Bad news for Climate Change.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

No, you are just assuming that things that he's done are allowing that to happen. I see that you didn't present any proof of the claim,

This question was answered by another poster. www.natlawreview.com...

Do you really think by cutting back on regulations the business are not going to pollute more if it makes them a profit?

a reply to: network dude


Hold up.

So here I am, on top of my 500 foot 'mountain' outside Manhattan, hoping that the oceans get higher so I actually have that beachfront property I always wanted and you're telling me it isn't happening?

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Yes, they have.

Remember when we were all going into a new Ice Age in the '70s and they actually were speculating about seeding the polar caps with carbon soot as a mechanism to melt off excess ice?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: network dude


Hold up.

So here I am, on top of my 500 foot 'mountain' outside Manhattan, hoping that the oceans gets higher so I actually have that beachfront property I always wanted and you're telling me it isn't happening?

I am merely the messenger, I know nothing.

(stroker ace reference)

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: network dude



Lets see now, the AMS is from a country which has deliberately abandoned all responsibilities to the Earth beneath its feet, and embraced the most damaging industries instead, but the IPCC is an international collaborative effort, where experts from the whole world get together to share results, compile data, and reach conclusions based on scientific merit, rather than how scared they are that their results might look bad for business and policy makers...

The 2015 Paris climate agreement that sought to limit climate change to 2C is total bull crap. It has been known for a good while (I even have old posts on this here on ATS) that if the Paris accord did nothing at all they would still meet their goals, so what is the purpose outside of politics and generating billions for a goal that will meet no matter what.

I have shown this chart before too that we see much of the world with about the same output for 50 years except for China that has exceeded the rest of the world combine today in output. So, where is the problem? I wonder if China is going back to pre 1972 level to meet the Paris accord...lol

a reply to: ketsuko

They were right about the hole in the ozone, and about what caused it.

Remember when we were all going into a new Ice Age in the '70s

Do you have sources that show that 90% of the scientific community thought we were going into a new ice age?
Because that newspaper story about melting ice caps was from 1922.

a reply to: luthier

This argument is incredibly disengenous. One the data collecting and enforcement has been severely changed and two we wouldn't know the effects until the data is gathered and analyzed.

I was responding to the change I saw specified: the OIAI policy being dropped. If there are additional problems, it would behoove you to include those from the start. Simply dropping the OIAI makes sense to me.

The question should be the way we change not that we need to. We need more people designing things to clean the ocean not demanding we stop using technology. More people finding out how to manufacture plastics to biodegrade and be reusable not stopping the use of plastic.

I agree, believe it or not. Just the political ramifications of oil usage is sufficient to tell me we need to find a replacement. My concern is not that we switch from oil - we will at some point - but that we try to change before another reliable energy source is ready to take over.

People have this habit of looking at a situation and latching onto a solution without understanding the details behind that solution. I do not believe solar energy will ever replace the energy plants we rely on; there are simply too many technical details that are unconquerable at this level of our technology, besides efficiency of the solar cells. Perhaps someday technology will change that, but I will not accept photovoltaics as a replacement until it does. Wind has proven to be a valuable source, but it is geographically limited and may itself create climate change by changing prevailing wind patterns.

Hydro power is wonderful; I have seen its advantages in my area. But how many rivers are left to dam? Wave energy sounds awesome,but is itself limited to areas with nearby coastlines. Nuclear is the most reliable, but has its own technological challenges.

So we wait and research and experiment and test... eventually we'll come up with a better solution, hopefully sooner than later. We're just not there yet.

TheRedneck

a reply to: luthier

Here, electrical heat is the most efficient. We need cooling as much as heat. Heat pumps are the norm. Because of that, there is less demand for natural gas and the like. Few people use gas for cooking, as the extra infrastructure isn't worth the cost.

That's the rub: NOT EVERYONE LIVES IN THE SAME CLIMATE YOU DO! That seems to be the hardest thing to get folks to understand. If the temperature ever drops below 20 F here, it's a major news story and there are alerts everywhere... which seems to amuse Yankees to no end. On the other hand, I snort every time they complain about 80 F being hot. Try a week of triple digits with the LOWs in the 80s... then talk to me about hot. 80 F is comfortable.

One thing I love about solar power even here in the ne. Every storm doesn't knock off the neighborhood. A terrorist can't knock out my grid.

