young folks desperately needed jobs that will never materialize. They want to sell off the natural gas but not replace it with anything. They just want to push the people living in existing housing out and replace them using greening as an excuse to do it.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 02:17:19 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 16, 2020, 02:04:00 pmDream about that, unless you are OK with constantly burning natural gas to release pressure as it heats up or with releasing unburned natural gas into atmosphere (methane is 84 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2). Not a viable option for anything that stays turned off most of the time.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 02:22:18 pm
content: We need better batteries, or good alternatives that don't lose a lot of the stored energy. Although they do plan to ramp up export Gas heat is still much cheaper than anything else here in the US and likely will remain so for at least two or three more years unless Coronavirus is completely cured and we have a cold winter at the same time.Sites like Shale Bubble and the New York Times (on documentcloud) claim that the amounts of natural gas they claim to have have are wildly overstated. Others point out that getting out the dregs at the bottom of the metaphorical barrel would require huge declines in energy wages to extract profitably. Which to me means they should leave it in the ground for an emergency or something like that. Its a huge GHG and probably as bad as coal, according to Howarth. Nuclear has major problems too. We don't need any more fission plants, which are environmental disasters waiting to happen.The human rights model should not be expanded to apply to corporations. IMHO, there is no civil right or corporate right to frack or whatever, to extract energy even when there is a high environmental cost as they seem to be claiming there is.Indeed, there would be a much smaller cost in generating hydrogen and using existing pipes to carry that. So its best to wait a few years and not give the churners carte blanche to do whatever they want. maybe in five or ten years we'll know there is a path to hydrogen energy deliverable via gas pipes and its working well. The price of electricity is too high to use for heat and its likely to rise still more in the coming years, here in the US its likely to rise a lot.Caution in all things is smart.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 03:43:22 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on December 16, 2020, 01:47:06 pmYes, the efficiency is less than an electric car. But, it takes abut 1000-2000 EUR to buy a CNG conversion kit for my car. With the same amount of monetary investment, you can convert 30 cars to run on LNG/CNG, or make 1 EV. In the first case your reduction of CO2 emissions could easily be 10-20 times less. And you suddenly have 10-15 years to build those EVs.And heating the house with electricity: So you suggest throwing out the entire infrastructure we have, every gas heater, every power plant, and do a sudden change. I suggest to make some relatively cheap modifications to the existing systems, and run them for the remainder of their useful lifetime. It gives a breathing room.For example, I have district heating in my house. It uses waste heat from a coal power plant. The district heating company committed to replace this in the upcoming years to renewable.So I dont have to rip out all the radiators, take up all the floors and install floor heating, ans spend thousands upon thousand euros to change to electric heating, whichEveryone should understand, that batteries dont solve the energy storage, and it cannot be only and ultimate answer. If you want to store energy that is generated during the summer, and use it during the winter, you need to store the energy for months. Self discharge isn't the problem, the problem is that you only going to charge a battery 20-30 times during it's lifetime. Its not economical.When solving this puzzle, the one and only question is economics. Efficiency doesnt matter, what matters is, how much does it cost to be able to heat your house CO2 neutral during the winter. And to drive the children to school. Whatever the cheapest and easiest to implement should be implemented. This is the same issue as solar roadways. Germany seems to understand it, the Netherlands and others doesn't seem to.I have one other reason for you: Huge petrochemical companies could be onboard with this. You can convince Exon, Shell, BP and others to switch to CO2 neutral methane. Otherwise they will spend billions on marketing and lobbying (and buying the policy makers) to keep the status quo (and then nobody wins).Quote from: wraper on December 16, 2020, 02:17:19 pmAs I understand more than 2/3 of benzine powered engines can be converted to run mainly on CNG (not LNG). It uses benzine to start the engine and switches to CNG. If the CNG is CO2 neutral, than running the car is probably 95% CO2 neutral. It is still better than as is, or tossing every car into the junkyard and buying an EV.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 04:02:31 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on December 16, 2020, 02:17:19 pmThere are 20 million CNG powered vehicles in the world today. Quite a few are trucks and buses. Most are dual fuel, so the limited availability of CNG at gas stations is not an issue. I think many of the buses use low tech tank systems, as they run through their fuel quite quickly. The systems for cars keep the gas properly compressed. CNG conversions are quite cheap, so the tank and plumbing is not a piece of high technology like you need for hydrogen tanks. There is no embrittlement, like you get with hydrogen. There is no ban on parking in underground car parks, like you get with LPG. Obviously, you do lose luggage space to the second fuel tank, just like most LPG conversions.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 04:11:32 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 16, 2020, 03:43:22 pmI have extensive experience with these 'technologies' and the idea that widespread CNG/LNG conversions could work is a crack-pipe dream. The two instances where CNG works in any decent fashion are 1) fleet operators that have a fleet of specific-purpose vehicles, like buses, and a dedicated maintenance facility and staff or 2) a very-well engineered OEM vehicle like the Honda Civic NGV, which is now discontinued and probably has no peer anywhere. I've no experience with LNG, but that apparently works only for large stationary engines or in special cases, large long-haul trucks.In all other cases, CNG 'solutions' have been a complete shitshow. There has been a mass forced conversion of certain classes of vehicles in India (Delhi, specifically, is the one I have personal knowledge of) for emissions reasons and while that appears to work there, trust me when I say that solution is not exportable and the results would be completely unacceptable in any western nation. Government fleets here had to adopt a percentage of CNG vehicles back in the 90's and that was a significant operational (range, fuel availability), maintenance (engines don't like CNG unless they are specifically built for it) and safety (fire/explosion hazard, exemption from crash testing, etc) burden on the fleet operators.CNG can be made to work, emphasis on 'made'. IMO, no CNG solution is anywhere near optimal compared to competitive technologies. IMO, one overlooked idea is a hydrogen hybrid. A medium-range BEV with a small H2fuel cell and a reasonable storage tank could be an optimal solution. You charge it at home for your normal use--up to the 'medium range' limit, perhaps 100 miles or so, and then use the hydrogen to go another 200 miles or so. Then you can quickly refuel along the way if you need to go more than 300 miles at a crack. This would only require a small fuel cell to provide the average, not peak, power demand--say 20-30kW as opposed to the 100-150kW fuel cells used now. But I suspect that even that concept will quickly become a non-starter as EVs progress.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 04:28:42 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on December 16, 2020, 04:11:32 pmInteresting. In India its not just Delhi that has CNG buses. They are in most cities I have visited. India has its own natural gas supply. I suspect a lot of their motivation for using it in transport systems is to reduce imports.Quote from: bdunham7 on December 16, 2020, 04:11:32 pmEvery dual fueled car is severely compromised. Adding extra LNG or CNG tanks usually fills a lot of the boot/trunk space. PHEVs lose a lot of storage space compared to the equivalent non-PHEV model. Things like the BMW i3 has very little space for your regular shopping if you have the range extended version. That car has such severe space problems the range extender only holds a few litres of fuel. Dual fuel usually adds a lot of weight, too. I can't see a dual fuelled solution being a long term one.Don't cars like the Toyota Mirai already use a modest sized fuel cell, with a battery pack to get bursts of acceleration? I thought that was essential, because a fuel cell can't instantly go from low to high power output when you hit the floor to overtake. Also, if you don't have a battery you can't implement a KERS, and you really need that with the horrible efficiency of using hydrogen.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 04:33:47 pm
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on December 16, 2020, 04:11:32 pmThere is a widespread conversion of cars to LPG in Hungary. Almost every refueling station will sell LPG (mixture of propane and butane), and people have been driving for decades on it. Running cost is 1/2 of petrol. The tank fits in the trunk instead of the spare wheel. You have a switch to change back the ECU and piping to petrol.As I understand, the mayor difference between CNG and LPG is the pressure in the tank, it's 10 times as much, otherwise the system is pretty much the same.I would convert my car to it, but unfortunately due to the local Dutch government, I would need to pay like 4 times the tax on my car. For something that is cleaner.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 04:57:12 pm
content: LPG is normal for taxicabs in Tokyo and other large Japanese cities (since roughly 1950, I believe). I was told this was to reduce air pollution. Recent developments include LPG hybrids, and dual fuel operation. The fuel taxes are lower for LPG. Unfortunately, the large LPG tank in the trunk reduces the volume available for Westerners’ luggage.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 05:52:34 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 16, 2020, 04:28:42 pmYes, the buses, especially government run, have been CNG for a while. I was referring to the conversion of the autorickshaws, which was done in Delhi specifically for emissions reasons. I don't know about other cities.QuoteThe Mirai uses a Prius-sized NiMH battery, yes. As for dual-fuel, yes, they are usually awkward. But if you start with an electric car with an underslung battery, there's room in the frunk for the fuel cell. Now trim the battery in half and you have space for the fuel cylinders. I think it could be done, but probably not competitively with straight battery power, especially considering the current dominance of EV charging stations vs hydrogen.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 06:00:46 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 16, 2020, 03:43:22 pmYou are talking as if you buy EV just because. Not to replace an old car which you wanted to get rid of in the first place. If CNG conversion is so great, why barely anyone does it. It was available for decades. And if anything, now it's much more complicated with modern engines than before.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 06:03:56 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 16, 2020, 04:33:47 pmCNG tank pressures are 200+ bar and still have far less energy storage because methane won't liquify at room temperature.LPG systems have been around for many years, especially in rural areas where LPG is widely distributed and used by farm co-ops and so forth. Even fairly crude systems worked OK, but the running cost is likely only lower in Hungary due to the exorbitant cost of gasoline/petrol/benzine in the EU.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 06:17:10 pm
content: The "anti-green" movement is because everything has consequences. Focusing on the negative consequences of existing energy systems while ignoring any negative consequences of alternatives is foolish. Calling people "anti-green" because they ask questions or point out problems is questionable. While some fraction of the people doing this are just making excuses for not changing, another large fraction is just trying to make a sensible approach to the world.The greenest thing we could do would be to stop making babies. After a few decades of this it wouldn't matter what energy system we use. But those negative consequences would be pretty extreme.In the real world people need to be able to pay the rent and feed their kids. Green alternatives will only happen when it is compatible with those kinds of activities, and it will probably also need to be compatible with tipping a mug at the local pub.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 06:19:12 pm
content: Know that not long ago pieces of an ugly treaty which was represented to have been withdrawn have been brought back again and again, out of the publics sight, leading me to suspect strongly that treaty provisions forcing "energy source neutrality" to use whatever they want, nullifying any environmentally significant legislation, were also being brought back, so they canuse green as the bait in a bait and switch.And that then there would be nothing people could do about it it being forced on them at the supranational (above voters and human voting) level.Nuclear, fossil fuels, whatever they want. Treaties are like that.So don't be surprised if youre asked to swallow some green thing or maybe you wont even be asked, you'll just get something else entirely, because of some "we get to lie like crazy to you" or "total voter nullification" clause. Thats the world we live in today.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 06:48:37 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on December 16, 2020, 06:17:10 pmLet me attempt to somehow explainchurning...QuoteThey are trying to survive, and they have every reason to see that change OF ANY KIND is often weaponized by the powerful to grab all the value that others have worked to create and steal it.People dont realize how the world is .in a non-captured world, I would see things entirely differently than I do here, now in this totally captured world where nothing is even remotely as its represented.I am antichurningbecause I know how disastrous it always is for almost everybody.(explanation of global capture guaranteed to be too controversial omitted for brevity)QuoteWell, thats been used to justify huge changes that will not work out as you have described at all. For anybody.That is one of the (very many) arguments -people in developed nations are not having enough babies. There are many of these justifying arguments for global pillage, this has resulted in the powers that be largely agreeing that "we're cheating companies of their rights to make full use of the value of their investments". So we're all (our burdensome expectations we have of them) seen as being in the way now. Thats our problem for wanting a better life, we dont understand that (democracy!) is / was something they felt forced to say, to promise, so no longer binding, because it was unfair to them, as we have such a large numerical advantage when voting, they have nullified the system at a higher level. ( look up the word "majoritarianism" or "mob rule".The problem is, with all the media captured, at least here in the US (6 corporations own most all the media) a well organized cohesive group pretending to be both sides can basically manipulate everything. I'm sure the same applies in most of the other developed countries, with less and less variation of independence allowed. Any factual information that contradicts the party line is attacked without mercy. People who are familiar with totalitarianism recognize this as what it is.We're not respected, we're viewed as a thing to be exploited maximally and manipulated.They wont ever be honest about this but that's how they see us. They wont discuss it with you unless they see you as on their side. They know explaining it would be hopeless and that you (and I) would never understand or approve.QuoteUnfortunately, as far as I know, there is no such law on the books in the US, anywhere. Nor are there rights to any kind of equity in society. A new question we need to ask is, should there be, if jobs are going away, its stupid to demand that people do jobs which can be done much more cheaply by machines. Rich people are seeing the whole rationale they have for being rich's underpinnings threatened by the declining need fr paying people to work to do unpleasant things, within the next couple of decades, and they have no answer under the system we have today, nor does any easy solution present itself because what is demanded of all of us is a whole new way of looking at humanity and our place in the world. And especially future. Who are we? Why are we here?QuoteYes, I totally agree, we all have to see things from one another's perspectives to solve this mess.. and metaphorically tip the mug together - share a meal together. Realize that all of our hopes and dreams matter.Whats in the way is the kind of entitlement lust that sets up unfixable zero sum games..We have to understand that churning, in a slow or fast economy is seen as an entitlement. (for different reasons, but its a typical heads I win, tails you lose circular argument, one which shows up a lot in trade deals, the real constitution of the world NOW.)They dont embed all the unwritten rules yet but are starting to..Territories are expected to deliver a certain yield. (the maximum they could) call it a return on the investment. Communities that are not bringing in enough incomes for the applicable moneymakers - if conditions are favorable for the churners (thats where green comes in, older buildings, will be framed as blight, and obsolete and taxpayers money used to subsidize real estate developers huge profits- eliminating large amounts of affordable housing. No matter how well maintained the buildings or how current their upgrades have been, buildings built during the postwar era up until fairly recent times will likely be deemed past their use by date, Large areas, as the alleged obsolescence of the buildings allows it, are likely to be redeveloped out of existence.It makes no difference that the displaced's credit may not be perfect and the huge increases in rent they would have to pay to stay where they have lived their entire lives may not be budgeted for.Its a big scam, especially when some (almost always it works out to be fake) excuse can be made to make those taxpayer funds become available and very large changes get made.The same applies to jobs. I removed a description of what making services "tradable" means and does, because its impossible to describe in a way that wouldnt be contrversial but suffice it to say that a very very large change was made that people dont know has occurred yet, which changes everything and makes people basically pawns of a global system designed to minimize their rights, if mionimize is even the right word would be doubtful, as its basically nullify.Whether or not the current workforces agree to the new terms, and its understandable that they might not, as they have mortgages to pay and kids to feed. (Overseas they might have hopes for changes they might make, based on expectations which no longer are true) all are operating under incomplete contracts that have changed tremendously and they have not been told.Guaranteeing a bad outcome for them, and their counterparts elsewhere, and a positive or even insanely profitable outcome for others.In discussing this with the wealthy, one rapidly sees that they see it as their entitlement, they rarely say it in so many words, but even their children grow up knowing these basic things as to what is theirs and non-negotiable. The changes are an attempt to lock in these self perceived entitlements in perpetuity, in a changing world where they are highly unlikely to be wise or sustainable indefinitely, its like putting a penny in a old fuse socket. .

