the dark side of cobalt - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 01:05:03 pm
content: Energy transition: The dark side of the electric car battery cobalt rush:PS: Many Li-Ion batteries use cobalt in the positive electrode. LiFePO4 batteries are cobalt-free.

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 01:47:39 pm
content: Oh come on, none of those Amnesty activists owns a smartphone, laptop or camera also using Li-Ion batteries?Fossil industry shilling going through the roof again.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 02:31:45 pm
content: They lost me in the first 3 minutes with the "In the race of the climate change... whatever..." + insert alleged cause and some % number. Tell me how significant those % are when other natural causes are considered, like marine life microorganisms, volcanoes, etc., before complaining of fossil fuels and cow farts.The only race I see is the race for the destruction of the western world.Sorry for the poor countries and their people being exploited in the name of the climate change. It was never about climate or pollution. That's the typical propaganda argument of whatever political decision the globalists want to justify. It's about making you feel guilty if you don't support/comply/ruin your industry and your country in the name of CO2, diversity, or who knows what other fake justification.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 02:35:38 pm
content: Quote from: m98 on July 09, 2023, 01:47:39 pmNope, the oil industry uses cobalt for desulfurization of crude oil.

author: m98
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 02:45:53 pm
content: Quote from: madires on July 09, 2023, 02:35:38 pmValid point, which makes the title of that documentary even more misleading.

author: Infraviolet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 04:21:12 pm
content: All a waste of time anyway, batteries can never have the energy density to match fossil fuels, and in transport applications that really matters. If we want to get fossil fuels out of transport the only hope is hydrogen fuel cells (or hydrogen combustion engines), and the only way to achieve that is to build up the fuelling station infrastructure necessary. We should probably focus on phasing out fossil fuels from static uses (power plants) first, replacing coal/oil/gas with nuclear and renewables where doing so is already feasible without performance loss, transport should be one of the last things to seek to decarbonise, crazed net zero targets for specific dates should be scrapped, with a focus instead on sorting out the easy things ASAP, and laying the groundwork so some-day the harder things can be tackled.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 04:48:39 pm
content: Quote from: Infraviolet on July 09, 2023, 04:21:12 pmMust be a bait, must be a bait, must be a bait

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 07:32:29 pm
content: Why is it that activists are always tellingotherswhat to do, instead of doing it themselves first and inviting others to come along?At some point, I pointed out to an activist that their one-person yearly vacation flight to the other side of the world produces more emissions than a typical Finnish family car use does in a year, and they only responded with "That's not relevant!" (Se on eri asia!).I like those who lead by example. I don't like those who lead from behind, trying to tell others what to do. I seriously dislike those who construct social narratives to try and exploit others.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 08:00:35 pm
content: Instability in the Democratic Republic of Congo was the reason why AlNiCo magnets became uneconomical in the '70s, hastening the rise of Ferrite magnets. I guess the extraction and supply of some elements will always be an issue.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 08:06:29 pm
content: Of course cobalt exploitation is kind of a disaster. But it's not sustainable as is in the long run anyway. IMHO.Now I agree with the fact that these activists use questionable methods and have questionable goals.Sorry, but just look at where their money comes from. These guys gotta eat. Do you know how wealthy Greta Thunberg has become?

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 09:34:58 pm
content: And she's pledged the money to charity. Her parents are fairly well off anyway. Perhaps you could explain the relevance?

author: Njk
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2023, 10:58:34 pm
content: Ten years ago we'd adopted a kitten. When he'd reached his teenage, we'd decided to let him to see the vet. I was not very excited, but that was the only way to stop him from pissing on everything. Looking at him now, I don't think he would be happier without the visit to the vet. Really. Now look at Putin, Trump, Travis Kalanick and the other guys of that sort. No matter where they are, they all are just different facets of the same evil: ambitions. When one wants to build a cabin in the wood by the DIY method, it hardly can be called an ambition. Ambition is when he wants to convince the others to do it for him. Of course, it's more effective way. More people involved, more damage is done. With more damage, more people are happy, the other living thing does not matter. It's not a technology problem, it's something more fundamental. I don't know how to handle it. To feed the ambitious guys with sedative drugs? In which way? To let them to see the doctor? How? That's the first problem to address, not the technology.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 12:44:03 pm
content: The silver lining is, cobalt is not absolutely mandatory for li-ion. The most energy dense NCA chemisty (as used by Tesla for example) already cuts the cobalt use by 80% or so compared to the classic LCO, but completely cobalt-free chemistries like LMO or LFP are not showstoppers, even though a tad worse in performance, LMO specifically in high-temperature calendar life and LFP in energy density.If the price of cobalt or political pressure of using it becomes a problem, then we will see shift to those others chemistries whenever their performance is sufficient. Tesla is already producing LFP cars too, which was considered to be too low on energy density just a few years ago, and their owners seem to be quite happy about them. They have less range than the NCA-based models but still a lot more than the earlier generation EVs.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 12:54:19 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on July 09, 2023, 07:32:29 pmBecause if they do that, they'll end up living in caves or huts made from tree branches.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 01:17:03 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 10, 2023, 12:54:19 pmfreezing, hungry, in th dark ...

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 02:10:04 pm
content: Quote from: Infraviolet on July 09, 2023, 04:21:12 pmHydrogen fuel cell cars are a joke that no one is laughing at. And don't even get me started about hydrogen internal combustion. The emissions from NOx and the terrible efficiency, even worse than fuel cells, means that it makes even less sense.Batteries make far more sense for electric vehicles.If you do the maths on the infrastructure required for EVs you will see that if every passenger car switched overnight we'd need approx 15-20% more electricity to be generated. That isn't nothing, but it's also not ridiculous to expect the grid to grow by such a size by 2040 or so by which time the vast majority of cars will be electric.Meanwhile if we produced truly green hydrogen from electrolysis the production method would require around 3x more electricity, plus another 10% of that to compress and distribute hydrogen. You also need to fill the country with hydrogen filling stations which are not trivial constructions. EV chargers (slow types) just need an AC grid connection, though it's not free it's not anywhere near as complicated as the infrastructure required for hydrogen.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 10, 2023, 02:12:43 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 10, 2023, 12:44:03 pmWorth also noting that a Chinese manufacturer has just launched a sodium-ion battery car. Sodium is even more abundant than lithium. The energy density of the sodium-ion battery is said to be comparable to LFP. Early days, but a very interesting technology.https://www.electrive.com/2023/04/17/chery-becomes-launch-customer-for-catls-sodium-ion-batteries/

author: fastbike
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 12:37:10 am
content: Regardless of energy source, current levels of consumption critical resources of are unsustainable.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06083-8The irresponsible mining of Cobalt is just a symptom of a dysfunctional economic system

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 05:37:31 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 10, 2023, 02:10:04 pmPlease demonstrate the maths for this claim. I work for a local authority as a sparks and I have some knowledge of the difficulties we're facing in our plan to change the fleet to full EV; our infrastructure alone will require a very large (>£100m) capital investment to be able to handle this, and that's for just a few hundred vehicles.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 07:51:11 am
content: Let's not go there again. EV zealots keep making bold claims and ignoring hydrogen is becoming the new oil rather quickly. Realistically there will be a surplus of hydrogen which is generated during the summer using excess electricity which would be unused otherwise. That hydrogen needs to be used somewhere and transportation is a good use case. Just sit back and wait for the outcome

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 08:32:41 am
content: No, let's go there because this keeps getting brought up and it needs to be put down as a myth. You don't have to be a zealot to be disappointed by people misrepresenting the situation. Hydrogen is the new oil...? Okay... it's not an energy source so I'm not sure what you're going with there, you still need electricity or natural gas to make it. It's a rather inefficient way to store energy, it has some interesting use cases where batteries can't compete on power/energy density but it's really not that interesting outside of those areas. Seasonal energy storage is definitely an interesting use case - but use the electricity produced to charge cars!Quote from: AVGresponding on July 11, 2023, 05:37:31 amAverage EV efficiency = ~3.5 miles per kWh (e.g. VW ID.3, Hyundai Kona, Tesla Model 3 size car)Average UK driver = 6800 miles per year Average energy consumption per car per year = 9000 / 3.5 = ~2570kWh + 10% for charging losses so call it 2800kWhNumber of cars on UK roads = 33 million Total annual energy consumption for cars = 2800kWh * 33 million = 93.2 TWhAnnual UK electricity production = 333TWh Proportion is therefore 27.8%. A little higher than I remembered, I quoted 15-20%, but let's call it within the margin of napkin math. Average mileage has been falling precipitously over the last two decades so it may well end up closer to 20%.As for the cost to your local authority, the cost of local infrastructure upgrades is not the same as overall generation capacity; there's no doubt that we'll need to increase capacity there e.g. for rapid chargers or businesses/LAs needing to charge their fleet every night. But, that being said for passenger cars (which is my figure), a car doing 6,800 miles per year would need to charge for only about 4 hours per week. With smart charging, and cars spending most of their time parked up somewhere, it's possible to distribute loads in areas where there are capacity constraints. Look into Octopus Intelligent for an energy company experimenting with this at an early stage, dispatching cars as load for wind turbine overproduction for instance.https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/cheap-car-insurance/average-car-mileage-ukhttps://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility#a1https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1094628/DUKES_2022_Chapter_5.pdf

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 08:39:42 am
content: Again, stop digging your own grave. There are numerous reports out there (easely found by Google) that have calculated that hydrogen infrastructure for mass use by cars is cheaper. And many of these reports seem to base their price comparison on charging your EV from your own socket instead of (more expensive) public charging. And again, if you start out from efficiency, then your calculation is wrong right off the bat. The only thing that counts are costs per distance travelled.Also the notion to use cars as grid storage is flawed. First of all batteries are way too expensive (also due to needing lots of materials, including those which are harmfull for the environment to mine) for storing electricity for more than a half a day. Let alone seasonal storage which is what is needed. Secondly using a car's battery as storage means using a battery in a way that it hasn't been designed for and you'll be wearing the most expensive part of the car without getting the monetary value for that wear. The idea is similary stupid as using solar roadways to heat roads in the winter. The power companies love it though because it means afree lunch. No, it is making money with a lunch on top for them.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 01:55:08 pm
content: Quote from: nctnicoI'm not in either camp (happy with my petropolluter) but it seems to me that EV is the sensible way even if it costs more. Reason being that it's flexible: with hydrogen or petrol or fermented poo or whatever the infrastructure necessary is tied to the product. Sure, you can convert petrol garages to hydrogen, but it costs and takes forever (relatively speaking). On the other hand, with EV you can use ALL those products to produce the electricity in a few central places, and even combine mixed producers. The major infrastructure won't change depending on source.Obvious advantage: if we were already EV-based and burning oil to get the electricity, the switch to solar and wind power would have zero effect on any car or the way they are charged or the way that charge is delivered. So hydrogen may be the next best thing, but it should be in deriving the electricity for EVs, not creating work to replace infrastructure that will itself be replaced when the next best thing comes along.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 01:58:45 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 11, 2023, 08:32:41 amThat will simply never happen. People with non-engineer mindsets will never understand this, even if it's totally obvious to anyone who has ever worked on the numbers or made observations of the reality around us. This hydrogen car revolution was supposed to happen numerous times already and the fact it never happens, exactly as predicted by physics and engineering, does not change the belief of those who want to believe.It's exactly the same as with solar roadways. It's all demonstrable and doable, but doesn't make any practical sense. People like nctnico love these kinds of projects.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 02:12:25 pm
content: And yet extra hydrogen fueling infrastructure is being rolled out further every year. That is my real world observation. Another real world observation is that many car manufacturers have hydrogen cars ready for production in large numbers. That kind of puts a pin in 'it is obvious it will never happen'. If hydrogen is an obvious non-starter then why are companies investing billions into cars on hydrogen. Better apply for a job as CEO there, you'd save them lots of money. In the real world: cars on hydrogen take longer to arrive as the hydrogen needs to be sourced renewable, but it will get there. Likely at the end of this decade.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 02:16:04 pm
content: QuotePerhaps that's a mistake.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 02:19:21 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 11, 2023, 02:12:25 pmJust like they have been "ready for production" for the last 20 years.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 02:25:27 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on July 11, 2023, 02:16:04 pmIt's really a Germany+NL thing only. Outside of these two countries, there are only a handful, and even the future plans show less than linear growth planned, with this rate it will take around 1000 years.Maybe it can be called a mistake, but trying things out is something I can applaud, so I have nothing against it. Compare this to EV fast charging stations which had similar status somewhere in 2011, expected growth was more than linear and that growth was realized. And EVs back then sucked in range.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 02:57:58 pm
content: In the UK, Toyota had to fight to keep the hydrogen infrastructure in the North open. Here's the current hydrogen infrastructure map for the UK:Meanwhile, this is CCS DC charging:It's pretty clear to me which one is winning the battle. Especially when you consider hydrogen *requires* dedicated infrastructure to survive, EVs can charge on anything from an extension lead hanging out of a window to a rapid charger to a van that visits your car to charge it (a little absurd but it shows the versatility).On AC charging infrastructure, there is a way to go, but London is full of street charging, and other cities in the UK are catching up (they need to be quicker, but that's politics.) So you have some streets which have multiple lamp post or streetside chargers. A lot of this infrastructure comes with demand, you don't need public charging if you have a driveway but want it if you visit. So as the general concentration of EVs increases the infrastructure follows. There are huge number of EVs in London now, must be close to 1 in 20 based on my occasional visits.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 03:45:12 pm
content: Like how VHS defeated Betamax...