Yes, that is a major plus. But some people do not have the financial means to make that choice. Again, your situation is not typical... no one's is in a country this large. Storms don't usually knock out power here and when they do, it's back within a couple of hours at most.

TheRedneck

a reply to: YouSir

Those are fantastic systems that work great for auxiliary heat. I wish I had one.

I really haven't seen a lot of reviews for solar heat systems, and it bothers me. I know here, we always try to build with windows facing east, to get the morning solar heating in the winter. It seems that would be a major push in energy conservation.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: luthier

Here, electrical heat is the most efficient. We need cooling as much as heat. Heat pumps are the norm. Because of that, there is less demand for natural gas and the like. Few people use gas for cooking, as the extra infrastructure isn't worth the cost.

That's the rub: NOT EVERYONE LIVES IN THE SAME CLIMATE YOU DO! That seems to be the hardest thing to get folks to understand. If the temperature ever drops below 20 F here, it's a major news story and there are alerts everywhere... which seems to amuse Yankees to no end. On the other hand, I snort every time they complain about 80 F being hot. Try a week of triple digits with the LOWs in the 80s... then talk to me about hot. 80 F is comfortable.

One thing I love about solar power even here in the ne. Every storm doesn't knock off the neighborhood. A terrorist can't knock out my grid.

Yes, that is a major plus. But some people do not have the financial means to make that choice. Again, your situation is not typical... no one's is in a country this large. Storms don't usually knock out power here and when they do, it's back within a couple of hours at most.

TheRedneck

Power plant Electric heat is not efficient. You mine the energy source, transport it, refine it ,then you start with heat at the power plant and the energy is converted several times to return as heat. The laws of physics don't change for you in your state. Now they may be currently more cost effective do to the energy sector subsidies and supply and demand models. But it's not more efficient.

If you live in a state where it's hot enough to require ac, I am from Texas originally, solar is going to be more efficient. Now it may cost more due to subsidies, or it may not. When I lived in Texas you could get amazing deals on solar if you grid tied.

My home in Austin was nearly free to have solar installed. The energy grid in Texas also uses a lot of wind from west Texas.

Supply and demand is not the same as energy efficiency. There are quite a few designs for panels and some that are much more efficient to produce than others. But those are research and production issues that are cotrolled by the lobby and subsidy powers.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: network dude

or the changes that were made because of the scientific predictions are the reason the numbers are lower.

Great we did it. Now we can all move on lol.

a reply to: luthier

Again, another false assumption. Our power at this time is nuclear. Other areas close by are hydro. We are not using fossil fuels for electricity here. Up until a few years back, there was a coal-fired steam plant that served as our backup, but it has been decommissioned.

The efficiency of a well-maintained heat pump far exceeds the efficiency of simple electric heat when temperatures are not far below freezing. In addition, a single unit here operates for both heating and cooling, reducing cost to the homeowner. In the Northeast, where I think you said you are, temperatures regularly drop so low as to make heat pumps inefficient, forcing them to revert to emergency electric heating to operate. Air conditioning is not a big deal. In that environment, heat pumps are not the best choice.

Solar is not the most efficient unless subsidies are involved, as they apparently were for you in Texas. Without the subsidies, solar energy cost is far, far greater than the other options. In the first place, solar cells only operate at a maximum of around 40% efficiency; secondly, the voltage produced form a solar cell is around 0.5V, meaning panels must contain many cells placed in series to achieve even low voltage DC power. That power must then be converted to AC power, a very inefficient process. There are three basic methodologies for this conversion: square wave, the most efficient, but which is extremely hard on inductive loads due the high number of inherent harmonics; modified sine wave, which reduces the harmonics but at the cost of efficiency; and sine wave, which works well for inductive loads, but at a high efficiency cost for the conversion. Most inverters use modified sine wave, which means the system you described is probably placing a load on your AC motor that will substantially shorten its life span, as well as waste any power still contained in the harmonics.

Either way, there is a tremendous amount of inefficiency and waste either through the conversion process or driving the motor. That's just plain old physics.

Most salesmen will not tell you this, because they want to sell a system and they likely don't know it themselves. They're salesmen, not engineers. The customer is happy because it will reduce their electric bills, it sounds cool to say one has solar power, and when things break too soon, they don't have an idea of how long it should have lasted. And to be honest, the homeowner isn't the victim here... the victim is the taxpayers who funded those subsidies. We paid out the rear for an inefficient system that was overpriced, because solar is 'cool.'