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 09:03:34 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 16, 2020, 03:43:22 pmBut this starts with the assumption that you need to have an annualised energy balance, where all generation is used. The variable/unreliable generation from wind and solar has come down to a price where even with a low capacity factor they can be built in such quantity that we can imagine girds with rather than a lack of power in winter, sufficient power in winter and massive oversupply in summer. If that would increase or decrease annualised costs for end users is one of those points which both sides claim for their "win" depending on how you build the assumptions.The existing generators don't like this idea as they wouldn't be able to compete in summer, and would need to stand-down/mothball their sites for a significant part of the year. Such a seasonal "oversupply" of cheap power will find a home, just as industry found uses for the daily oversupply coming from slow ramping generators. That might be inefficiently turning some of it into hydrocarbons (reusing the existing infrastructure that handles those) requiring new plants for the conversions. Or equally it could be running energy intensive businesses like metal smelting/recycling on a seasonal basis.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 09:41:22 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 16, 2020, 04:33:47 pmLets grab a quick quote from the OECD publications:QuoteLPG and/or CNG were widely available across Australia and New Zealand, when they were cheaper than petrol (partly oversupply from local sources, and partly taxation/subsidy choices). Running costs are dominated by government control, just as the Netherlands has annual vehicle/registration tax based on emissions? If you say the LPG conversion is cleaner why do they disagree? Government policy often has oversights/loopholes (depending on your perspective).To try and level the externalised costs of using vehicles on the public roads, Australia is pushing ahead with usage fees for vehicles that don't pay excise on their energy sources:https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-22/victoria-electric-car-tax-reax-industry-infrastructure-greens/12908238In simplifying the rules, it puts PHEV that normally runs on petrol at a huge disadvantage. It assumes you will use electricity at the rate the manufacturers claim for their energy consumption stickers, which prioritise using electricity for marketing reasons leading to silly advertisements like softroader/SUV uses 1.5l/100km (with zero mention of the electricity used).Slow change rather than the probably more sensible system of charing all vehicles per km (pricing also by weight) and removing fuel excise.