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 03:49:39 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 11, 2023, 02:25:27 pmSure, I am one for trying things even in the face of thunderf00ts rants, but there's a difference between having a go to see how it might work, and committing the entire country to it.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 04:50:53 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 11, 2023, 08:32:41 amYour figures lack a certain consistency and your arithmetic is terrible but for arguments' sake I'll use the most favourable ones.The fact that you come to the conclusion that we only need to add another 27% or so generating capacity is a serious underestimate; you're ignoring commercial vehicles completely, and the fleets owned by various aspects of government, metropolitan councils especially, will need to be changed to EV before domestic users. This is in part due to their own CAZ and ULEZ rules.But you also completely missed my point; it isn't the generating capacity that's going to be the biggest problem, it'sthe distribution system.To take my own metropolitan council as an example, the depot sites where we will need to run the bin lorries fromdo not havethe electrical capacity to charge them. It's not just a matter of upgrading the boards either, they need new supplies from the substations, between 2 to 3 times the capacity of the existing ones. That ishugelyexpensive, and it's going to have to happen everywhere, because I guarantee no council/local authority in the UK currently has depots with the capacity to charge EV fleets. Hope you enjoy your 20% Council Tax levy which will be needed to pay for it.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 05:01:19 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on July 11, 2023, 02:16:04 pmIt would be a rather costly mistake which -according to some- is super obvious to avoid... And yet they keep on going. Only hindsight will tell in the end.In the 1980's is was utterly clear that not building extra nuclear power plants and keep on burning coal was the way forward. Nowadays we know better; burning coal has a hefty price tag in terms of environmental and health impact.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 05:27:32 pm
content: QuoteIt was? In the 80's power generation probably wasn't on my radar, but I can't recall ever seeing the suggestion that coal (or oil) was the way to go. It's always been seen as a finite resource, and any reference to that has typically been grudging acknowledgement that it hasn't run out yet.Nuclear has had a bad press and been in and out of favour, but coal has never been its replacement. At least, over here - your country may have been different.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 05:45:03 pm
content: Quote from: PlainName on July 11, 2023, 05:27:32 pmWell, in the 80's there was no real alternative for nuclear other than coal (also because coal is super cheap as well). Not choosing for nuclear means -silently- choosing for coal. And in the 80's and early 90's coal (and oil) being finite or even a problem where it comes to CO2 emissions wasn't on the radar much. Just a bunch of tree huggers that went on about climate change. It is only after 2000 that climate change started to get traction with some politicians. The rest was just relieved 'we' solved acid rain.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 05:46:32 pm
content: Quick recap of why hydrogen is not a practical power source for vehicles:1) Very poor roundtrip efficiency, 30% that of battery EV. While crap efficiency is not problem during excess power generation, we are far from annual net excess, thus efficiency matters.2) Expensive fuel cell system (large, even more expensive fuel cell, or smaller coupled with still expensive high-power battery pack); li-ion battery pack cost crossed the fuel cell system cost years ago, now being around $5000.3) Need for distribution system comparable to that of gasoline distribution, with chicken-and-egg problem. (Compare this to EVs where the chicken-and-egg problem just went away a decade(!!) ago already, thanks to two factors, any-socket charging and general simplicity/low cost of fast charging stations)Any single of such problems could be manageable, but all three together makes it a total no-go, which is exactly why it has not happened despite all predictions by certain non-technical people, and will not happen. It is worth noting there are no solutions to any of these; they are unsolvable*, something that can only be worked around / accepted as they are.*) except for point 2, where theoretically a lower cost system could emerge, but don't hold your breathIf neither modern li-ion cells nor gasoline vehicles existed, then hydrogen would probably be a good idea for a fresh start, instead of fossil (or biofuel) gasoline/diesel ecosystem. But real world is nottabula rasa.It is quite interesting we are still having this discussion in 2023 but I guess some people just will remain blindfolded, regardless of glaring evidence around their daily lives.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 06:11:51 pm
content: Quote from: Infraviolet on July 09, 2023, 04:21:12 pmI used to think the same, but the cost projections for CO2 capture combined with the free near unlimited capacity methane synthesis reactors under ground make renewable methane something to consider too. It's not a great fuel for consumer cars either, but trucks already use liquid methane right now.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 06:14:30 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 11, 2023, 05:46:32 pmSOFC can be made extremely high power density.I'd like to see F1 move to liquid hydrogen and SOFC.PS. there are no 10 MW range chargers for fast charging of trucks. Fast charging costs are going to rise as the slack goes out of the grid, fast charger stations will start needing storage (probably sodium batteries).

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 06:40:30 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on July 11, 2023, 06:14:30 pmYou forget that the contender for hydrogen is not just battery, it's gasoline/diesel, using the existing infrastructure. Those long-haul semi trucks already are the pinnacle of fossil fuel engineering and run at significantly higher efficiency than most road vehicles, and as being heavy and expensive anyway, come with quite complex exhaust purification systems (like adblue, particulate filtering and whatnot), which also have some chances of working as the use cycle is non-stop driving in optimized process conditions.These large vehicles are the last to be electrified. We don't need to convert them to either BEV or hydrogen EV.Remember, while the general aim should be towards zero fossil fuel use, in reality it's not all-or-nothing. There are still many low-hanging fruits to be picked. These are passenger vehicles and smaller delivery trucks (BEV) and building heating systems (heatpumps).In other words, making large changes for small gains makes absolutely no sense, when you can make smaller changes for larger gains.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 06:46:52 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on July 11, 2023, 06:14:30 pmIf a truck can go 9 hours on one charge (90 kph * 10 hours = 810 km/~500 miles) then it doesn't need ultra fast charging to be available. It is usually not legal for a driver to go longer than that (the UK allows 10 hours, but only twice in every week.)A 500kWh battery can achieve that. It's a big unit, probably would add about 2-4 tonnes to a vehicle payload. EV trucks are allowed to weigh up to 46 tonnes in the UK to accommodate this. (Standard limit is 44 tonnes.)But another option is catenary charging or charging in the mandatory 45 minute rest break at the 4.5 hour point. (40 minutes at 500kW charging adds almost 60% to the battery pack.)Unlike cars, trucks have the advantage of central logistics and hubs, with logistics managers planning most of their routes, so they will plan stop times and destinations would have overnight charging available (50kW DC charging would be fine in this case.)Double crewing is more difficult but AFAIK that's rare in UK/EU, more common in the US. Those truck drivers would probably prefer hydrogen. The faster transport would be balanced against the higher cost of energy and likely higher operational cost of the vehicle.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 07:03:01 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 11, 2023, 06:40:30 pmEven without the hard and fast rules for consumer cars, most new trucks in the EU will pretty much be forced to run on synth fuel or batteries from 2030 on ... there's no other way to reach a 45% emission reduction target otherwise.2050 is very very close, there is no time to fuck around. Everything has to be solved at the same time.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 07:06:22 pm
content: Forget lithium-ion batteries; their energy density is laughable. Hydrogen, although better than batteries, still falls short compared to hydrocarbons in terms of energy density. Hydrocarbons serve as a superior and safer energy carrier.Someone needs to develop an affordable method for converting CO2 back into hydrocarbons. The necessary ingredients CO2, the Sun's radiation and water, are abundant and easily accessible on Earth. All it takes is clever bioengineer who could create a tree that produces berries containing petroleum products, offering a sustainable and renewable source of such resource.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 07:10:30 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 11, 2023, 07:06:22 pmI look forward to seeing that lightning strike.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 07:10:43 pm
content: Renewable methane is the easiest to synthesize carbon based fuel, pump hydrogen and CO2 into an old gas field and wait. Liquid methane is already a common truck fuel.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 07:15:45 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on July 11, 2023, 07:10:43 pmadding few more C's makes it a lot easier to transport

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 07:27:54 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 11, 2023, 06:46:52 pmI suggest you take a roadtrip through France and Germany. Then you'll see your assumption is sooo wrong... I do these trips regulary and parking places overcrowded with trucks are very common. And I'm writing parking places, not gas stations! Ratio parking spaces to gas stations is about 5 to 1 so you'd need to install 50-ish fast charging points for trucks at 5 times more locations than there are gas stations. Keep in mind that long haul trucks have ranges up to 2400km intended to do cross-Europe roundtrips on one filling. If a truck driver stops to take a mandatory break (*), the person has to stop working. Not fill the truck or charge it because that counts as work time! Remember trucking is a cut-throat business so transport companies want to keep their people and material rolling as much as possible and not waste the driver's time.* It is also very common to see truck drivers stop at the side of the road due to have driven the maximum amount of time. Traffic jams due to accidents are unpredictable after all. In Italy I've noticed that it is very common practise for truck drivers to stop along the highways (likely due to lack of parking spaces). How to charge a truck in such a place?