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: luthier

Again, another false assumption. Our power at this time is nuclear. Other areas close by are hydro. We are not using fossil fuels for electricity here. Up until a few years back, there was a coal-fired steam plant that served as our backup, but it has been decommissioned.

The efficiency of a well-maintained heat pump far exceeds the efficiency of simple electric heat when temperatures are not far below freezing. In addition, a single unit here operates for both heating and cooling, reducing cost to the homeowner. In the Northeast, where I think you said you are, temperatures regularly drop so low as to make heat pumps inefficient, forcing them to revert to emergency electric heating to operate. Air conditioning is not a big deal. In that environment, heat pumps are not the best choice.

Solar is not the most efficient unless subsidies are involved, as they apparently were for you in Texas. Without the subsidies, solar energy cost is far, far greater than the other options. In the first place, solar cells only operate at a maximum of around 40% efficiency; secondly, the voltage produced form a solar cell is around 0.5V, meaning panels must contain many cells placed in series to achieve even low voltage DC power. That power must then be converted to AC power, a very inefficient process. There are three basic methodologies for this conversion: square wave, the most efficient, but which is extremely hard on inductive loads due the high number of inherent harmonics; modified sine wave, which reduces the harmonics but at the cost of efficiency; and sine wave, which works well for inductive loads, but at a high efficiency cost for the conversion. Most inverters use modified sine wave, which means the system you described is probably placing a load on your AC motor that will substantially shorten its life span, as well as waste any power still contained in the harmonics.

Either way, there is a tremendous amount of inefficiency and waste either through the conversion process or driving the motor. That's just plain old physics.

Most salesmen will not tell you this, because they want to sell a system and they likely don't know it themselves. They're salesmen, not engineers. The customer is happy because it will reduce their electric bills, it sounds cool to say one has solar power, and when things break too soon, they don't have an idea of how long it should have lasted. And to be honest, the homeowner isn't the victim here... the victim is the taxpayers who funded those subsidies. We paid out the rear for an inefficient system that was overpriced, because solar is 'cool.'

TheRedneck

You are once again confusing cost...nuclear energy is by far the largest subsidized industry during the r and d phase of development. As an engineer you should know how important the r and d phase of development is for a product.

AC power is not a requirement for homeowners. It's just not. It's main purpose is transmission and brushes that burn out of DC older generation motors.

You also have the availability to create sterling engines for generation of larger work loads.

In any case heat pumps are many times more efficient used in conjunction with solar energy. Moat of your viewpoints on solar energy appear to be derived from the 80's.

Considering there is no known solution for the massive pollution problem nuclear power is a terrible idea accept in smaller stations with safety features similar to what we find in vessels using that power. I am not against nuclear power. But it is a transition to future technology not a solution at this point with the waste factor of storage. Or in the case of South Carolina where they just fleeced the tax payers and cut and run before the plant could be finished.

You seem to be confusing why power is cheap. Nuclear energy was subsidized even more than oil particularly during the crucial r and d phase.

If that same money was spent in the r and d of solar there is no telling how far the product would have gone or become better in terms of supply and demand.

Solar is cool. A giant reactor far away powers it.

a reply to: network dude

It predicted that the impact could be up to 45 per cent less intense than is widely accepted.

But the study emerged as other scientists said winter waves pounding the Scottish and Irish coasts have grown grow by up to 5ft 6in (1.7metres) over the past 70 years.

Rising sea levels and more intense storms are in line with global warming forecasts.

www.express.co.uk...

Bad News for Shorelines?

"Only" 1.66 (or 1.33)°C will still result in a rising sea-level due to global warming. Right? But this is a conspiracy site, so... can you imagine that they'll "play down" the numbers in order to make this Paris Agreement not look like a lost case of political fake-actionism to begin with?

What if the impact of global warming will actually be 45% more intense, and we're being lied to in order to delay revolts?

All we need is one climatologist and one mathematician to make it happen, any takers?

a reply to: scraedtosleep

dumbest post I've ever read in my entire life

a reply to: luthier

I'm very familiar with subsidies for R&D. I work in R&D. It's what i do.