author: emece67
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 16, 2020, 10:07:34 pm
content: .

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 17, 2020, 11:05:23 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on December 16, 2020, 06:00:46 pmThe average age of cars is 10-17 years in the EU. Thats an average for the fleet. It means that the car that they sold yesterday, likely to be in operation say 2045 somewhere in east EU. Say it goes 200.000 KM and burns 14 thousand liter of fuel in it's upcoming lifetime. It is not a good idea to just scarp it, making a car is very resource intensive.And we dont have the battery manufacturing capacity to suddenly switch to an all electric future. But the economics of it is just not possible. Take a look at this:QuoteQuote from: Someone on December 16, 2020, 09:03:34 pmReality doesnt work this way. You never have an oversupply of energy. If you would, people/companies would just use it. There are many industrial areas that are not profitable at the moment, because they are too energy intensive. If you decrease the price of energy (due to oversuply) these arent anymore, and they would just use the excess energy.I get that the sun shines in the winter in Australia, and your heating bill is low. Quick google search: You get 40-60% less energy in winter, so you need 2x the capacity. Here it is 80-90% for three months. And the heating bill goes up, way up. This is measured in Delft:Installing 9-10x the required capacity is just not possible, and if you want to use it for heating... There is just not enough space for that. And this is very much the same in most of this continent. Maybe not in Spain.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 17, 2020, 11:24:07 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 17, 2020, 11:05:23 pmAgain, you are comparing apples with oranges. New car will be purchased in either way, electric or ICE. Whatever happens further with the old car you sold is irrelevant to a new car. Also as I said, time has proven that CNG conversion is barely appealing to anyone. Nor that converting electricity to methane makes any sense when fossil natural gas is much cheaper. You will need to introduce a big penalty on the natural gas for anyone use that converted methane. Also you will need to build all of the infrastructure for this half-measure too, as it does not exist. Not to say it sucks economically, you lose about 50% of energy to produce methane, then lose about 70% of energy in engine. So you will get only about 15% of electricity spent converted into motion. While with electric car you can expect 70+% of it to do the actual job.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 17, 2020, 11:43:45 pm
content: Methane fuel cells can be an option to increase efficiency. It just depends on what is more economically to use: hydrogen or methane. Keep in mind that storing electricity in a string of batteries (grid storage + EV storage) easely adds up to US$0.50 per kWh. At a generating cost of $0.04 per kWh even a low-ish 15% total efficiency is about 50% cheaper.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 17, 2020, 11:50:00 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 17, 2020, 11:05:23 pmAre you sure that is the average age, and not the average life of cars in Europe?

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 17, 2020, 11:54:49 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on December 17, 2020, 11:50:00 pmYeah, that's a total BShttps://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/average-age-of-road-vehicles-6#tab-chart_2

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2020, 12:04:45 am
content: Quote from: wraper on December 17, 2020, 11:54:49 pmThose ages look much more realistic. The ages listed are greater in warm dry countries and poorer countries. Sounds about right.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2020, 12:17:02 am
content: Quote from: coppice on December 17, 2020, 11:50:00 pmIt is the age of cars, not the life cycle. Many cars get exported to Africa where they are used for even longer. Fortunately several African governments are going to put restrictions on what kind of cars (minimal euro4 and less than 10 years old) they allow to import starting from 2021.The list Wraper posted seems odd. Take Poland for example. Diesels no older than 3 years? Sounds totally impossible to me. Also the number for the NL is wrong; it should be over 10 years.I think this list is more accurate:https://www.aut.fi/en/frontpage_vanha/statistics/international_statistics/average_age_of_passenger_cars_in_some_european_countries