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 07:29:42 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 11, 2023, 07:27:54 pmThe act of connecting it is working - being present while it charges is not.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 07:35:14 pm
content: Quote from: Monkeh on July 11, 2023, 07:29:42 pmTry to convince a judge of that. The law clearly stipulates that any activity that deals with the vehicle counts as work time. Fast charging is something you'd need to monitor and probably free up the spot when the truck is done charging.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 07:37:06 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 11, 2023, 07:35:14 pmSleeping in it requires operating the lights, cabin heater, entertainment system.. so they're always working, then? Or is there a provision for such in the law? Well then, add one for being present while the vehicle is autonomously charging its battery pack, requiring no human interaction or supervision.Plug the thing in to charge and walk off to eat a burger, same bloody difference.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 08:09:38 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on July 11, 2023, 07:15:45 pmGiven that cryogenic methane is used already in trucking, I doubt they are going to pay for the convenience.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 08:21:13 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on July 11, 2023, 08:09:38 pmmethane has a much worse GWP than CO2 so even a tiny bit of leakage might make things worsepropane has a much better GWP better and much easier to handle

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 08:25:21 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 11, 2023, 07:35:14 pmNonsense. It's not like filling with diesel where constant attendance is essential. Fast charging is plug, start and go and do something else. At best you could define setting up the charge, and stopping the charge as working time, but that's maybe a minute or two either side, say 5 minutes total.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 08:49:11 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on July 11, 2023, 07:03:01 pmNot a problem - our government has now decided we're not going to hit the targets.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 09:05:21 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on July 10, 2023, 01:17:03 pmI believe the plan goes: No meat, no heat, no air-conditioning, no cars, no flying, no babies. Sit at home, alone, poke your phone in the dark. Eat those bug burgers, that simultaneously make you fat and provide protein that you cannot digest. Cut off some body parts, and pay the lifetime subscription to hormones and insulin. Own nothing and be happy.And if you think this is conspiracy theory, just go on the website of the WEF and this is their mission statement.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 09:13:27 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on July 11, 2023, 09:05:21 pmYes, that's the plan promoted by the WEF. No doubt about it, they've been very clear and loud about it, and (almost) everyting is open for everyone to read, nothing is hidden whatsoever.You're forgetting a lot in the list, like the 4th industrial revolution, the role of AI, and so much more.The only question that remains is what kind of real power the WEF has over governments - which is the point some may oppose as being a conspiracy theory.And maybe the WEF has absolutely no power or influence over anything or anyone indeed, who knows.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 11, 2023, 09:16:37 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on July 11, 2023, 09:05:21 pmwood phone power by hand cranking?

author: Infraviolet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 05:33:40 am
content: Ofcourse hydrogen is less energy efficient than batteries, generating energy as electricity to power electrolysis to make hydrogen, and then putting that hydrogen in a fuel cell to convert back to electricity to produce kinetic energy is always going to be less efficient than storing the electrical energy directly in a battery, but I'd say this isn't such a problem really.Why?Well, in the sort of ideal future grid we should be working towards there will be ample energy to spare. Nuclear fission power can't be throttled back easily, it runs at close to full power all the time, (fusion power would perhaps be the same once available?) so there would be excess energy in the grid much of the time. Energy efficiency is not the top priority, sure it is nice to have, but the future we should be planning for is one of cheap plentiful energy, exactly as the original hopes for atomic power suggested. When you've got energy to spare, the chemical nature of H2 fuel, and its energy density makes it superior to batteries (not to mention speed of refuelling as vs time to charge up batteries) even if you lose a large proportion of energy in the conversion steps. Futures planning for electric cars optimised for a grid too feeble to supply the true needs of a place are completely missing the point, the only type of grid which can usefully supply an industrialised civilisation is one which is producing the sort of levels of excess power that energy efficiency is no longer the top concern.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 05:48:51 am
content: Quote from: vad on July 11, 2023, 07:06:22 pmI don't know if that was an ironic comment or not, but you realize the the energy density of current li-ion, already exceeding 300Wh/kg at cell level, is just fine for wheel-based mobility? It's not like it's making electric vehicles significantly heavier anymore. Of course new improvements are welcomed, but their importance is dropping. I remember the analytical discussions from 2009 or something when the conclusion was that energy density needs to double and cost needs to halve. From 150Wh/kg to 300Wh/kg, that's what happened except the cost is at one quarter from around $400/kWh to around $100/kWh (even better inflation-adjusted actually). It was a gradual breakthrough with no any single big jump, but small improvements accumulating.

author: Infraviolet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 05:52:44 am
content: Batteries, 300Wh/kg, hydrogen fuel 33000Wh/kg.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 05:58:43 am
content: And your mother's ass, 3300000000000000Wh/kg.What matters in engineering is if a specification is good enough, not "bigger is better". For example, we use 25V rated capacitors on 12V systems, not 450V even when they are available, because those come with other compromises.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 08:08:54 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 12, 2023, 05:48:51 amIndeed. You can see this in the cost of electric vehicles too.In 2011, a Nissan Leaf cost £21,500 and came with a 24kWh battery and 80kW motor. In real terms, that's £30,207, but that didn't even include the battery, you had to lease it at up to £150 per month depending on your mileage.Today, you can get for £27,000, so less in inflationary terms, a Peugeot e-208 with a 50kWh battery and 150kW motor. You would own the car outright if you paid that much, there's no battery leasing option.So battery capacity has doubled whilst price has fallen.e-208 weighs 1530kg and Leaf 24kWh weighs 1505kg. Battery capacity double but the vehicles weigh almost the same unladen.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 08:15:53 am
content: Quote from: Infraviolet on July 12, 2023, 05:33:40 amAre you sure? Perhaps you mean it can't be throttledquickly?edit:A widespread misconception

author: connectTek
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 08:52:10 am
content: Totally agree.0.03% is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and we contribute 3% of that ,Apparently.A poofteenth of a poofteenth.Global warming is a scam.That's why it's now called "climate change", of which it has been changing since the earth began, 4+ billion years before man was here.

author: connectTek
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 08:53:54 am
content: And water vapour, ,Clouds, is 1000 time worse than CO2,Let's ban water!

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 09:29:58 am
content: Quote from: PlainName on July 12, 2023, 08:15:53 amYeah, it can be throttled just fine, always could. Why it usually wasn't is because during the old days of smaller changes in electricity pricing, running at less than full power simply means all the costs that are constant per lifetime or constant per operational hour make each MWh produced more expensive. Only the fuel cost really scales down with power, and fuel cost is insignificant compared to everything else.Nowadays with larger price fluctuations, including negative prices, nuclear is throttled more than ever. It's a financial disaster, but throttling manages the disaster from becoming even bigger.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 10:32:08 am
content: This is also a reason why nuclear plants think they should be able to benefit from green hydrogen subsidies.Maybe they should benefit for subsidy only on hydrogen generated when electricity spot prices are under some given benchmark?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 11:00:06 am
content: Quote from: connectTek on July 12, 2023, 08:52:10 amThat is not correct. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled from around 200ppm to over 400ppm (and rising). It is pretty easy to attribute that to the burning of fossil fuels by humans. And you have to keep in mind the oceans and seas have absorbed a large amount of CO2 as well to to point that the acidity of the water has risen to levels that are harmfull to sea life (like coral). CO2 emission is a real problem for all of us.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 11:54:05 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 12, 2023, 08:08:54 amThat explains why they don't sell Peugeots here in the USA! With a mere 50kWh, a trip to the nearest Costco would require an overnight stop for a full battery recharge.

author: Monkeh
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 12:11:17 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 12, 2023, 11:54:05 amReally, that explains why the ICE versions with 400+ mile range aren't sold there?And, as a counter-argument, the Research Triangle, as they call it, the combined statistical area of Raleigh, Durham, and Cary in North Carolina has about one fifth of the total population of the state.. all within about 50 miles as the crow flies, or one quarter the range of an e208, of a Costco. Easily time to recharge that in the time you're in the store. And just about half that population is located within those three cities, putting them within 20 miles. There's two in Charlotte (there goes another million people), one in Greensboro (half a million or so), and so on.The false narrative of everyone in the US being too far away from services and work for even shorter range EVs needs to die already.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 12:21:20 pm
content: 50kWh alone doesn't tell you a lot, you have to factor in the consumption of the car which depends on the weight and size (aerodynamic loss). In a small passenger vehicle where 5 people struggles to fit, 50kWh is plenty. In a large SUV it's quite crappy. (Of course also depends on the use, but I'm assuming we are talking about generic cars that are suitable for 99% of users or so; even the EVs of 2010 would have been OK for say 70-80% but that does not cut it.)

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 12:21:33 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 11, 2023, 08:39:42 amThat has been debunked by trials in the UK - the charge rates and levels were shown to have no negative impact on battery lifetime, and in some cases actually improved things by keeping the battery in its most healthy SoC range for more of the time.However home V2G is probably too expensive and inconvenient in practice to be worthwhile. Using it for home solar storage & backup is more likely to be useful, as well as fleet type situations where usage patterns are more predictable and hardware is more concentrated.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 12:25:54 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on July 12, 2023, 12:21:33 pmYes. People who assume that cycling a li-ion cell is like incrementing a cycle counter or something always make this mistake. Most wear happens when charging at relatively high current near full battery. V2G cell wear can be easily optimized next to nothing by some simple limits in place, that's not the problem. The question is more about the cost of the bidirectional inverter. The low-hanging fruit is to just cut charging current to zero when necessary, and that already has a lot of potential for grid stabilization / cost management.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 01:10:55 pm
content: Could you imagine using a UPS where your colleagues randomly take the battery away to power the coffee maker or something? A bit ridiculous, but grid storage using cars thatwillbe going AWOL, and typically all at the same time, strikes me as somewhat similar. I guess they figure that if the car is gone then there won't be anyone using electricity at the home, but that's not a valid assumption so I'm sure they don't!

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 04:29:56 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on July 12, 2023, 12:21:33 pmIt doesn't even have to be using the battery to charge and discharge either.A lot of resource is expended on grid stability, this is expensive. Often times there can be an excess of wind but because it is going to vary a lot the turbines are shut down and gas is used instead.Well why not push that into cars... If you just say "I need 60% for my commute tomorrow" the car can charge up to 80% if there's an excess of wind or whatever, and it can happen anytime the car is plugged in.1 million cars at 7kW is 7GW of dispatchable load... about half of the UK's installed wind power. So while making hydrogen is a good idea for storage, even better is to use EVs.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 04:33:33 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 12, 2023, 12:25:54 pmThe neat thing about bidirectional inverters is the capability usually comes for free once you replace the input diode bridge with a synchronous rectifier. The power stage is usually a full bridge topology, with a synchronous output rectifier, and the PFC will often have a synchronous switch too. All of these devices are used to improve efficiency and reduce cooling requirements. At 7kW it makes a real difference.This is what the MG4 charger does: it's a fully synchronous design, so it can charge the car at 7kWanddischarge at 7kW too.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 05:01:03 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 12, 2023, 04:33:33 pmYeah. There is extra work from anti-islanding and safety considerations, but those can be borrowed from PV inverter designs. PV inverters took a lot of time to become truly affordable, but that happened eventually.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 05:23:33 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on July 12, 2023, 12:21:33 pmThat is not possible. Just check the warranty specs on any Li-ion battery. It will tell you a maximum amount of stored energy that is guaranteed not to degrade the battery to a certain percentage. Ofcourse you can get lucky and have a battery that performs better than advertised but you can also be unlucky. With ever improving manufacturing technologies, battery manufacturers will become better and better at making their battery as worse as they can and still meet the specifications. And if you think about it logically, it makes perfect sense. Otherwise the ever lasting Li-ion cell would have been invented a long time ago. IOW: the trial data is anecdotal evidence at best but not something to rely on.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 05:43:10 pm
content: Car manufacturers work with li-ion cell manufacturers and get their own warranties, as manufacturers know their products better than the simple public datasheet says. Rest assured, we understand what we are doing even if you don't.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 05:49:27 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 12, 2023, 05:23:33 pmIt has to be way more complex than simply Wh charge/discharge, e.g. rates, tempeartures and avarage SoChttps://www.current-news.co.uk/v2g-found-to-improve-the-lifetime-of-electric-vehicle-batteries/

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 06:14:36 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 12, 2023, 05:43:10 pmOfcourse, and every car manufacturer will try to make a product that just lasts long enough for the customer to be happy under normal usage circumstances. V2G is like having your ICE car run stationary to power your home from the alternator. It will cause wear on the engine. Maybe less because the engine runs at a sort of constant, low load but nevertheless you'll be reducing the remaining distance you can travel with the car without having the do repairs on the engine and surrounding systems. And it could be benificial in some cases to run the engine really warm when a car is used mostly for short trips but in the end wear is wear. Or maybe I should compare it with licking a lolly. A single lick doesn't seem to reduce the size but after enough licks, the lolly will be gone. Again, the ever lasting Li-ion has not been invented yet (AFAIK) so don't pretend it exists. You know better!

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 07:29:14 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 12, 2023, 05:43:10 pmSuppose you're manufacturing, for the sake of illustration, a garden hose. Hoses wear out (just go with it) and most available hoses state that they will pass 10,000 gallons before requiring replacement. Your hose is nothing special, but you advertise it as goingat least50,000 gallons. Not only that, you guarantee - via lifetime free replacement - that it will. Naturally, any discerning gardener will buy your hose in preference to the competition that clearly sells an inferior product. But... your hose is exactly the same; the only difference is your warranty. You figure that most gardeners sprinkle at most a couple of gallons a day when they water the plants on the patio, and they will never come close to 10,000 gallons. The very few that use the hose to fill a swimming pool twice a year will just ask for a warranty replacement and you'll send them two, to keep them providing 5-star reviews for service and validation of your (known but you to be rubbish) guarantee.Why wouldn't car manufacturers play that game too?