But, before there are subsidies there must be a reasonable expectation of results. Once those results are obtained, then more subsidies can address future improvements. Rinse, wash, repeat. At every phase of the R&D there must be positive results or a reasonable explanation on how to obtain positive results.

The problems with solar are:

• A limiting factor of solar radiation received in a given area. There is no theory of how this limiting factor may be overcome; if one needs more power, they must cover a larger area. Period.
  
  
• Inefficiencies in voltage conversion, which is more of a power conversion issue than a solar issue; the same problem applies to small-scale wind and hydro power. There are at present no good proposals on improving this. I actually have a theory myself on this that came from researching one of my projects, but I am not yet at the stage where I need to test it, and certainly do not yet have any experimental results that would indicate a reasonable probability of success.
  
  
• Removal of the natural heat from the sun in the area covered. This becomes less of a problem when used in a rooftop configuration. It is a large problem from a climatology standpoint when used in a power plant.
  
  
• Reliability. The sun does not shine 24/7, and many times does not shine well during cloudy days. There is no reasonable proposal on resolving this problem except for using more effective batteries, which themselves create pollution during production. That is, as with the inverter issue, not a solar problem but an energy storage problem. It is being addressed with R&D in that market, with limited success.
  
  
• Manufacturing issues. Solar cells by necessity are made of rare earth metals, which are primarily located in China. The Chinese are quite protective of this resource, for obvious reasons, and thus any market built on the availability of these materials is dependent on American-Chinese relations. This also leads to pricing issues; even as a research engineer with all my sources for materials, I cannot buy solar cells any cheaper than I can buy products made using the same solar cells. That makes effective R&D more difficult, and is a direct result of Chinese market manipulation. It also raises the spectre of serious pollution issues in the manufacture.

All of these issues did exist in the 1980s; you are correct. But they have not been resolved, although some admittedly have been improved. That's 30 years with minimal success in several areas. The only area that has made substantial improvement is solar cell efficiency itself.

I have had in-depth discussion with several professors who are active in this field. They all say the same thing behind closed doors: solar photovoltaics are being limited because the surrounding technology has not caught up with the advances in solar cell efficiency, and the limiting factors mentioned above are the largest unresolvable issue.

AC power is not a requirement for homeowners. It's just not. It's main purpose is transmission and brushes that burn out of DC older generation motors.

OK, you might want to actually read what I write here.

AC is not a requirement, but it is necessary for power transmission. Because of that, there are few large household devices that do not use AC power. That has not changed, and certainly your heat pump did not use "older generation DC motors." It used an AC motor, just as older units did. There is no need to convert AC to DC just to power a motor when AC motors are less expensive due to established economies of scale and inherent inductance form the rotating coils.

Electric cookstoves use AC instead of DC. Water heaters use AC instead of DC. Heat pumps, bilge pumps, and large fans use AC instead of DC. You cannot power them using DC power. If you want to prove this to yourself (because I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about), just try the following:

*** DISCLAIMER! ***
Perform the following at your own risk!
************************************************

You'll need a DC power source. Buy a bridge rectifier rated for 250 VAC or more, and capable of handling at least a few amps (the more the better). You'll also need an electrolytic capacitor with at least 4700 uF capacity and rated for a minimum of 250 V. Connect the two wires from a line cord to the AC input terminals of the bridge rectifier (normally marked with a '~'). Now connect a wire between the '+' terminal of the bridge rectifier and the '+' terminal of the capacitor. Do the same with the '-' terminals of both parts. Make sure everything is well-insulated and no wires are touching, and wear latex gloves; you are dealing with high voltage. I highly recommend taping everything up with electrical tape before plugging it in.

Now plug it in and measure the voltage across the capacitor with a multimeter set to handle at least 200 VDC. You should get a reading of around 170-180 volts (150-200 volt readings are not uncommon). You now have an AC-DC converter.

Unplug it and connect the outputs where you measured the voltage to the terminals of an AC motor (it is a good idea to put a switch in one of the connecting lines). Plug it back in and switch it on. The motor will stall and may start smoking, so use an older/cheap motor. You will also pop a breaker in your house, so have a flashlight handy.

You can do the same thing with a heating element designed for AC, with the same results. AC is not the same as DC. Inductive and capacitive loads will respond differently to the two. In the case of an AC motor, you are effectively shorting the power through a coil of wire; the rotation of the motor creates inductance which opposes an AC voltage but will not oppose a DC voltage.