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2020, 12:26:54 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 18, 2020, 12:17:02 amI don't see anything odd about that. They seem to base their figures on the age of cars on the road. A number of countries only saw diesel sales soar just before diesels started getting persecuted. So, they have few diesels cars of any great age.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2020, 12:30:00 am
content: The ratio of total registrations to annual sales should give a fairly good way to estimate average age, which in the steady state case should be half the ratio. There are lots of things that can shift it, but it should be good enough for a sanity check.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 18, 2020, 02:01:47 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 18, 2020, 12:17:02 amI think that official data provided by European Environment Agency I linked is more trustworthy than from some random website.EDIT: also when I was in Estonia or Lithuania I did not notice that average car there is a 17 years old bucket of bolts.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2020, 02:16:00 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 17, 2020, 11:05:23 pmSo don't build a 100% solar generation? Or back it with hydro through winter? (since it wasn't needed through summer). Electricity storage does not need to be season/year long. You can run the numbers for storage vs generation capacity and come up with your own balance point, but insisting that there should never be generation shedding is not going to be the most economic solution. Right now generation already shuts down when its not needed but thats because of their marginal costs falling below the market rate. So why should it be any different with wind or solar? (when the market swings negative)Knowing the expected generation over the year solar can still profit even with significant swings between seasons, the magic of zero marginal cost! LCOE is so low that even including the cost of new build storage its still cheaper than the alternatives (graph below). As grids have larger fluctuations in supply and demand expect the dispatchable and storage plants to improve, but long term storage for redelivery as electricity doesn't make sense.So yes, significant seasonal variation in price might become a reality cheaper power when its plentiful and more expensive when its not. Its that last bit that scares people as consumers have become accustomed to being able to pull power whenever they want, but without covering the marginal cost (it gets averaged into their fixed pricing). Industry sure will use cheap power when its available which is exactly what I said, they don't need seasonal storage, and won't pay for it.

author: george.b
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2020, 05:11:46 am
content: Why is nobody talking about nuclear power? Zero emissions, not subject to seasonality, etc.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2020, 06:41:19 am
content: Quote from: george.b on December 18, 2020, 05:11:46 amOnly economically viable if:a) your country indemnifies the operators (free insurance)and/orb) is used as part of weapons manufacturingNote how most countries operating nuclear plants do both.

author: dzseki
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2020, 07:56:03 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 16, 2020, 04:33:47 pmIndeed you can find easily LPG on fuel stations. But having LPG in cars is a little bit a niche market. I've encountered a few LPG converted car (owners) and they all admitted that while LPG is cheaper, the car consumes more gas than it would in petrol (mostly because retrofitting LPG does not allow to fully tune the motor for it, factory made LPG cars would be much better, but they arerare as hen's teeth) and since the price difference in the two are not that dramatic (note the tax on the LPG is also high here!), at the end of the day the price difference is not so much, but still cheaper somewhat...And here in Hungary the average age of the car fleet is much higher than in the west. In fact LPG is mostly retrofitted in old, higher consumption cars, as the lower cost of running the car is the main motivation, and not reducing emissions.FYI

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2020, 08:22:25 am
content: Quote from: wraper on December 18, 2020, 02:01:47 amThe data from the link I posted corresponds with that from the Dutch government's statistics bureau regarding the situation in the NL. Your link does not. And as pointed out before: the age of diesel cars in poorer Eastern Europe countries is allover the place. That is a dead giveaway that the data from your link is plain wrong and not to be trusted. Besides that the data from your link is over 4 years old.The data from the link I posted is sourced from here:https://www.acea.be/statistics/tag/category/average-vehicle-age. ACEA= car industry

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 18, 2020, 05:43:32 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 18, 2020, 08:22:25 amNo. Its a dead give away that you aren't thinking about the pattern of diesel car sales in various countries over the last 20 to 30 years. Cars sell according to taxation rules. That's why every 1600cc car is really 1595cc, and every 2 litre car is really 1995cc. You build and sell cars according to what the tax rules make attractive. When governments decided CO2 was evil they made diesel sales soar, the exact timing depending on how slow each government reacted. Since they decided SOx and NOx are more evil than CO2 they have made diesel sales crater.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 18, 2020, 05:58:50 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 18, 2020, 08:22:25 amIt's like asking tobacco company about health impact from smoking. In any case those numbers do not seem realistic. Probably there is some creative math behind that. And they should get the data from EU institution to begin with, to estimate properly.QuoteReally?Official data from EU institution which is managing vehicle emission standards cannot be trusted compared to that?

author: Red Squirrel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 01:43:10 am
content: Quote from: george.b on December 18, 2020, 05:11:46 amVery complex and expensive, and the waste is still an issue. One thing to consider is how many wind turbines or solar plants or hydro plants can you build with the money for one reactor? And with the money left over how big of a storage facility could you build? Though I do think at the very least we should be replacing all forms of fossil fuel with nuclear until better storage tech is made. Big ships should be nuclear too. But still need to figure out what to do with all the waste. Burying it somewhere and forgetting about it is not the answer. We could maybe hurl it out of the solar system, but that has a big risk and cost too.Now if there was a way we can somehow enrich the waste back into usable nuclear material by simply using electricity, then nuclear could potentially be an answer to the storage problem. I don't know enough about nuclear so not sure if this is even possible though.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 04:13:38 am
content: Dangerous too because the waste fuel needs to be kept cool, and if the power goes out for an extended period over a large area which could happen after a big solar storm, that becomes a potentially VERY big problem. .

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 04:38:48 am
content: People forgot about going outside because its the winter and there is a virus and they stopped caringAlso probobly nuclear industry is doing alot of lobbying because there is alot of talk about smaller reactors, safer reactors, etc. Keep trying and trying again until you don't irradiate a city. Until then the safety numbers will be statistically favorable

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 04:45:29 am
content: Quote from: james_s on December 15, 2020, 09:30:57 pmthe infrastructure needed to use coal is ridiculous! the only reason why waste heat works is because most of the places that make use of it were built 100 years ago when it was the only way. Try building a pipe network like Manhattan some where to use heat! Giant tunnels, heat exchangers, insulation, water management, etc.. that makes it possible to have a high reliability city (well it does not shut down completely when something breaks, obviously it could have been done alot better) on top. You don't put all the bells and whistles on maintenance and the road crew will fuck up the entire city for a year. You need huge tunnel networks and alot of maintenance people to keep it running well. The logistics and planning is crazy.It's good old grandpas furniture. But they don't often maintain that right, despite the ridiculously good deal they have. Explosions galore.It does not make sense to push the GOOD users of that kinda heat out but it just won't work the same unless you did everything they did 100+ years ago. Do today's planners and managers have that kind of foresight to even design such a system for a new area?I think Russian homes have a impressive thermal design, the ones in the colder regions, from what I have seen, but the entire house is built on the heating system. You can't just add some tubes to some crap thrown up with glue and gussets. People would be like WTF is this price for?? We want a open space.. (we can't help you with that ma'am, there is a giant fucking furnace in between the kitchen and the living room).

author: george.b
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 06:22:48 am
content: Quote from: Red Squirrel on December 20, 2020, 01:43:10 amYes, it is:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactorQuote from: Red Squirrel on December 20, 2020, 01:43:10 amHydro plants can have a huge environmental impact. How much greenhouse gas is produced by the decomposition of organic matter in the areas that are flooded for a hydro plant reservoir? Not to mention other environmental effects such as habitat loss for various species and so on.https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed/It's not like wind and solar are without environmental impact, either: composite materials used in turbines aren't easily recyclable, and as I understand, neither are solar cells. Not to mention the manufacture processes themselves. On the other hand, there are NPPs from the 60s that are still operational. Wind turbines and solar panels have a 20 to 25-year lifetime. What do you do with them once they're past their due date?When you factor in how long a NPP can last compared to wind turbines or solar plants, I'm guessing the scales also don't tip that much against nuclear. Indeed, here are some figures I've found for cost by energy source:

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 09:53:00 am
content: Quote from: Someone on December 18, 2020, 02:16:00 amHydro? Ignoring the Netherlands (which is probably the flattest and lowest country in the world), most hydro locations have been utilized. Countries like China can still build hydro plant, they just forcefully dislocate fifteen million people when they need to. It doesn't work in Europe.Meanwhile take a look at this:This is a methane carrier, 135000 cubic metres. That is 832GWh of energy. Enough energy for 150000 people for a year (NL power usage numbers) or for half a million for a winter. LNG is 90% methane. The beauty of it: It's a ship, which moves. You can fill it up in (for example) Australia with solar power generated methane and use it wherever you want. Existing gas power plants can use it. Existing home furnaces can use it. You can fill it in 30 foot container tanks and carry it on train, or road. There are thousands of KM long pipe networks to pump it across Europe.With P2G we could pump methane into this almost anywhere and keep building solar and wind power, till the cows go home. It solves storage and energy transfer. Once it is set up and have a large excess of power, we can even carbon capture CO2 from the air, and turn it into methane and O2.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 10:14:11 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 20, 2020, 09:53:00 amAs if. Transfer with like 15% efficiency compared to using electricity directly. And then transportation tripling its price. Yay!