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 08:14:35 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 12, 2023, 06:14:36 pmand for most people running the engine (or using the battery) just an hour or two each day it going easily double the usage

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 09:34:43 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 12, 2023, 11:00:06 amWhile rising CO2 levels in recent history (over the past 70 years) is a well-documented fact, it is doubtful that there were reliable measurements of this gas concentration at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Therefore, observation #1 suggests that followers of Greta Thunberg tend to exaggerate and extrapolate.The potential harm of such minuscule atmospheric CO2 concentration levels to marine life is debatable. The oldest known coral fossils are 500 million years old, and throughout the past half billion years, the Earth has experienced much higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Somehow corals survived that. The current CO2 concentration level is harmless to humans, and higher CO2 levels are beneficial to the Plantae Kingdom. Thus, observation #2 indicates that Greta Thunberg's followers don’t know what they are talking about.Lastly, as the third and final observation, it should be noted that life expectancy in Europe was approximately 35 years just prior to the Industrial Revolution. Today, it has increased to 80 years. Fossil fuels have played a significant role in this remarkable progress.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 09:48:20 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 12, 2023, 05:23:33 pmBut, an EV battery is typically ~60kWh and charged/discharged at say 7kW. Whereas a home battery is typically 10kWh and charged/discharged at up to 5kW. The 'C' rate and therefore cell heating is much higher, and this is a daily thing with these batteries.Also, for some car manufacturers, there is no specified total MWh discharge on the pack, for instance, MG warranty theirs at 7yr/80k miles regardless of any V2H function. VW do apply a discharge limit, but it's some 10MWh on top of the normal 8yr/100k mile warranty, 70% capacity guarantee. (100k miles at 3.5 miles per kWh implies an additional 28MWh of total discharge throughput.) Kia/Hyundai also don't specify any limit.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 10:41:35 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 12, 2023, 09:34:43 pmThe problem with CO2 isn't the absolute figure - it's that life has adapted to ~300ppm CO2 and oceans with a pH of about 8.2. We can already see the impact of coral bleaching due to acidification and rising temperatures.As this shifts, life becomes less able to adapt. Will it adapt over time? I have very little doubt, but we could still see ecosystems collapse, food chains failing, crop failure etc. in "human timescales". This is so very problematic when we are so dependent on these ecosystems. There is also the lesser, but still significant concern of rising sea levels and changes in weather patterns. If the +3C predictions come true - they are definitely "worst case" - we are looking at +/-15deg around the equator essentially being uninhabitable for most of the summer months, due to drought, famine and extreme temperatures. This will push people out of this area, seeking safety and food. Something close to 1 billion could be displaced. War could be triggered due to local resource exhaustion.As for reliable CO2 measures: there are direct methods to measure back at least 100k years by looking at ice bubbles in Greenland and Antarctica. The results between these two sets of measurements correlate very well, and they align with shorter term measurements (~500 years in trees for instance, as well as air bubbles trapped underground.)There is absolutely no doubt that fossil fuels have improved our lives (though I would argue modern medicine is more significant -- surgeons didn't wash their hands before surgery until the early 1900s!) Any future shift has to account for the benefits of fossil fuels whilst reducing the harm caused. I think we can do it but it will require how we use energy to change.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 12, 2023, 11:54:49 pm
content: It is scaremongering based on unreliable climate models. Are we all meant to be frightened by this climate change scare?Weather and climate have always undergone changes, and one thing life has mastered is adaptation to these changes.A 3-degree Celsius increase may sound significant, but the majority of the change would occur at high latitudes, such as an 8-degree Celsius rise in the Russian and Canadian tundra, Arctic, and Southern oceans. Temperature increases at the equator and tropics would be more modest compared to the average.For instance, I lived on the equator in the remarkable concrete jungle of Singapore for about a decade. The weather there can shift within minutes - clear skies transform into torrential rain and back to sunshine all in an hour. While it might have been challenging for British colonists to survive there 200 years ago, modern infrastructure, including air conditioning powered predominantly by electricity generated from fossil fuels, allowed not only Russian expats like me but also a Polar Bear to live there comfortably. If people can adapt to rapid and extreme weather changes, they can certainly adapt to gradual climate change, unless Greta's followers destroy our economy and return us to a pre-Industrial Revolution reality.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 05:33:56 am
content: Quote from: PlainName on July 12, 2023, 07:29:14 pmYour analogy is absolutely perfect becauseA) hoses do not wear out based on the gallons of water that ran through them, but completely different factors - aging damage, UV exposure, kinking, freezing damage, etc.B) hoses do not come with "gallons through the hose" ratings.Exact same thing with li-ion. Manufacturers do not rate them for "this many kWh stored until warranty goes out", because the actual wear patterns are more complex than that.The problem is people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, trying to discuss a subject, and come up with poor analogies. Battery science is weird and complex for laymen. For example, it is entirely possible certain type of microcycling to/from grid actuallyincreasesbattery life. When regenerative braking was an interesting study subject, it was speculated it would wear out the battery prematurely (many small microcycles), but it was studied and found out it increases battery life.As for the question, why would car/battery/cell manufacturers take extra work (all this analysis, and complicated battery management) and risk (that they still did something wrong and ended up shortening battery life) - they won't unless there is some kind of incentive. It can be legal requirement to do so, monetary compensation, or a monetary saving for the customer which is large enough so that people want that feature and will pay for it.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 07:01:23 am
content: QuoteI asked you to pretend they did for the sake of illustrating the argument that would then become apparent. Perhaps that was too deep for you.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 07:32:39 am
content: Oh, we can pretend that battery manufacturer comes with such condition. In this premise, I would of course agree. But because such condition does not exist I don't see the point. In the end, how hoses or batteries actually work in real world, matters for the manufacturers, not how they work in an imaginary scenario "for the sake of illustration". And cell/battery manufacturers really know their products so they don't need to play such games. This is just normal business.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 08:01:50 am
content: Quote from: vad on July 12, 2023, 11:54:49 pmWhat if it is not scaremongering? You can model the climate fairly accurately. You know the thermal forcing of CO2 (this can be tested in a lab.) You know what insolation is and how much it varies by. We have a good idea of how much CO2 has been absorbed by the oceans by both measuring dissolved CO2 and also by proxy as atmospheric CO2 should have risen by x but instead has risen by some fraction less. Sampling of atmospheric gases is easy. So once that's all done you can build up a model of how insulated the atmosphere is, the change in that and the equivalent temperature rise. This is almost something you could do "at home", but it's certainly something that could be checked by most.As for whether to be scared about it - well I dunno. It's kinda inevitable at this point so fear is probably the wrong response. I'm pretty alarmed that people are still debating that it is happening when basically everyone in the field and in tangentially related fields is in agreement. There's disagreement over the magnitude of the effect or how bad it will be, but no one is saying the outcome will begood.Quote from: vad on July 12, 2023, 11:54:49 pmYes, over tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. Seriously, the rate of temperature change is a massive anomaly, it's comparable with an asteroid impact on a small scale. There is no evidence for an anomaly on this scale in the last 1mil+ years. I like this graph/comic:https://xkcd.com/1732/Quote from: vad on July 12, 2023, 11:54:49 pmA significant increase in arctic tundra temperatures risks the release of methane from permafrost which would further trigger warming. Given methane has a 100yr GWP of about 20, it doesn't take much methane released to cause further warming, which could cause further warming and so on. Positive feedback loops like that are extremely concerning.As for temperature increases in the equatorial region being modest: if you have a look at models for the world in Koppen classification, the equatorial regions are likely to become much more arid and peak temperatures of 60C are regularly anticipated. Peak temperatures in those regions have already been climbing and this is well correlated to human CO2 emissions.Quote from: vad on July 12, 2023, 11:54:49 pmWeather is not climate - but I'm sure you know that.No one sensible is saying humans can't adapt to climate change, it's just whether that adaptation is going to lead to a significant degradation in quality of life compared to making changes now to reduce the impact. There are ways to adapt the economy and way of life without destroying what we know, the big problem with the green movement is it is full of nutters, but that doesn't mean they aren't acting for a good reason.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 08:17:23 am
content: There is alotof unnecessary scaremongering going on, but that does not mean the whole climate change thing is just scaremongering. Reducing CO2 plays in everyone's (except the fossil fuel sellers) favor. It just makes no sense to artificially keep burning so much fossil fuels when there are still rather easy ways to significantly reduce it.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 08:26:53 am
content: Quote from: vad on July 12, 2023, 09:34:43 pmThere are very reliable measurements, through ice cores, and tree rings, to give but two examples. Therefore this observation suggests that you know less about the subject than you think you do, and perhaps Greta and her followers have a point.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 09:18:41 am
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on July 13, 2023, 08:26:53 amThe problem is twofold:(1) incoherent scaremongering which does not help because it causes the opposite reaction in people(2) focus on ineffectively small improvements, or non-improvements, which mentally (and concretely, e.g. money) wear out people, so that they'll be unable to make significant changesWe should simply forget banning plastic drinking straws and accusing people of eating meat, based on old and incorrect calculations of climate effect thereof*, and simply concentrate all of our efforts on minimization of usage of fossil coal, oil and natural gas. And to achieve that, primary targets should be building heating/HVAC and transport, with secondary focus on some highly energy hungry industrial processes like steel manufacturing. Everything else, forget about it, because the disadvantages caused to people outweigh the gains. Even though it would beeffectiveto sit in a dark room eating ze bugs and being happy, we don'tneedto do that, there are other equally effective ways.Seehttps://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sectorfor ideas in priorization.*) for example, an independent authority, Natural Resources Institute Finland, published a calculation based on real data on Finnish cattle, showing that the CO2 footprint of milk is roughly equal to that of plant-based substitutes, simply because the CO2-equivalent methane calculations from manufacturers of those products are based on old data, in less developed countries, while during last decades the cattle diet has been optimized to significantly reduce methane and increase milk output.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 09:42:45 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 13, 2023, 08:17:23 amNot exactly. Even if it makes equatorial regions unhabitable, northern areas like the Cap of the North, Greenland, Northern Canada, and Siberia, would become much more habitable, lush even, if global temperatures were to reach those of the Eocene epoch (+6°C .. +14°C). There is a lot of basically uninhabited land area there now.At least in the Arctic regions, even early holocene (as the last ice age ended 12,000 years ago) was somewhat warmer than it is now. Even the tallest fells in Northern Finland and Norway's Finnmark were covered in large pine trees; they're above the treeline now and completely bald. As deer fly (lipoptena cervi) spreads northwards, reindeer herding will likely become untenable, though. So, if we are fully honest, Nordic countries won't suffer much, just the weather extremes will get more extreme.If we think in global terms, and we do live in a thoroughly connected and interdependent world, you're absolutely right, though.But, if we humans could actually think in such terms, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

author: connectTek
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 09:58:00 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 12, 2023, 11:00:06 amDuring the Triassic period it was 4000ppm, 10 times higher than today.The world never ended.CO2 is plant food, NOT a dangerous gas.200ppm to 400ppm a %50 increase, sounds bad.But the reality is 0.000200 to 0.000400 doesn't seem that bad.1/3 of people who use public transport will get cancer, Why?Because 1/3 of people get cancer.You can make statistics/numbers look as good or bad as you want.As I've stated Man made Global warming, or is it now climate change? Is SCAM.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 11:05:05 am
content: Quote from: connectTek on July 13, 2023, 09:58:00 amOf course the world never ended! The Earth has shrugged off much more devastating events than Man made Global warming... with massive global extinctions.The Earth isn't the fragile thing, the Human race, together with our familiar biosphere is! The World will get on just fine without us.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 11:37:22 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 13, 2023, 09:18:41 amOf course there's incoherent scare-mongering; media organisations are in the business of making money, and this kind of thing sells newspapers/subscriptions etc. If people were educated properly, in things like critical thinking, this would be less of a problem, but they aren't, and it is.This is not to say there isn't a problem, and a serious one.It's down to governments to take a lead on this, but mostly they won't, because mostly they're ruled by unenlightened self-interest; they like money and power, and pandering to the big corporations gives them this.History tells us that the necessary actions probably won't be taken until it's too late to mitigate the worst effects. If you live anywhere near a coastline, or outside the northern and southern temperate zones, in the next few decades quite likely it's gonna suck to be you.Quote from: Gyro on July 13, 2023, 11:05:05 amExactly so.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 13, 2023, 05:46:34 pm
content: Quote from: connectTek on July 13, 2023, 09:58:00 amGeez, get your math straight. From 200ppm to 400ppm is a 100% increase.Secondly, CO2 starts to become problematic (toxic) to humans starting from concentrations of 1000ppm. Above that level things like concentration problems start to occur and ultimately death. CO2 is a toxic gas to most animals.And plants don't like a lot of CO2 either. Optimum is between 800ppm and 1500ppm