The bottom line is: if you do not understand the difference between AC and DC, you simply cannot understand what I am trying to tell you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Solar energy does not require rare earth though it is the most common current production.

Japan actually has the largest source of rare earth and it's nearly infinite.

My Cookstove used gas.

My fan is a DC motor. (They make them)

I understand AC just fine. In fact I have been stating they are more efficient for performing work loads.

Your strawman is they are a requirement for cook stoves, fans, water heaters, and AC systems. Yes you lose power in power inversion. You also do stepping up and down power and through transmission.

I never stated anything about heatpumps using DC power. Of you understand the voltage war Era DC brushes going bad was part of the reason as was power transmission. The AC motor is more efficient for performing hp needed work.

Now if we list that masses of problems with nuclear power and objectively look at cost per kwh it's not nearly as bad as you are projecting.

There are plenty of solutions to requiring ac power to a homeowner. Perhaps you aren't aware of them.

Also solar power is not for everyone. However in conjunction with hydro, wind, and biomass it's a very doable solution comoaned with the over budget problems plaguing your area in modern nuclear plants.

Georgia and South Carolina just two locations have bank rupted a major corp.


Lastly I have a battery system and can simply say FU to the power company.

a reply to: luthier

I understand AC just fine.

With all due respect, no sir, you do not. That much is evident. You think you do; that is also evident.

Your strawman is they are a requirement for cook stoves, fans, water heaters, and AC systems.

That is not even my claim, so how can it be my strawman? My claim is that present infrastructure is built around AC power transmission and is likely to remain so for some time.

There are plenty of solutions to requiring ac power to a homeowner. Perhaps you aren't aware of them.

No, you obviously know more than researchers do.

Also solar power is not for everyone. However in conjunction with hydro, wind, and biomass it's a very doable solution comoaned with the over budget problems plaguing your area in modern nuclear plants.

We have no budget problems concerning energy. Our electric rates are some of the lowest in the country.

Lastly I have a battery system and can simply say FU to the power company.

Let me know how that works out for you. No, on second thought, I really don't care.

It's patently obvious you have decided you know all there is to know about power. Nice talking to you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Lol

So what don't I get about ac motors?

It's been working fine for decades. However the city I now live in is completely renewable so I don't feel the same need to be untied from the grid.

I have a gas powered refrigerator. A gas powered range, gas for heat with pellet stove back up, my lighting is dc, my electronics are dc, and like I said in warm climates sterling engines are under used for mechanical power for things like air conditioning since they are mostly used during the day.


And buddy Georgia and SC just failed miserably to build two nuclear power plants. If you are in Alabama they are your neighbors.

So unless you can point to my lack of understanding towards ac motors. You answer is because we have the crappy aging system we have now it's more efficient to continue down that road you have no argument I can see.

Yeah feeding horses grain was the way we fueled transportation 150 years ago. Fortunately we moved on.

www.hotspotenergy.com...

www.hotspotenergy.com...

www.dantherm.com...

a reply to: luthier

So what don't I get about ac motors?

Phase shift, inductance and capacitance influence on real versus complex power, power vectors, effect of frequency on inductance and capacitance reactance... pretty much everything that makes them work.

Many years ago, I realized that if I tried to show someone something they were incorrect about, but that they had already decided they knew everything about, the result was a lot of irritation and frustration for me. Most of my work is collaborative; I collaborate with other professionals to develop new products and theories. If the person I am collaborating with falls into the category I just described, it will result in a waste of my time and money, because nothing they touch will ever work despite my best efforts to make it work. I learned that the hard way when an awesome idea from 30 years or so ago was destroyed because someone tried to have the exact same argument with me that you are trying to have.

The end result of that was that the prototype I had spent weeks on blew the frick up... literally... because they decided to undersize the capacitors I had spec'd because they knew better than I did. Took a few days to get the smell of burnt electrolyte out of the shop, and hours of work to clean up after the fire.

And even then they knew everything that could be known. It wasn't their fault; I must have done something wrong.

You fall into that category on this subject, therefore I do not wish to discuss this with you any more. You already know everything there is to know about electrical power, except everything there is to know about it. Please go preach your profound ignorance to someone who cares.

I don't.

TheRedneck