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 10:18:26 am
content: Quote from: wraper on December 20, 2020, 10:14:11 amThat's bullshit and you know it.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 11:36:14 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 20, 2020, 09:53:00 amThe latter isn't exactly true. Natural gas comes in many variants classified by nitrogen content. In the NL and neighbouring countries the burners are suitable for low caloric natural gas. If natural gas with a lower nitrogen content is shipped in then it will need to have nitrogen added to it first.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 12:59:21 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 20, 2020, 10:18:26 amIt's simply you who have no clue you're talking bullshit. P2G is about 50% efficient. Then converting it to some sort of useable energy is about 30% efficient in most cases. Which means about 15% efficient compared to using electric energy directly, as it can be converted to heat with 100% efficiency or mechanical energy with 90+% efficiency. Then compare LNG vs natural gas price which is 2-3 times more expensive even when natural gas is exported via thousands of kilometers long pipes.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 01:15:03 pm
content: And all of this nonsense when we have a proven technology such as HVDC which can transfer electric energy over thousands of kilometers with minimal loss.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_currentQuote

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 04:06:36 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on December 20, 2020, 12:59:21 pmAgain, you keep remaining stuck in efficiency.Noboday cares about efficieny; it is all about the costs. It is similar to wanting to design a 99.9% efficient DC-DC converter. It is a nice academic excersize but commercially totally uninteresting because the parts will be too expensive.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 04:54:50 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 20, 2020, 04:06:36 pmThen I guess Solar Roadways must be built everywhere.QuoteWhich will terribly suck. Until there is a natural gas left and electricity is produced by burning it, nobody will be so insane to do the other way around on any significant scale.QuoteNo, it's about making a logistically terrible and very inefficient method of energy transfer, and claiming it will save the planet.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 08:59:54 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on December 20, 2020, 12:59:21 pmhttps://www.energystar.gov/products/most_efficient/boilersHere is a list of boilers that are 90-95% efficient.http://www.helmeth.eu/index.php/technologies/integrated-p2g-processHere is a P2G plant that is 76% efficient, which will be 80% if scaled up. From 2014. I'm quite sure we could find better efficiencies nowadays.That's combined 76%. You are not even ballpark close with your estimation. And this will beAnd yes, efficiency doesn't matter. Solar panels have 20 something efficiency, yet they are the best way to generate energy (at the moment). What matters is: Investment/Energy storage. If you store 1kWh energy, in a battery, that costs 100 USD. This doesnt scale, for more storage you need more battery. The same amount of energy from methane is stored in a 100mL gas cylinder.BTW that 76% means, that we have to install maybe 130-140% the usage capacity for the spring-summer-autumn period.Quote from: wraper on December 20, 2020, 04:54:50 pmAs I linked above, Germany is investing into 5 GWh of P2G capacity. That's 5-10 nuclear reactor's worth.There are days in Germany that the price of electricity is negative. Do I have to spell it out for you?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 10:40:21 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 20, 2020, 09:53:00 amElectricity to gas is something that can make use of cheap power, I've not said anything against it. But you were insisting that seasonal storage is essential when it isn't. Seasonal storage doesn't appear to make economic sense when the comparative cost of short term storage and increasing generation are considered.Also new pumped hydro resources are widely available worldwide.Quote from: Someone on April 30, 2020, 01:34:59 amThe Netherlands is an extreme outlier, and would need investment in more interconnect capacity to neighbouring countries or some other storage method if they want to do it all domestically. But you jump to illogical extremes like 100% solar generation, which clearly makes no sense at all. Any future solutions will be a mixture of different parts, and electricity to hydrocarbons will probably be one of those components (but unlikely a dominant one).

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 20, 2020, 11:00:13 pm
content: Quote from: george.b on December 20, 2020, 06:22:48 amDeep linking images (while fragile) lets us see those sources:World Nuclear AssociationInstitute for Energy Research, wikipedia has: "IER is often described as a "front" for the fossil fuel industry"Canada West Foundation, Conservative "Think Tank"So perhaps they aren't the most neutral of sources on the matter. Nuclear looks great if you don't price in insurance and clean up.For lifespan, thats why the levelled costs include all the expenses averaged over an imagined infinite time. The nuclear and fossil fuel (coal particularly) industry likes to downplay their cleanup/remediation costs and can push the numbers to say what they want that way. There are similar lifecycle analysis done on the basis of environmental impact rather than dollar costs, where nuclear can look good too. But the economics don't add up for marginal electricity generation.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2020, 12:11:12 am
content: Quote from: Someone on December 20, 2020, 10:40:21 pmI have the feeling that we are not talking about the same time scales. The most positive predictions state that we could switch to 100% renewable maybe by 2050, if we really try. Excess energy during the summer is an issue today, and P2G could be a solution for it in the next 5 years. If we are going this way, we can already improve in the next 30 years.While that hydro study looks interesting, the article is very misleading. There was a software that they've run, and it just spit out data, where they found some geographical features. They didn't go on site and surveyed it. I mean, they put a bunch of dots in the middle of the Sahara desert.I dont dispute the utility of pumped hidro. We should increase the capacity. But it's not exactly cheap to build these:https://ease-storage.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/EASE_TD_Mechanical_PHS.pdfThese guys claim 40-130 EUR/kWh. The high end is same price as batteries. Efficiency is same as P2G. Footprint isn't.Quote from: Someone on December 20, 2020, 11:00:13 pmHaha, we agree. King ironic, when the nuclear guys claim that you cannot recycle solar panels. Who is making radioactive waste, hazardous for a million years?