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 06:50:03 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 13, 2023, 05:46:34 pmThe idea that CO2 is "fine" and is not really worth worrying about because plants will love it is something that started in the US, I think. Because it's now undeniable that CO2 is rising, and that humans are causing that rise, but "Plants love CO2! So it is not bad!". It fails some of the most basic tests, like, ok, even if plants love it, do we, what about atmospheric temperatures, what about the oceans? Plants may well thrive in 2000ppm CO2, but I think we will be mostly dead!

author: Infraviolet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 03:23:55 pm
content: "No one sensible is saying humans can't adapt to climate change, it's just whether that adaptation is going to lead to a significant degradation in quality of life compared to making changes now to reduce the impact."The trouble is that a lot fo the green movement, especially the modern "woke" authoritarian corporate-backed iteration of this movement, is in the habit of planning solutions which would quite possibly be worse than the worst likely scenario that climate change could cause (which is a fairly bad scenario). We need to end our addiction to oil/gas/coal, if for no other reason than that they will run out sooner or later and right now make the world dependent on fuel supplies from all manner of awful regimes in unstable countries, but the "greens" who want to wipe out fossil fuels before we've had a chance to replace them, want to end farming and have us all on diets of ultra-processed bugs, and want things like individual carbon credit surveillance and rationing schemes, are quite likely more dangerous to standards of living than climate change is. There is a right way to fix the climate issue, that is nuclear power, hydrogen road transport, non-CO2 emitting industrial process for steel and concrete production, and investing all spare money in to development of technologies which can provide direct equivalents to current fossil fuels, but many in the curent green movement seem so devoted to an anti-capitalist anti-freedom anti-modernity agenda that it is as if they don't want a simple fix or the climate because then they'd have no way remaining to push their ideology. Climate change is an industrial problem, to be fixed by replacing, a soon as practical, CO2 emitting technologies with non-emitting alternatives of comparable performance, but today's "green" movement dismisses that proper form of solution because it wouldn't require massive disruption to lifestyles, and their corporate backers support them because the corporate backers would rather cause massive societal upheaval than sacrifice profits for a little while whilst swapping out dirty technologies for clean ones, under the present "green" movement's thought patterns mass emissions would stay busienss as usual for the big corporations, its only the little people who would have changes forced on them. Get talking to many of the current generation of "green" activists and you'll find that given the choice between saving the planet with some "magic bullet"* technology or ending capitalism, they openly admit they'd opt for the latter.*good news, perhaps too good to be true, but it even looks now like there migh be natural hydrogen reserves ("white hydrogen") which can be extracted from the ground, hard to believe given hydrogen's propensity to react with anything it can, but the evidence seems to be there, could help us get used to hydrogen for mobile applications while we get enough nuclear power online to run huge electrolysis plants, infact some suggest the hydrogen is being constantly replenished by geologial processes so could be a long term fuel in itself.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 03:46:54 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 14, 2023, 06:50:03 amActually there is something else to be worried about. If you look at CO2 levels from ice core drillings, you'll see a sharp peak every 40k years (IIRC; super exact number doesn't matter). What matter is that at this point in time we are right at the point where such a peak is supposed to occur. So there are 2 possible scenarios here: 1) human activity is amplifying the natural CO2 peak and even with CO2 emission reductions the level will rise to higher levels or 2) the natural peak hasn't happened yet and we (humans) have made the situation quite bad already so the natural CO2 peak becomes a double whammy. I have not investigated in the how & why the natural CO2 peaks occured in the past. It would be interesting to find out what the mechanism behind it is. Melting permafrost perhaps?And for sure earth will continue to circle around the sun but changes in the climate will reduce the amount of land people & animals can live on drastically both by rising sea levels and deserts getting larger.

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 03:52:35 pm
content: QuotePossibility 3: We are at the peak and once we passed it, CO2 levels will go down, no need to worry

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 04:03:27 pm
content: In an alternate reality, mankind is intentionally increasing the temperature, so the vast tundras and taigas become habitable and good for agriculture.In yet an alternative reality Earth is broken down to build a Dyson ring.I can tell you one thing: This is an engineering problem, and the solution is not going to come from politicians, or 17 year old autistic children.So I'm just going back to my work, increasing the efficiency of the transportation of chemicals. Just a bit. You guys go ahead and do the same in your field, and we might just make it.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 04:16:16 pm
content: Note that whatever is causing climate change, it will hit different parts of the Earth differently.That is bound to increase migration from worsened regions to more temperate climes.What could go wrong?

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 05:39:37 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on July 14, 2023, 03:52:35 pmThe shape of the current peak is different than those occurring earlier, which are like sinusoidal wavelets. Now it has increased with like 10x the rate or so. That is why Possibility 3 seems unlikely. (But of course, even this is oversimplifying a complex matter; and panic is of no help; actions should be both effective and not unnecessarily limiting.)

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 06:22:36 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 13, 2023, 08:01:50 amThe hilarity ensues when the climate “scientists" claim with absolute certainty that they possess a marvelously accurate climate change model, only to turn around and sprinkle their statements with delightful little modal verbs "could" and "would" that hint at mere possibility rather than solid certainty...No, you do not have a reliable model that accounts for all the complexities and intertwined dependencies that affect the climate. You are unable to predict with certainty if methane will be released, whether Gulf Stream and other ocean currents will change and cool down Northern Europe, or the exact effects of sunlight reflection from greater cloud coverage caused by warmer and moister climate. You also cannot accurately model and predict the impact of greener vegetation in regions that are currently inhospitable to life, nor reliably predict increases in absorption of CO2 by plankton if the global ocean warms up.However, I can certainly predict that you can travel from a bone-chilling -50°C climate in Siberia to a scorching +45°C climate in Dubai in less than 24 hours and survive. Based on that observation, one might assume that humans can endure a +3°C average temperature rise over several generations.

author: Gyro
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 06:57:45 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 14, 2023, 06:22:36 pmAnd their food supply?Edit: And to some extent, locally, their drinking water supply.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 07:10:05 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 14, 2023, 06:22:36 pmI don't recall climate scientists ever saying with certainty that Xwillhappen. It is usually stated that "it is more likely that X" will happen. Things like flood risk are a lot easier to analyse because based on average temperatures you can predict ice sheet melting and therefore sea level rise. Plug that into weather or tidal models and you have your answer. Peak temperatures can also be analysed: what happens when a high pressure event happens at location Z in June... ok, now add +Y W/m^2 additional forcing... now what does it look like? There's your "bad case" warming figures. The problem is high pressure events like that tend to stick around, so now what happens to crop yield when you have sustained 45C temperatures in a place that would normally see 35C?Also, even if you completely refuse to believe climate scientists and Greta, know that insurance companies (who are very interested in making correct long-term bets, see reinsurance for instance), are accounting for the significant potential harms of climate change. For instance, they're getting increasingly reluctant to insure new properties in the Fens in England. This is an area that was drained by Dutch engineers (by royal decree) in the late 1700s early 1800s, and the land sits only about 10 metres or so above sea level. The result is that these properties will eventually become uninsurable. Farmers are impacted too because a significant proportion of England's agriculture is based in this area.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 07:12:08 pm
content: One of many discussions of climate-induced migration (from the German government):https://www.bmz.de/en/issues/climate-change-and-development/migration-and-climateMacroscopic effects of warming such as drought and resulting desertification of the landscape are more important than packing a parka when flying north.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 08:10:58 pm
content: QuoteI suppose a considerable portion of those 23.7 million individuals were Texas residents, many of whom temporarily abandoned their homes due to the blackout caused by the winter storm. Additionally, we can include hundreds of thousands of Californians who have opted to permanently relocate to other states, citing the state government's excessive emphasis on climate-related initiatives.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 08:38:40 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 14, 2023, 08:10:58 pmIMHO it is not a good idea to use a limited set of data points as proof. Especially with something so random as weather. However, I have been alive long enough to notice a significant change in the climate. In my youth it was quite common for the small waters to freeze up so you could walk & ice skate on these during the winter. Nowadays it is super rare. Like once every 8 to 10 years. Summers have gotten different as well with dry winds coming from the north instead of humid air from the south or east.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 08:40:14 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 14, 2023, 07:10:05 pmOh, well, what a great confidence interval!In comparison, in experimental physics, a widely accepted rule for acknowledging new discoveries is a 5σ threshold. This stringent criterion exists due to the many instances where claimed discoveries with sigma values between 3 and 4 failed to receive independent confirmation. Such discrepancies can be attributed to researcher bias.In the medical, pharmaceutical, and health sciences field, 3σ is a norm, thanks to techniques like double-blind randomized controlled trials that help mitigate bias.Based on what you are saying, it appears that in the realm of climate "science” 0.7σ is a norm. Coupled with significant bias stemming from political corruption, monetary incentives, and fear, any models originating from such sources can be considered as reliable as fortune-telling with a crystal ball.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 08:47:07 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 14, 2023, 08:40:14 pmBefore building a strawman to attack your opponent, have you actually READ some of what you claim to disagree with?Page 20 is a good example:https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdfThe confidence interval outcomes range from "bad" to "very, very bad" for situations like 3C warming, which current models suggest we are on the path towards. (3C by 2050 or so.)This is not a case of the outcomes ranging from "maybe nothing happens" to "bad" and you're hoping we're in the first category. There is no projected outcome where nothing happens and things are all good.Edit: most of the items in that document seem to be "high confidence" which is >9 in 10 chance of happening, or to a scientist, around 2-sigma or better. A few items are "very high confidence" which is 3-sigma.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 08:47:50 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 14, 2023, 07:10:05 pmWell, it's interesting to note that global crop yields have been increasing even as the global climate has been warming. I fail to observe any inverse correlation between the two.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 08:52:15 pm
content: Macroscopic indications of warming: the classic Dutch ice-skating marathon, started in 1909.In the past 50 years, the Elfstedentocht has taken place only three times, most recently in 1997.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 08:59:19 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 14, 2023, 08:52:15 pmAnother factor. The Thames in London historically froze over about once every 10-15 years from 1400 to the early 1900s. It hasn't frozen over since 1963. At one point, the river was frozen over by 30" ice, and market stalls and events were held on the ice.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 09:06:12 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 14, 2023, 08:47:07 pmI am sorry, but what does IPCC, a lobbyist organization of climate scaremongers, previously caught in falsifying and cherry picking data, have to do with science? They are paid for pushing forward climate change agenda. Any research that does not support their agenda is ignore by IPCC.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 09:14:18 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 14, 2023, 08:59:19 pmAnd before that: “The Romans introduced winemaking to the UK, in a period with a relatively warm climate. Their vineyards were as far north as Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire, with others in Buckinghamshire and Cambridgeshire” (Wikipedia)So what we know for sure, is that the climate is always changing.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 09:17:21 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 14, 2023, 09:06:12 pmPlease provide your evidence towards the IPCC being corrupt in the manner described. IPCC is independent of governments and summarises existing research.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 09:19:17 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 14, 2023, 09:14:18 pmBut the question is: did it ever change so fast that you can actually notice it happening?