author: george.b
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2020, 02:07:35 am
content: Quote from: Someone on December 20, 2020, 11:00:13 pmYou're right, I should have provided the sources of the data for those images.The first image uses data from the OECD:https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14756https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_14754The second image uses data from the US Energy Information Administration:https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2013).pdfAnd the last image, as you can read in the image itself, uses data from the Ontario Energy Board:https://www.oeb.ca/oeb/_Documents/EB-2004-0205/RPP_Price_Report_Nov2016.pdfBetter? Feel free to provide contradictory data.Quote from: NANDBlog on December 21, 2020, 12:11:12 amCoal power plants are.www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2020, 07:50:17 am
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 21, 2020, 12:11:12 amThatlinked postgoes on with the other examples that include more detailed modelling, which still find many many likely sites. There are so many geographically plausible sites its improbable that the small percentage of them needed to meet storage demands wouldn't be practical.If you think electricity to hydrocarbons makes economic sense, then show the numbers for levelised costs. There have been large scale projects in the past so it is possible to get real world examples of cost (not pie in the sky unproven at scale technology). But I've never seen anyone claiming its economic for seasonal storage on a large scale (remember the operating costs of the other end of conversion too). Most storage is more profitable with shorter storage cycling, and more utilisation, regardless of technology. Its the intercept of that and marginal cost of extra production which the market will settle on.Right now, fossil plants sit idle through low demand seasons (depends on the location as to which season that is). So why would solar or wind curtailing during low demand periods be any different? Its the situation we have right now, but with the almost zero marginal cost of renewable generation what changes is the swings in price. The only reason there are negative price periods is because the slow fossil/nuclear generatorsmustkeep pushing their power into the grid during fluctuations.Quote from: NANDBlog on December 21, 2020, 12:11:12 amAgain you jump to the long asymptote of seasonal (of for that figure, infinite) storage, and its capital cost with no divisor for the number of times it is used and lifespan. If power to hydrocarbons are competitive then you should provide accompanying figures for that technology too. Hydro comes out as the cheapest storage for practical timescales of hours to days, and is very mature technology.You can find people looking to the future and finding the economic balance point, including carbon capture, power to hydrogen, then hydrogen to liquid, and distribution:"Techno-Economic Assessment of Power-to-Liquids (PtL) Fuels Production and Global Trading Based on Hybrid PV-Wind Power Plants"The demand for liquid hydrocarbons is so far in excess of the electricity demand, to hit a fully renewable energy cycle massive increases in electrical generation will be needed in the long term. Its a great option immediately for storage as it can leverage the existing installed base of gas/liquid generators, but they need to be included in the long term pricing which further reduces the economic viability of the electricity->hydrocarbons->electricity chain.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2020, 08:03:17 am
content: Quote from: george.b on December 21, 2020, 02:07:35 amI did, more recent and neutral data:https://www.eevblog.com/forum/renewable-energy/anyone-else-notice-an-anti-green-energy-movement-starting-to-form/msg3375362/#msg3375362But it wasn't posted inline in huge images to try and distract people, and I put up current figures from the last 2 years rather than longer term predictions from 2011/2013/2015.The external costs assumed in the models are critical for the economic viability of nuclear, yes it makes sense in countries that indemnify the operators and pay for weapons processing. Most countries don't do that (though about 1/2 the world population does live in a country like that).

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2020, 10:21:44 am
content: Quote from: Someone on December 21, 2020, 07:50:17 amSure, here is a meta study:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148115301610This study talks about 400-1200EUR/kWh CAPEX, which is comparable to the pumped water I linked before.The resulting price range for methane is all over the place. The longer the plant is operational, the cheaper it is. They calculate with 3000 Hours/year, that is probably the most reasonable for seasonal generation. The results are in the range of 4-13 cent/kWh in 2015. Mining is 2-3 cent/kWh. Taxation, carbon credit, political goals makes this viable. But you know, in a way making a bread will always be more expensive than just stealing it.Quote from: Someone on December 21, 2020, 07:50:17 amYes, that's why it is important. If you pump water, you can only generate electricity. It is only a solution to one problem. With P2G you solve more than one problem. And you do this, by adding one cog to existing infrastructures.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2020, 12:04:08 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 21, 2020, 10:21:44 amThanks, those figures in the linked paper only consider the grid->gas conversion and would put it comparable to battery power at the low end but still a ways from hydro (care of the poor efficiency of the grid->gas process at the moment, worse if the gas->something step is also considered). Also I don't see their costing of the carbon source/processing, looking like it assumes a ready source of that from another process making it carbon transfer/trading/shipping/misdirection rather than closed loop.Given the economic motivations to push the technology right now as a stepping stone, its a shame there aren't any more efficient or cheaper electricity to hydrocarbon methods ready to go. But as de-carbonisation continues (the 2050 goals are a pipe dream given the current situation and investment/projects planned so far) it will pretty much need to happen to support flight and other long distance mobility that needs the convenient dense fuels.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2020, 01:04:23 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on December 20, 2020, 10:40:21 pmWell the tendency is to have domestic energy generation. Currently the politicians are opting for nuclear and converting excess electricity into hydrogen as a storage solution.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2020, 02:09:04 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 20, 2020, 04:06:36 pmCost IS proportionnal to efficiency.A 15% efficient tech like P2G is inherently 7x more costly than using the electricity directly (without even considering needed infrastructure)That's only a 600% increase in cost.I really don't see how this could ever be a barrier for our nice PR stunt about P2G

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2020, 02:16:25 pm
content: Quote from: f4eru on December 21, 2020, 02:09:04 pmThe whole point is that in many cases you can't use electricity directly. Try getting electricity from solar panels at night or from a wind turbine if there is no or too much wind. Storing electricity in batteries is extremely expensive and you still end up with something you can't transport very well.Converting to gas allows a far more flexible use (especially since the transport infrastructure is already there).Another example: Australia has already started projects to get into the hydrogen export market. Currently Australia is the largest exporter of coal in the world. But if countries stop using coal they'll lose a huge source of income. However if there is one place on this earth where mass solar is viable then it is Australia. Stable government and lots of space.And they can start with using coal so they don't need solar panels from day one by using steam reforming (yes, hydrogen can be made from coal as well).https://www.forbes.com/sites/timtreadgold/2019/07/24/japan-and-australia-launch-an-experimental-coal-to-hydrogen-export-industry/?sh=50007aa57332

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2020, 02:46:54 pm
content: Quote from: f4eru on December 21, 2020, 02:09:04 pmHow many times do I have to tell you that it's not 15%?

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2020, 10:10:39 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 21, 2020, 02:46:54 pmYou can keep going back and forth, but you're both doing the same thing and insisting your (unsaid) assumptions are 100% essential in all cases. electricity->hydrocarbons->electricity, yep crap efficiency around 15% (probably worse). If you can magically recover all the heat, sure that goes up, but its not the general use case.electricity->hydrocarbons->transport, still inefficientelectricity->hydrocarbons->heat, more efficientelectricity->hydrocarbons+heat -> heat, is more efficient again but do people really want that heat all the time power is cheap?electricity->battery->heat pump->heatelectricity->pumped hydro->heat pump->heatalternative storage options end up more efficient (and cheaper) than using hydrocarbons as the intermediate stepWhat hydrocarbons have going for them:reusing the existing hydrocarbon fuelled loads/generatorsreusing existing transport infrastructurecheaper storage of the productbut if the process is inefficient none of that matters, unless you insist that we must only consider options that provide long term storage. Which you have failed to motivate/justify.

author: robint91
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2020, 10:20:24 pm
content: I think the main problem here is scale. Let's take a small country as an example. For example Belgium, our total energy consumption is around 400 TWh a year, 80 TWh is transported by electricity. 40 TWh is generated by nuclear + renewable give or take. All the other energy is generated by burning gas.So the goal is in 2050 to not release CO2 to the atmosphere. Thus all of that energy needs to come from renewable sources. We need on average 46 GW of power.Our current nuclear capacity isn't even 1/10 th of what we would need. Heck even for renewables we don't get to 1/15 th. Even interconnections don't account for 1/25 th. You see the problem commin, we don't have the infrastructure currently to just cope with the ideal base load case. The current grid isn't made to handle this transition. We need to increase it by an order of magnitude to get the easiest base load situation working.When we introduce renewables to the picture, with the fluctuating generation we need to over design our grid to handle it. Do load demand steering, aka you charge your car only when the sun is shining. It will generate massive peaking on the gird which requires very costly infrastructure.And I am not opening the box of pandora about seasonal storage.To problem is not the technology but the scale and political will power.The EU isn't going to be CO2 neutral by 2050. That train has already passed as few decades ago.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2020, 11:12:33 pm
content: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2015/ee/c5ee01485a#!divAbstractLiterally 2 minutes of googling, instead of pulling numbers out of my ass.QuoteBut that's it, I dont have the mental capacity to argue with you anymore. Are you sure you dont have bipolar disorder or some form of dementia, where you forget things that were discussed 10 post ago? Is that a shared account?

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2020, 11:17:34 pm
content: Quote from: Someone on December 21, 2020, 10:10:39 pmUsing batteries to store energy for heating is expensive. Cheapest is thermal storage.QuoteOffsetting CO2 is just a matter of planting trees or other plants to absorb it. With the correct choice, the plants can be used to make biofuel which can then substitute for fossil fuels.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 21, 2020, 11:38:03 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 21, 2020, 11:12:33 pmIts another paper repeating theoretical efficiency of a fuel cell system, so what? They note its more expensive than hydro per kWh and:QuoteWhere as hydro and batteries are already profitable today.You can keep saying there are theoretically efficient processes, but they aren't the cheap processes you try to use when comparing costs. Lifecycle cost is a reasonable measure of commercial viability, and electricity->hydrocarbons falls down.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2020, 12:27:14 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on December 21, 2020, 11:17:34 pmNo. That isn't going to work because there isn't enough land surface to grow plants just for bio-fuel. However I ran some numbers based on cellulosic bio-fuel yield and it is possible to produce enough bio-fuel for a significant amount of the cars (over 70%) when using agricultural leftovers (the parts of plants we don't eat). That way there is a closed circle using plants which grow in one year (season).

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2020, 03:07:27 am
content: Quote from: blueskull on December 16, 2020, 01:38:53 amSore point, I know. Please don't take it the wrong way...What is the situation in your country now regarding SOx, NOx and other pollutants now that you have to source lower quality coal from other locations. <- That is not a political statement, it is a genuine question.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2020, 04:13:26 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 22, 2020, 12:27:14 amInteresting. What is the current disposal for bio GFT waste in NL? I collected about 6x80L of leaves from the tree in the garden this year. I wonder what they are actually doing with it.I find the current corn (and other plant based) bioethanol policy a bit troubling. Agriculture is a huge polluter, and the actual savings (for corn) is only like 10-20% in greenhouse gasses. So if you only add 10% into the fuel, you save 1% CO2Meanwhile switching to a non-plugin hybrid is like 30%.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2020, 04:38:47 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 22, 2020, 04:13:26 pmBurn it or composting.QuoteYes, but driving that hybrid from bio-fuel reduces the CO2 footprint even further. And for sure the currently dominant bio-fuels aren't perfect but the next generation ones (cellulosic for example) are much better in terms of CO2 reduction.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2020, 10:38:04 pm
content: Some years ago (a long time ago) some people made an art movie about their trip across the country driving exclusively on recycled deep frying oil they got from "greasy spoon" restaurants in the heartland of America along the way. They said that their car always smelled like fried goods like onion rings or fried potatoes.I don't know how the cost worked out as opposed to other fuels. I think that it functioned equivalently to diesel.This particular fuel seems very definitely not green.BTW, I am not against green energy, I am just wary of scams and it seems to me that many of the various government funded schemes are basicallypaying people to pollute. In other words, they seem to defeat the purpose.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2020, 10:44:20 pm
content: Quote from: cdev on December 22, 2020, 10:38:04 pmA couple of people who drive old diesel Mercedes around the UK on waste oil from fish and chip shops made videos about that. I presume they are still on YouTube. They have to filter the oil well, so it doesn't rapidly clog the car's fuel filters. If the oil is really thick, they have to add something to thin it so it flows through the injectors OK, especially in cold weather. Apart from that, diesel engines are very tolerant of the fuel used.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2020, 10:47:04 pm
content: Its entirely possible that I saw that video and am remembering that.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2020, 10:47:45 pm
content: My experience when driving behind older (1970s) German Diesel cars (VW and Mercedes) made me think that the owners bought these cars to avoid tailgaters. Most men watch James Bond movies for the Bond girls, but I always looked for the gadgets to fend off people driving closely behind me.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 22, 2020, 11:52:53 pm
content: Right, me too.. all of the great car devices. Also wasn't there a submarine car in one of them?https://www.nbcnews.com/businessmain/how-james-bonds-submarine-car-was-discovered-long-island-6C10732355

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2020, 07:15:24 am
content: Biofuels for cars is simply wasteful.1) competes head on with food production, making people starve2) Saves not much CO2, no NOX, particulates at all3) requires huge subidy as of today, which has absolutely no return whatsoever4) Requires 100x more land per km car travel than solar panels + BEV.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2020, 08:36:26 am
content: Quote from: f4eru on December 23, 2020, 07:15:24 amIt also works in 99.5% of cars, unlike anything EV related. So that 1% CO2 reduction I was estimating (if implemented worldwide) still could have a larger effect than ALL the sold EV cars. And I'm not against EVs, I'm just realistic.Quote from: nctnico on December 22, 2020, 04:38:47 pmYes, I agree. I am not against it, I just want us to be better at doing it.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2020, 01:07:05 pm
content: Quote from: NANDBlog on December 23, 2020, 08:36:26 amAbsolutely Wrong. It doen't scale, not enough land mass ( and hundred of millions of people would die from hunger as a little side effect )

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2020, 02:22:53 pm
content: Quote from: f4eru on December 23, 2020, 07:15:24 amNot if you make biofuel from the inedible parts of food crops, which arguably would reduce food costs since the farmers would have more product to sell.EVs make sense for shorter distances, but at some point, it would make more economical sense to use biofuels rather than continue adding battery capacity that's only rarely used.Quote from: f4eru on December 23, 2020, 01:07:05 pmBiofuel from ocean algae will scale very well, just needs research into how to do it right. Besides, the land use argument is moot until most land that's usable for growing crops is used as such. (How many yards grow something useful?)

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2020, 08:39:51 pm
content: Quote from: f4eru on December 23, 2020, 07:15:24 amWrong on all accounts. Please read up to the latest state of bio-fuels before posting complete nonsense.