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 09:25:02 pm
content: Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.When evaluating the question of global warming, look at macroscopic longer-term effects such as shrinkage of glaciers, not a cold snap in Texas nor its current dangerous heat wave.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 09:43:58 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 14, 2023, 09:17:21 pmOne word: climategate.Quote: “emails released by a computer hacker that revealed that several leading climate scientists allegedly manipulated climate data and research used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scientists also appear to have refused outside access to their raw data, obstructed freedom of information requests, and plotted ways to prevent the publication of papers in peer-reviewed journals by scientists who question global warming alarmism.”https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2009/11/post-27fe9184-802a-23ad-45e5-8feb948b7bb3

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 09:53:24 pm
content: Speaking of cherry picking, here is the Wikipedia summary of that controversy:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversyOther groups looking at the rendering of the hacked e-mails came to conclusions like'The controversy has focused on a small number of emails with climate change denier websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t". This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability, but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.'As is common in the current state of discussion'One of the IPCC's lead authors, Raymond Pierrehumbert of the University of Chicago, expressed concern at the precedent established by this incident: "his is a criminal act of vandalism and of harassment of a group of scientists that are only going about their business doing science. It represents a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth... What next? Deliberate monkeying with data on servers? Insertion of bugs into climate models?" Another IPCC lead author, David Karoly of the University of Melbourne, reported receiving hate emails in the wake of the incident and said that he believed that there was "an organised campaign to discredit individual climate scientists". Andrew Pitman of the University of New South Wales commented: "The major problem is that scientists have to be able to communicate their science without fear or favour and there seems to be a well-orchestrated campaign designed to intimidate some scientists."'Apparently, in internal communications, someone wrote "trick" for a method of presenting data, and the hackers assumed that meant like Uri Geller.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 10:13:47 pm
content: Yeah, I know how this story ended. The same scientists who were accused of wrongdoing took the investigation into their own hands and declared themselves innocent. And then they fact-checked their own claims.Reminds me of scientists who recently claimed that a pangolin accidentally wandered from Malaysia to a Wuhan wet market, where it was bitten by a bat before being eaten raw by several Wuhan residents. This same group of scientists peer-reviewed their colleague's article and fact-checked it for media outlets, all while receiving overwhelming support from the WHO.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 14, 2023, 10:21:09 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 14, 2023, 10:13:47 pmEr, no... it was quite the scandal at the time it came out, but there were numerous enquiries (including at least one led by a prominent right-winger, known to be climate change skeptical - Jim Inhofe) that all concluded there was nothing much there worth investigating. You have some informal language like "applying a trick" that is misrepresented so many times by media but means very little other than applying a data processing technique. I bet in 100,000 emails you could find something to make a conspiracy about everything, the fact that in those 100,000 emails they found at best four interesting things to support claims of a grand conspiracy is pretty telling IMO.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 05:24:07 am
content: Quote from: vad on July 14, 2023, 08:47:50 pmI checked, and this seems true. As the average temperature has already quite significantly increased, if it was true that further increase would quickly start hurting crop yields, some sort of signal should be already visible, but it's clearly not. There can be local consequences, but somewhere else the conditions will get better. One of the problem in climate discussion is that only negatives are discussed, while positives are being ignored; but many changes are actually net neutral; human is good at adapting. The relatively high speed of the changes is challenging, though.Still, burning fossil fuels when better alternatives are available is extremely stupid, and playing around with the climate is a colossally bad idea exactly because of thewe don't know for surefactor.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 08:23:35 am
content: Fertiliser technology, greater agronomist understanding and automation in agriculture (one farmer can do so much more) surely also has a significant impact on crop yields.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 10:15:58 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 15, 2023, 08:23:35 amVery true. Most of the agricultural land is not used to the maximum yield that can be obtained due to inefficient / archaic farming.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 11:29:15 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 15, 2023, 10:15:58 amIf the climate warms further, it will increase the amount of land which can be farmed, rather than reduce it. The panic about famines is unfounded. Higher temperatures means land which is too cold can be turned over to agriculture and a longer growing season, will enable a greater range of crops and more food to be grown within a year. Higher global temperatures result in increased global precipitation, so deserts will on average shrink, increasing the arable land further.Of course we should be careful about how our actions affect the environment, but we need to avoid policies which will over-react and adversely affect economic growth. The health of the general population is linked to economic wealth. Richer countries have longer life expectancies and the death rate always increases after an economic downturn.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 11:47:10 am
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 15, 2023, 11:29:15 amNo. And the simple reason is that land needs to be prepared before it can be farmed. You'll need roads, drainage canals, removing debris / vegetation. And some land (like tundras) might not be suitable at all because it basically is a swamp when unfrozen. It is much more economic to try and keep farm land than making new. In the NL there are numerous land reclamation projects which took place over the last few centuries and for those projects it took decades before the land was actually useable.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 12:04:36 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 15, 2023, 11:29:15 amThere's no shortage of agricultural land though, so I don't view this as a positive outcome even if it were true. The problem with global hunger is one of infrastructure rather than farming. If the rest of the world's agricultural land was as productive as the West is with its, we'd easily be able to support a 10bn+ population with no one in hunger. Even more so if you reduced food waste, the average person wastes a ridiculous amount. But if you can't get food to the deepest parts of, say, Somalia, because of war and conflict, people are going to starve regardless.Quote from: Zero999 on July 15, 2023, 11:29:15 amAgreed, in general. The biggest issue with the climate change activists is they intersect very strongly with the anti-capitalists. There is a way to solve the problems of climate change and maintain our way of life, but it requires action now and not later. That is hard, butnot impossible, to do with capitalism still in place. The idea that replacing capitalism with anything else would solve our problems is absolutely bonkers - especially given it essentially means that everyone agrees to significantly reduce their standard of living. Not happening in any democracy.It's one of the reasons I'm constantly frustrated by statistics like "Apple pollutes X% of global emissions" ... without anyone apparently acknowledging that they, the consumer, bought a thing and caused that pollution.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 12:13:02 pm
content: Curbing emissions is simply something interesting to do while the wall of peak everything and demographics looms. Emissions are at least a tractable problem and the renewable solutions technologically much more interesting to me than the nuclear one.Either way, only AI can save us now. Singularity or bust.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 12:13:09 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 15, 2023, 11:29:15 amAn increase in global precipitation is irrelevant, if it doesn't happen where and when you want it to, and it won't.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 12:32:20 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 15, 2023, 05:24:07 amI beg your pardon, what better alternatives can replace fossil fuels now and in the foreseeable future?The world's total energy production was 617 EJ in 2019, increasing at a 2% annual rate. Fossil fuels accounted for more than 81% of production in 2019, as in previous years (source: IEA,https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-balances-overview/world).All hydro, nuclear, biofuels, wind, solar, and geothermal combined amounted to less than 19% combined, and the 80/20 ratio has been stagnating for years.P.S. Please note that this is total energy production, including liquid fuels for transport, and not just electric generation.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 01:06:58 pm
content: When there is a gun to your head, better is not getting shot.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 01:28:19 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 15, 2023, 12:32:20 pmHow about just using less for a start? One example would be to require all new cars to get at least 35 MPG highway, a level that was easily achievable over a decade ago.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 01:32:22 pm
content: QuoteWithout cheating

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 01:34:48 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on July 15, 2023, 01:06:58 pmPutting aside the discussion of whether there is a real gun or if it is all a delusion…Let's say you decide to reduce energy consumption by a factor of 5, to get rid of dependency on fossil fuel energy sources. This would involve constructing houses that require 5 times fewer materials for building and 5 times less energy for maintenance and heating and cooling, using vehicles that require 5 times less energy for manufacturing, driving and recycling (such as electric scooters instead of fancy family EVs), consuming 5 times less food, and overall reducing consumption by 5 times in every category.How would you force your neighbors to switch to a 500-calorie-per-day diet and living in dens? I understand that regulations, policies, and imprisonment in socialist labor camps could be a potential approach. Fair enough.But how would you ensure that China and Russia also follow this trend? Start a war? Remember, that you also cut your military by the factor of 5.I am just curious.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 02:07:34 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 15, 2023, 01:34:48 pmOr produce 5 times as much food for the resources used. Turns out that's as simple as getting rid of factory farming and replacing it with sustainable farming, which also would cut down on deforestation. There's also a lot of health problems with factory farming, so a good reason to rapidly phase it out.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 02:38:17 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 15, 2023, 01:34:48 pmNot really the gun I was talking about, I meant the real guns from government. Especially in the EU treaties have a habit of leading a life of their own.QuoteEnergy inputs are nowhere near a large enough input for western consumption to drive down consumption linearly with energy costs. Building up renewables and renewable fuel infrastructure is very expensive, but we are very very rich and very very productive. It's just a question of mobilisation.By the time the west has pulled the cart and mass production has started and R&D cost has been paid, it will be a lot cheaper for the rest of the world. No strings attached globalisation is dead, they will transition away from fossil fuel because it's cheaper than being isolated from the west.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 02:44:25 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 15, 2023, 12:32:20 pmHeatpumps for heating, electric vehicles for transportation, wind and PV power, energy storage in flexible load management (e.g. heating loads), thermal storage, and to some extent, yes hydrogen too (but not in personal vehicles). All of this has already happened to the extent it's significant, and is already proven practical and possible. Note, there is nothing wrong in keeping using fossil fuels in supportive role, for example during dunkelflaute weeks. Significant reduction is all that's needed, both for climate and political stability of fossil fuels. Also price; now fossils can be used as an extortion mechanism.Current situation is much better than people seem to assume, to the point of me being positive about it by simple extrapolation, even if assuming decrease in rate of change. We don't need to hope for exponential growth anymore, we are way beyond that point.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 02:55:30 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 15, 2023, 01:34:48 pmThis sort of "cheese grate" approach where you grate off some fixed % from everything is absolutely stupid because you end up making sacrifices that are large, but do not produce significant gains.For example, over the lifecycle of a house, energy spent burning fossil fuels to heat the house greatly outweighs the construction materials, so better insulate the house better to begin with. Or, a simple heating system change from fossil fuels to heatpump reduces energy use not by factor of five but pretty close, because a heatpump itself is astored solar energy harvester.Also we don't need such factor of 5 in reduction of energy consumption. We are quickly approaching a situation where half of our energy need is already supplied by renewables directly. Cut usage in half which happens with modest adoption of EVs and heatpumps (not every car / estate has to convert), and fossil use is down to one quarter, by simple math. Reality is much more complex of course but this is the ballpark and this is something which is happening within next 15-20 years or so.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 03:05:49 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 10, 2023, 02:10:04 pmConsiderable investment in power distribution is required. The grid in many areas is struggling to cope with existing peak demand as it is. It would fall over way before everyone got an EV and a heat pump.Quote from: nctnico on July 15, 2023, 11:47:10 amThe warming is taking decades, if not centuries, which gives plenty of time to adjust our land usage. It's not going to all happen overnight.Quote from: tom66 on July 15, 2023, 12:04:36 pmI think you've hit the nail on the head, when you talk about anti-capitalists pushing this. It's probably one of the main reasons why so many of those on the Right are suspicious of climate change. The likes of Greta and co. are just harming their cause, by attracting more of a right-wing backlash.My may concern with government policies such as banning ICE vehicles is they will affect the poor most, completely antithetical to the Left's supposed goals. I would support boosting energy dependence, starting with fossil fuels, because it's relatively quick, then nuclear, which takes along time to come to fruition, as well as renewables. If electricity can be made cheap and clean, most people will adopt EVs and heat pumps in good time.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 03:20:35 pm
content: If regulations don't force the transition nothing will happen. Some new very low extraction cost sourced can still be discovered, so from pure economics you will never get to net zero without force.You could play pretend and say "well they can always do air capture" except that will never work economically, so then you're stuck with all these factories too big to fail.PS. ICEs are not banned in the EU, they just will require detection circuitry for renewable fuels. A pyrrhic victory for ICEs, they will not be economical, just toys for the rich.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 03:25:05 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on July 15, 2023, 03:20:35 pmThat's exactly why net zero is a bad idea. Most people will not vote for it. The only way to get it is authoritarianism. It's pointless anyway, since the countries aiming for it only produce a relatively small proportion of global emissions.Quote from: Marco on July 15, 2023, 03:20:35 pmRunning ICE vehicles off renewable fuels is not a sensible approach. Biofuels are less efficiency compared to solar cells and making synthetic fuel from electricity is very inefficient. I don't know what the EU policy is, but the UK want to ban new ICE cars by the end of the decade.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 03:48:21 pm
content: If the US, EU and Japan force the issue and say "net zero emissions or zero trade" the world follows.

author: Infraviolet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 04:46:56 pm
content: " so from pure economics you will never get to net zero without force."Firstly, we don't need to reach net zero, just to eventually get emissions down to a level which doesn't add much on top of naturally occuring emission levels (volcanoes and such).Secondly, fossil fuels are in limited supply, all the low hanging fruit has already been extracted, prices can only rise over time. A truly effective replacement with properly adequate performance will win out in a free market, eventually.We can solve all the environmental issues without resorting to tyranny, but there are too many would-be-tyrants and tyranny-sympathisers who are desperate to get a chance to enact tyranny regardless of whether it would help the climate. The solution to the climate is in engineering, not societal change and force, the solution to authoritarian "green" policies is mass public non-compliance.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 05:19:21 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on July 15, 2023, 03:48:21 pmThey won't. The US will elect a president who won't allow it and EU citizens are already increasingly voting for Euroskeptic parties. I don't know about Japan, but I doubt it would happen there either. They've got too much common sense. I generally look to Japan as an example of competent governance.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 05:25:42 pm
content: Quote from: Infraviolet on July 15, 2023, 04:46:56 pmWe have a time horizon of less than a decade, transition will never make sense to most of us (certainly not nuclear, which only ever got created because our tyrants wanted nukes).