author: S. Petrukhin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2020, 10:59:00 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 23, 2020, 08:39:51 pmWhy do you think a different opinion is nonsense? How can you be so sure that you are right?Do you think there is enough sunflower oil in Siberia to warm homes and provide energy to factories?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2020, 11:03:25 pm
content: Quote from: S. Petrukhin on December 23, 2020, 10:59:00 pmIt is not about a different opinion but facts (actually I don't care about opinion). The fact is that bio-fuels are more and more produced in a way which doesn't compete with growing food and destroys rainforrests. The EU is actively steering suppliers of bio-fuel away from the types of bio-fuels that require growing specific crops (with palm-oil being the most known one). You also need to look at which renewable energy source is suitable for a certain purpose. Bio-fuels are excellent for cars and trucks because they allow re-using existing infrastructure and equipment. Look at Brazil for example. Not a rich country but nevertheless they managed to get 50% of their fuel usage from bio-fuel.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2020, 11:15:15 pm
content: Its nuts to expect miracles.That said, even if solar energy may not be very reliable in the Netherlands, because of climate. wind however may be. At least for a fixed installation.Assuming that no supervolcanoes erupt in Iceland. If they do, then no sunflowers at all.I fact, when volcanoes erupt it may also become very dry and cold. Plants will wither and die. There may be no rain and desiccating, cold but not powerful winds. The sun may be visible but the skies yellow and dark, Then all bets are off.Also, what happens in Brazil when a large part of its biomass (the forest?) is all used up? They may not think their biofuels originate in the forest but I bet if you really sit down and analyze it more of it does than they are wiling to admit.If that's the case, then it doesn't seem sustainable.I think that many really want to see technologies are silver bullets more in order so they can get away with taking and selling off the other resources, than because they actually would work long term.Given that, we should focus the most on reducing usage of energy and increasing our means of producing it cleanly in quantity, without producing toxic nuclear waste.Nuclear fission is a dead end, IMHO, and dangerous because of solar storms and the outages they might cause.nuclear fusion might eventually work and be managably clean, especially if we can site it way underground.Also, if we can simply dig holes to nowhere and fill them with pipes we can make use of the normalizing effect of the earth to warm houses in winter and cool us in the summer, greatly reducing energy use.

author: S. Petrukhin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2020, 11:28:28 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 23, 2020, 11:03:25 pmI do not know the industry of Brazil. Is there a company similar to "Norilsk Nickel" that consumes more electricity than the whole of Holland?I think the real revolution will be when humanity learns to directly use nuclear energy without thermal heating.In the meantime, I may be wrong, but this is a way for individuals to live a good life doing little and getting funding.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2020, 11:34:02 pm
content: I know exactly what youre getting at.by individuals living a good life doing little and getting funding.Indians are a close second.We Americans however are catching up fast.Quote from: S. Petrukhin on December 23, 2020, 11:28:28 pm

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2020, 11:35:40 pm
content: Quote from: S. Petrukhin on December 23, 2020, 11:28:28 pmTry to read a but more about modern bio-fuels and what progress has been made towards sustainability in the past decade before jumping to the wrong conclusion.

author: cdev
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 23, 2020, 11:42:34 pm
content: I think we should.. I'm very curious and would really like to see as many different points of view and arguments as possible.I guess the real test is what kind of power would people be using were none of the component parts subsidized by something to an abnormal degree, or being used up too fast by insiders to sustain much longer?Quote from: nctnico on December 23, 2020, 11:35:40 pmThere is definitely a global race going on to grab and sell off as much as possible as quickly as possible.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2020, 12:33:12 am
content: Quote from: cdev on December 23, 2020, 11:42:34 pmI'm not going to entertain conspiracy theories. Sure there are some very poor countries that sell fossil fuels below market price to their inhabitants but in most of the western countries fossil fuels are sold at healthy market prices + a hefty fossil fuel tax + VAT on top. That fossil fuel tax (call it an anti-subsidy) is there to give renewable energy sources a fighting chance to gain some momentum.

author: george.b
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2020, 01:45:08 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 23, 2020, 11:03:25 pm...what???

author: S. Petrukhin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2020, 01:56:20 am
content: Quote from: george.b on December 24, 2020, 01:45:08 amDon't be surprised... There are people who really believe all the bright news of European officials.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2020, 10:22:09 am
content: Quote from: S. Petrukhin on December 24, 2020, 01:56:20 amInstead of conspiracy BS you should have come up with some numbers to make your point. According to this article (https://web.archive.org/web/20080601174307/http://www.agropecuariabrasil.com.br/anp-estima-que-consumo-de-alcool-supere-gasolina/) the bio-fuel versus gasoline usage is around 50/50 depending on how well the sugar cain harvest goes. On top of that Brazil also exports large amounts of ethanol.

author: S. Petrukhin
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2020, 11:22:31 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 24, 2020, 10:22:09 amI don't understand Spanish, remember how the Cubans spoke rusi amigo.But do you consider the opinion of the author of that article divinely correct? No doubt about it?

author: george.b
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2020, 01:39:20 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on December 24, 2020, 10:22:09 amEthanol vs. gasoline ≠ fossil fuels vs. biofuels. Brazil runs largely on diesel, the consumption of which is about twice that of gasoline. The link you posted is a projection from 2007, and trends have not been constant since then. Total ethanol usage has indeed surpassed gasoline for a couple of years after that, but again, neither of them comes anywhere near diesel consumption. See attached chart, made from data available here:https://www.epe.gov.br/pt/publicacoes-dados-abertos/publicacoes/BEN-Series-Historicas-CompletasBesides, total fuel consumption ≠ transportation fuel consumption. We still have coal, gas etc. We don't get anywhere near 50% fuel usage from biofuels either way. According to the National Agency for Oil, Gas and Biofuels, that figure is closer to 18%:http://www.anp.gov.br/biocombustiveisQuote from: S. Petrukhin on December 24, 2020, 11:22:31 amМы тут в Бразилии говорим по-португальский, а не по-испанский.

author: Someone
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2020, 10:43:02 pm
content: Quote from: george.b on December 24, 2020, 01:39:20 pmIf you haven't seen it, there is an excellent online resource for quickly finding/comparing these big picture country wide figures:https://www.iea.org/sankey/#?c=Brazil&s=BalanceIt even has a scrolling history so you can see how it changed over time. But the headline figure in Brazil is just over 40% of the total final consumption comes from renewable sources, pretty close to 50%. While Brazils transport might beonlypowered with 23% renewables (many countries would envy that figure alone), they are showing leadership with their extensive use of renewables (particularly biofuels/biowaste) to power industry. The smaller residential/commercial use is even better again.

author: george.b
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2020, 12:23:57 am
content: Quote from: Someone on December 24, 2020, 10:43:02 pmRenewable energy sources ≠ biofuels, though. His statement was: "they managed to get 50% of their fuel usage from biofuel", which is very much incorrect. Our whole energy consumption, including electricity, yeah, that comes ~45% from renewable energy sources, as stated in the second link I posted. Would be much higher if 50% of our fuel were biofuel.19% of those 45% renewables comes from wood/charcoal, which is a renewable biofuel alright, as long as you don't run out of trees. Deforestation is currently at a 12-year high, so let's take that "leadership" with a grain of salt. That bio/waste amount in the site you linked is much more "bio" than "waste".You can get a more detailed breakdown here:http://www.mme.gov.br/web/guest/secretarias/planejamento-e-desenvolvimento-energetico/publicacoes/resenha-energetica-brasileira. Portuguese only, unfortunately, but long story short, waste gets clumped under "other renewables" alongside biodiesel, wind and solar power, and altogether this category makes up 7% of our energy sources. Under electricity generation, the breakdown is more detailed, and according to this year's report, 2.8% comes from "other renewables" - in this case considered to be black liquor, biogas, rice husks, elephant grass, wood waste and charcoal gas, which sort of (but not quite) equate to a "waste" category.

author: f4eru
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2020, 02:03:22 pm
content: Guys. Biofuels are obsolete.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2020, 03:03:13 pm
content: The gas stations over here are selling E5 and E10 (gas with up to 5% ethanol and up to 10% ethanol).

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 26, 2020, 04:18:22 pm
content: Quote from: f4eru on December 26, 2020, 02:03:22 pmSure. No problem. Just please show us your secret stash of hundreds of millions of affordable electric cars.No? OK, then we can continue.