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 05:34:28 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 15, 2023, 02:55:30 pmWell, a hypothetical flat 5 times reduction was a first-order approximation. We are not going to discuss a detailed 1,000-page energy reduction budget in this forum, are we? However, I agree that some categories would require milder reductions in energy consumption. Perhaps cutting military energy expenses by more than half would increase the risk of imminent colonization by Russia to a level greater than the risk of Earth turning into Venus in the next 100,000 years. Reducing food consumption to 500 kilocalories per adult per day is also too aggressive. Therefore, energy budget for other categories would have to be reduced by a factor of 10, 20, or even 100, to stick to the 5 times overall reduction. In such a scenario, there might not be any energy budget left to produce heat pumps, and heating tiny dens with renewable sources such as tree logs through campfires would be the only option.Quote from: Siwastaja on July 15, 2023, 02:55:30 pmOh, I apologize. You must be better informed than the IEA, who states, and I quote:”Fossil fuels accounted for more than 81% of production in 2019, as in previous years.”Or perhaps you were referring to electricity generation specifically, rather than total energy production?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 05:40:18 pm
content: The market follows incentives, with short time horizon on ROI, it is what it is not because of physics but because of economics.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 05:47:18 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on July 15, 2023, 05:40:18 pmUnelected bureaucracies, such as IPCC or WHO, are often motivated by corruption opportunities, seeking the shortest possible ROI.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 05:53:05 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 15, 2023, 05:34:28 pmFuck you too, I am not playing this "put words in one's mouth" game. I even clarified what meant by "quickly" further down in my message. 2019 is not even 2023, and 2019 especially is not 2038-2043, which was the range mentioned in my post. While I happily discuss with people who disagree, l don't discuss with mentally dishonest people, so you are now ignored from now on. Enjoy your echo chamber.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 06:09:55 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 15, 2023, 05:53:05 pmAdiós!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 06:39:57 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 15, 2023, 02:55:30 pmThat is an over-simplification. The next big problem to solve is storage since renewable sources are both erratic and seasonal where it comes to supply. And don't start with heat storage using water or batteris. It won't work for seasonal storage because the volume of water needed is too big, batteries will be too big & expensive and the leakage is too high. So for the next 10 to 20 years you are left with renewables being a addition to using fossil fuels up to a certain level but renewables will not a 100% replacement until seasonal storage is commercially viable.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 07:17:26 pm
content: With all those fat obese people that are everywhere in the streets there is a lot of room for 5x improvement in food supply availability. Just get them eat 5x less their junk food and go to gyms 5x more often.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 07:36:16 pm
content: Quote from: vad on July 15, 2023, 12:32:20 pmWell you start with using less energy, to do more!Sector specific but:Transport -* An electric vehicle will typically have a sticker rating of 100MPGe or above. That 20% of renewable energy goes a lot further when it charges a car compared to the equivalent in fossil fuels.* Where you can't electrify fully you use hybrids or hydrogen vehicles. And encourage less use of cars, so stop building areas that are car dependent.* Aircraft are tricky - in the short term carbon offsetting and capture will be necessary. In the longer term a shift towards biofuels, synthetic fuels and maybe hydrogen makes sense.Heating -* For home heating you promote lower internal temperatures (or higher in summer) combined with better insulation, underfloor heating and heatpumps. For older buildings that are impractical to insulate or convert to heatpumps you look at alternatives e.g. hydrogen gas burned in normal gas boilers/water heaters.* For industrial heating you mandate a switch to heatpumps by a certain date, e.g. 2035 or so.Electricity -* Renewable electricity generation* Seasonal energy storage* Nuclear where practical/cost effective* Decommission coal and natural gas plants as soon as grid stability criteria are met* Home solar/battery and consumption management (encouraging usage when electricity in surplus: e.g. EVs that charge on off-peak electricity)Agriculture -* Use less land for cattle grazing and return that land to nature, planting new forests* As has been mentioned, where cattle are raised, use a diet that produces less methane gas (but in general, try to shift away from ruminant mammals)Industry -* Carbon capture where feasible* Moving to less carbon intensive processes, e.g. making concrete with hydrogen

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 08:25:48 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 15, 2023, 06:39:57 pmAlthough it doesn't apply to all locations, if the water table is economically feasible to reach, there's your giant thermal mass you can connect to. In fact, with geothermal heat pumps, wherever there's a large mismatch between heating and cooling demand (which is most areas in the US), the ground mass gets heated or cooled over a few years requiring additional operation of the heat pump to balance it, perfect to use excess energy during spring/fall for.Then there's finding uses for excess energy during spring/fall. If nothing else, just run a bunch of old servers mining crypto or whatever.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 08:39:49 pm
content: Just as a thought, one very tricky part, and often misleading one unfortunately (when it comes to political communication or dodgy startups), is the cost of switching to much more energy-efficient solutions for given applications vs. the energy savings that can be projected with the operation of said more energy-efficient solutions during their lifetime.While the example of LED lighting is one clear success, there are many other areas for which the net result is a lot less favorable, sometimes negative, or at best similar, but merely displacing the energy consumption elsewhere.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 09:25:35 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 15, 2023, 08:25:48 pmBut you can't turn heat into electricity so you are still stranded without seasonal electricity storage. Your heatpumps won't do anything without electricity. Likely scaling up your electricity storage is more economic compared to having two seperate systems.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 10:05:12 pm
content: If you heat or cool the thermal store ahead of time, the heat pump can run more efficiently reducing the energy needed.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 11:14:21 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 15, 2023, 10:05:12 pmYou are not counting for leakage which you'll also have in storage underground. A much better solution is to add insulation to a home so you need less energy to begin with.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 15, 2023, 11:46:49 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 15, 2023, 11:14:21 pmI think the current building regulations here is close to 300mm rockwool as minimum, not sure much more will help

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 12:26:40 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on July 15, 2023, 11:46:49 pmNo, but with such thick insulation you don't need much heating to begin with; a heatpump is good enough. At that point what really counts is getting a house ventilated properly. My own home isn't that well insulated compared to modern day standards but the insulation isn't the problem for keeping the heat in. The ventilation system (or lack thereof) is the problem.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 01:42:21 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 15, 2023, 11:14:21 pmIt's apparently small enough that the accumulation can be seen over a period of a few years.Quote from: nctnico on July 16, 2023, 12:26:40 amA window mounted HRV would be an easy fix, not sure why there aren't any ready made products for just that.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 02:21:36 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 16, 2023, 01:42:21 amYou can't determine that without having numbers on energy in versus energy out.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 05:42:10 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 15, 2023, 06:39:57 pmFor seasonal, batteries are obviously no-go, and while water (or soil/bedrock) thermal storage has been demonstrated even at seasonal scale, and possibly workable, I agree it won't be a silver bullet because suitable sites are limited and building is expensive. However, as I have stated before, there is nothing wrong burning fossil fuels, which are super trivial to store, to support during harsh winter conditions, Dunkelflaute periods etc. Cost is higher than it is now because NRE and maintenance costs of facilities spread to significantly smaller number of kWh produced, but this is then compensated by cheaper prices when plenty of energy is available. This is BTW exactly what Germany is already doing and the direction seems just fine. Shutting down nuclear early gave a small setback* but that's something which needs to happen anyway so in bigger picture it doesn't matter.*) in other words, in Germany, renewables had to take overbothfossilsandnuclear at the same timeBatteries and smart load management (specifically EV ("I need 80% by morning", where UI/UX is actually the biggest challenge!) and implicit distributed thermal masses) storage work very well within 24 hrs or so, and this is already huge since PV production varies within said period for the obvious reason.Hydrogen is part of the solution too because it can be used in industrial processes e.g. steel, and of course as last resort medium for thermal heat generation despite poor efficiency, but even that it better than wasting excess generation completely.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 08:51:14 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 15, 2023, 09:25:35 pmI'm confused, because almost every means of generating electricity that I know of, has a differential of heat at its heart. The two exceptions I can immediately think of are tidal power generation and hydrogen fuel cells.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 09:19:33 am
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 16, 2023, 05:42:10 amYes, burning fossils in limited circumstances is OK, provided a few factors are accounted for;- It is all offset in some way, e.g. by carbon capture at source or direct air capture solution- The extraction process is relatively clean with minimal environmental contamination- The country isn't dependent upon the fossil fuels from unfriendly nations- There's limited local air pollution, so ICE vehicles still can't exist on this except for very specific applications where there is no alternative (I'm thinking construction equipment for instance, has to operate for long periods of time without access to electricity)The great thing about renewables is that once they can cover 90% of all demands you can probably supply any fossil fuel requirements from local reservoirs, or at least for Europe it can almost certainly all come from within the EU/UK.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 09:24:38 am
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on July 16, 2023, 08:51:14 amThis, of course heat can be turned into electricity, with the exact same limitations as turning hydrogen into electricity, namely poor efficiency and cost and space requirements of equipment. Heat-to-electricity is not much being researched/advocated because it's way more impractical than heat-to-heat, and since 1/3 or so (more than 2/3 in cold countries) of our total energy needs are in form of heat, supplying that directly from stored renewable heat offsets having to produce that same heat by burning fossil fuels.Ground source heatpumping is a big deal because it combinesannual storagewith renewable energy source (sunlight) harvesting in one simple package. Classic, simple installations just drill a hole in bedrock/soil and utilize thermal energy stored into the first 100-200 meters of the planet, the energy originates from sunlight; earth's crust itself has enough mass to average out the annual temperature so that energy is stored passively without any human intervention in the summer and then used in the winter, latter requiring relatively small input of power. It is also possible to actively store energy into the crust during summer, enabling the system to work with less collection area (i.e., larger hole density), and it isn't even expensive to do so; a circulation pump and large fan coil is all that is needed for compressor-less heat transfer. This is not any kind of pipe dream or "idea" or even a prototype, this is all commonplace existing technology.Even air source heatpumping utilizes the inherent annual thermal storage of the earth's crust + atmosphere (mostly the latter)! People often miss this fact.

author: peter-h
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 01:04:08 pm
content: Electric cars will reach a plateau before long. It is already starting in some areas. The problem is that > 50% (the actual figure has certainly been well researched but seems unpublished) of the population in the developed world has no charging opportunities.Electric aircraft projects are being abandoned very fast. They were wonderful for "green" column-inches on social media, and collecting EU R&D grantsGround sourced heat pumps are indeed great (I have been around that business since the 1970s) but for most people impossible, or very expensive with a few tens of k for a borehole. It is easy only if you have a fairly large field, say 1-3 acres and then you only need a ~1m deep trench for the pipe. Or a lake, or a stream which is always running.Air source heat pumps are crap; the COP is largely fiction due to evaporator icing. I am rather very familiar with this... The appliance also rots away in not too many years.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 01:12:46 pm
content: It seems like what would really solve a large part of the energy problem is some sort of heat transportation system interconnecting countries in southern and northern hemispheres. It's technically feasible, but nobody has found a way to make it economically feasible yet.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 03:35:43 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 16, 2023, 01:12:46 pmWhy not just transport electricity? China has a 3,200km ultra HVDC transmission line (+/-1.1MV) built by ABB, it transmits up to 12GW. Efficiency is in excess of 90%. Going up to +/-1.5MV UHVDC could allow transmission beyond 5,000km with similar efficiency.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 05:06:57 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 16, 2023, 09:24:38 amAs always, I'm disappointed governments aren't trying to put in district heating with street level ground source heat pumps ... it makes far more sense than forcing individuals to install air source heatpumps which can't feed old radiators.Trenchless techniques have changed the solution space massively from classical district heating solutions. Hot/warm/chilled water should be an utility.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 07:42:28 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 16, 2023, 03:35:43 pmThe temperature difference between the hot and cold areas is an energy source that could theoretically be exploited. Probably not enough to make the whole system a net generator, but it could make the effective efficiency very high.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 08:12:05 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on July 16, 2023, 07:42:28 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion?useskin=vector

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 08:12:28 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 16, 2023, 03:35:43 pmStart including cost per kWh into these calculations and see how it may not be such a good idea! For the umpteenth time: efficiency is low on the list of what is important where it comes to energy transport. Or put differently: price per kWh is the only thing you need to worry about. Things like efficiency and utilisation are just parameters to make the economics of a transport system worth it or not.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 10:11:50 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 16, 2023, 08:12:28 pmNot sure why you think a 3,200km line is going to have high cost per kWh. The cost of such a line is mostly capital expense and maintenance, but the line will easily last 100 years with just normal maintenance. Chopping the trees back adjacent to the line, if any are present, is probably the biggest single bill.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 10:25:15 pm
content: A government report from 2018 estimated a range of about 1 to 8 million USD per mile for HVDC transmission lines.https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/hvdctransmission/pdf/transmission.pdf

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 10:36:13 pm
content: Quote from: Zero999 on July 16, 2023, 08:12:05 pmBig difference between the hot and cold areas being separated by a few miles at most, as opposed to thousands of miles.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 16, 2023, 10:36:22 pm
content: Quote from: TimFox on July 16, 2023, 10:25:15 pmSo taking the high side figure of that... $8mn per mile or $5mn per km. $5 billion to build a 5000km line.If it transmitted the same power as the Chinese line - 12GW - and had 75% availability - it would move 78.9 TWh per year.So over a 100 year lifespan about 15c/kWh. A bit more than I expected, but if the line costs closer to the low end at larger scales, it makes a lot more sense.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 02:37:41 pm
content: 100 years is rather optimistic. 50 years maybe but there will need to be maintenance like changing isolators and so on. As a reference: sea cables have a life span around 25 to 30 years. Additionally, the cable alone will not be enough. Storage will need to be added ass well.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 03:23:43 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 17, 2023, 02:37:41 pmStorage as in energy storage? The whole point is that better transmission canreducethe need for storage. There are situations in today's Europe some countries run at negative prices with excess generation while others run their fossils full blast and spot prices skyrocket,at the same minute. There are two completely orthogonal mitigations: storage or transmission. Third is, adding more production, and fourth is, accept the amount of fossils being burned.I see tomorrow's energy systems as combining all four as mentioned. Adding more PV and wind is possible and helps, but it has a limit because the price of each produced kWh starts going up when dimensioned multiple times over the peak demand. Thus, transmission helps: when it's windy and sunny in X, but cloudy and still in Y, transfer excess from X to Y, X gets money from Y and Y needs to pay less than when producing using back-up measures. Also, storage helps: store when excess is available, use when needed. Finally, even if you do all of this, therewillbe situations when it's super cold everywhere in Europe and wind is totally standstill for two weeks straight over the whole continent, and your new fancy HVDC link from Africa can't simply supply enough. Then you apply the Fourth principle above, and happily burn fossil fuels in your storage, because it simply does not matter in the big picture.It is especially this fourth point which is so difficult to accept for the purists. All-or-nothing approach is devastating.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 03:32:07 pm
content: All of these approaches have been shown to work.In a specific application, the cost accountants and engineers must work together to evaluate the choice to include scientific, engineering, and economic considerations (including the interest rate on capital and taxation).(Politicians would rather wave hands and pontificate than do the math.)

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 03:54:21 pm
content: That 5 billion specifically sounds like a small sum of money, Finland can easily pay for it and much more, and we don't except anything in return.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 04:24:31 pm
content: You'd probably still need storage for Europe as during winter, there can be long periods of time with little wind and solar generation. Storage of ca. 1-3 months energy is possible in the form of hydrogen using the existing reservoirs used for natural gas. Most of these are underground salt caverns, some are disused fossil gas wells. Hydrogen is not reactive with the rock salt. Storage in CH4, ie methane/natural gas, is also possible but has two downsides (a) it requires a power-to-gas system with less overall efficiency and (b) it has a greater GWP so any fugitive gas escapes have a higher impact which must be otherwise mitigated. CH4 storage might make sense as an interim solution as existing power plants and home/commercial gas boilers can use it without any changes.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 04:26:27 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 17, 2023, 03:23:43 pmRun some numbers on it to determine price per kWh. Especially for keeping power plants ready to go once in a few years. I'm 100% sure the economics won't make sense because you'll be wasting massive amounts of money on systems that are severely under-utilised. The current way of generating power and distribution is not built because of the use of fossil fuels, it is built that way because it is most cost effective. Use that cost effectiveness as a template for a solution based on renewables. Anything else will just be more expensive due to under-utilisation.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 04:30:39 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 17, 2023, 04:26:27 pmIn the UK, the National Grid company provides balancing services. They are known to pay up to £1,500/MWh (normal price is ~£30/MWh) to provide balancing in constrained periods. An auction system is used where customers either agree to cut off their connection or supply power. For instance the hospital near where I used to live has a 30MWe gas thermal-electricity power plant on site. In normal times it generates 10MW for the hospital (plus hot water and heating in winter) and the turbines run cooler, but if the Grid calls for it, they can push another 20MW into the grid. They don't normally do it because it's not cost effective but 20MW can be all the grid needs to maintain frequency margins. Another common one is larger datacenters will shift over to diesel generators and stop pulling from the grid. OK that's not ideal in terms of emissions but grid stability is paramount. As EVs and home energy storage becomes more common this can integrate into the auction via smart energy tariffs, low/negative price = please consume, high price = cut back and use battery.

author: AVGresponding
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 04:32:25 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 17, 2023, 03:54:21 pmThat's because the maths is wrong. 5,000 x 5,000,000 is 25,000,000,000, not 5,000,000,000

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 05:18:57 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on July 17, 2023, 04:32:25 pmDon't worry, because the price/kwh calculation is also wrong.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 05:59:15 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on July 17, 2023, 04:32:25 pmDoesn't matter. Finland committed to pay another 20 billion in sanctions to EU by not submitting a simple document before the deadline like Sweden did, because the previous government was too busy cocaine partying, and because we apparently have raped all our forests here (hint: exactly as untrue as ridiculous it sounds, factually Finland has, by far, the most forest per capita and there are no significant changes how it is being used). I hope this money will get at least one 5000km HVDC transmission line built.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 06:04:02 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on July 17, 2023, 05:18:57 pmLet me try, with average price 4.5 million/mile and 40-year lifetime:4500000/1.6 * 5000 / (12000000*0.75*40*365*24) = 0.00445 USD/kWhdoesn't sound too shabby, yes, or did I miscalculate it too?This price matches my intuition. Power transfer is absolutely everywhere, even in many of the poorest of countries. It is simple and requires only very common materials and similar construction techniques roads and buildings are built with, everywhere. Transfering power for 500-1000km is nothing special currently. I fail to see the exponentially increasing complexity and cost people are assuming when discussing improving the current transmission systems.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 06:11:50 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on July 17, 2023, 04:26:27 pmThe cost of standby fossil power generation is absolutely nothing new. Nuclear required a lot of it (for network stability in case of SCRAMs), it was maintained for this use, and nobody counted it as being a cost related to nuclear. It "just was" there.Yes, it is very costly, but remember to divide that to the kWh used. What matters in the energy bill is the bottom line. And this electricity being expensive for a while works as an incentive to do load optimization, to the extent possible. On the other hand, even if you can't do anything about your consumption, two expensive weeks should not become a dominating factor in your annual bill even if it was 20x more expensive.And if you don't like this, utilities will be selling you fixed-price contracts and handle the price volatility and risk within themselves, just like it has worked for decades already.

author: vad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 07:23:30 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 16, 2023, 10:36:22 pmThree issues:1) The correct investment amount is $25 billion, not $5 billion.2) Interest on the 100-year loan is missing.3) Math errors.Assuming a 100-year fixed-rate loan at 7.5% with $0 down:- Estimated monthly payments for principal + interest: $156 million/month.- Energy delivered every month: 12 GW * 0.75 * 1,000,000 kW/GW * 30 days/month * 24 h/day = 6,480,000,000 kWh/month = 6,480 million kWh/month.- Therefore, the average cost of delivering 1 kWh: $156 million/month / 6,480 million kWh/month = 0.024 $/kWh = 2.4 cents per kWh.Given Dave’s advice that no project should be started unless revenue is at least 2.5 times the cost, and assuming grid owners are not too greedy, it would mean that about 6 US cents per kWh would be added to the wholesale delivery price. This would result in a delivery charge price hike on the order of magnitude of US 10 cents per kWh for consumers.

author: TimFox
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 08:42:28 pm
content: An interesting recent monograph about project planning, from home improvement up to large-scale projects: Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan GardnerHow Big Things Get Done, Currency 2023.Besides important recommendations about planning, especially getting the errors made and corrected on paper rather than during construction, is a list of project types ranked from historically worst results to best results."Bad" means over budget; with statistics for mean overrun, % of projects in tail of distribution, and mean overrun of projects in tail.Going from worst to best in his list, with major omissions:Nuclear waste storage, Olympic Games, Nuclear Power, Hydroelectric dams, IT, ... , Bus transit, Rail, Airports, ... , Fossil thermal power, Roads, Pipelines, Wind power, Energy transmission, Solar power.See his discussion of the list: "solar power" is incredibly good, with a mean cost overrun of only 1%.In his discussion, he points out that the worst stuff is always a one-off unique design (nuclear reactors are not in mass production, although future projects could change that); Olympic Games are the poster child for this.The best stuff is inherently modular, such as solar panels made in factories and installed on site.Even fossil thermal power is just bolting together catalog items from the boiler factories.The transport projects are somewhere in the middle of the list, with distribution tails falling between his "fat tails" (Olympic Games) and "thin tails" (power plants and transmission).

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 08:48:47 pm
content: Quote from: Siwastaja on July 17, 2023, 06:04:02 pmThat makes more sense, isn't it? They were building 750kVAC transmission lines in the 70s all over East Europe, to connect countries to nuclear plants (and to make them dependent on the power delivery from abroad). It's really not rocket science, and these lines still work, even if they are not used for one reason or another. And nuclear costs somewhere at 1-2c/kwh, that's how much existing nuclear plants are bidding for generation. Meanwhile the clueless greens are telling us that nuclear is cost prohibitive while they are gluing themselves to Rembrandt paintings.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 17, 2023, 09:47:39 pm
content: Quote from: AVGresponding on July 17, 2023, 04:32:25 pmAh, damn. I did the maths at $1 billion and forgot to square it all. Anyway, I promise I can math. Maybe.