Green new deal equals magical thinking

[billvon 2,400]

39 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Like Seattle is sometimes cloudy?

Seattle is a LOT cloudier. 

To compare:  (equivalent full sun hours per day) 

Coastal San Diego - 5.6    
Downtown Seattle - 3.9
Burlington, VT - 4.0

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, CygnusX-1 said:

I know this has been mentioned before, but I'll beat that dead horse again - just to make sure it is still dead. But if fossil fuels are so economically viable why do states and the federal government subsidize them to the tune of $20.5 billion annually (as reported by OCI)? 

I know this is a rhetorical question. We all know the answer to that - lobbyists/ bribes/ corruption. We should first eliminate the subsidy to oil/gas/coal first. Then maybe in 30-40 years we can eliminate it for renewables.

Heh - 

Yeah - as soon as we can get politics out of green energy, we will be able to get it out of fossil energy.

[billvon 2,400]

8 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Heh - 

Yeah - as soon as we can get politics out of green energy, we will be able to get it out of fossil energy.

You'll never get the politics out of either one.  Getting the subsidies out would be a good goal, though.

[turtlespeed 212]

5 minutes ago, billvon said:

You'll never get the politics out of either one.  Getting the subsidies out would be a good goal, though.

They are one and the same - 

Remove the financial gain aspect and we would be better goal.

Make it a zero sum game - 

 

When people like Al Gore are prevented from profiting from the process, then we will be better off.

The issue is, people like that are just as greedy and underhanded as Big Oil.

The problem with that is that you agree with the side that has Al Gores, so they get a pass.

 

Edited May 22, 2019 by turtlespeed
Edited because I just couldn't help myself.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Seattle is a LOT cloudier. 

To compare:  (equivalent full sun hours per day) 

Coastal San Diego - 5.6    
Downtown Seattle - 3.9
Burlington, VT - 4.0

I'm not sure I would trust those numbers - they don't seem to agree with mine.

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/California/annual-days-of-sunshine.php

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Washington/annual-days-of-sunshine.php

[billvon 2,400]

35 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

They are one and the same - 

 

I disagree.  Politics is what happens when more than a few people get together to make decisions that affect others.  It happens in companies, towns, standards organizations, states and countries.  Most politics has little to nothing to do with subsidies.

Quote

When people like Al Gore are prevented from profiting from the process, then we will be better off.

Preventing profit in society has led to some sub-optimal societies.  If Al Gore (or Exxon, or Microsoft, or Boeing, or even Bill Nye or Jim Henson) was prohibited from making any profit, we'd be less advanced than we are.

Quote

The problem with that is that you agree with the side that has Al Gores, so they get a pass.

Nope.  I think that the value in a technology is unrelated to the personalities involved.  I think you'd agree.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

41 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

When people like Al Gore are prevented from profiting from the process, then we will be better off.

How did/does Al Gore profit from the process and which process are you referring to?

[billvon 2,400]

3 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm not sure I would trust those numbers - they don't seem to agree with mine.

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/California/annual-days-of-sunshine.php

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Washington/annual-days-of-sunshine.php

I am talking about hours per day of equivalent direct sunshine, not whether it's "sunny" or not.  Those numbers come from NREL which goes to great lengths to get accurate insolation numbers.  Not only that, but every person who has put up a solar system and compared their production to the estimates serves as a check on those numbers - and that's a lot of people.

The standard is 1000 watts per square meter.  So in San Diego, a 20% efficient panel that is 5 square meters will get 1000 watts in direct sunlight.  In San Diego that means that over the year you will average (1000*5.6)= 5.6 kilowatt-hours a day in energy from that panel.  The same system in Seattle would get 3.9 kilowatt-hours a day.

Again, note that that doesn't mean "San Diego is 43% sunnier than Seattle."  It mean that the total energy that can be collected by a solar array is 43% more.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

22 minutes ago, billvon said:

I am talking about hours per day of equivalent direct sunshine, not whether it's "sunny" or not.  Those numbers come from NREL which goes to great lengths to get accurate insolation numbers.  Not only that, but every person who has put up a solar system and compared their production to the estimates serves as a check on those numbers - and that's a lot of people.

The standard is 1000 watts per square meter.  So in San Diego, a 20% efficient panel that is 5 square meters will get 1000 watts in direct sunlight.  In San Diego that means that over the year you will average (1000*5.6)= 5.6 kilowatt-hours a day in energy from that panel.  The same system in Seattle would get 3.9 kilowatt-hours a day.

Again, note that that doesn't mean "San Diego is 43% sunnier than Seattle."  It mean that the total energy that can be collected by a solar array is 43% more.

Is it safe to assume that higher latitudes have lower numbers because the angle of the sun is lower?

So, regardless of the overall 'weather', Seattle & Burlington would have less than San Diego.

[billvon 2,400]

27 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Is it safe to assume that higher latitudes have lower numbers because the angle of the sun is lower?

Sort of.  Higher latitudes result in a greater sun angle, resulting in more air for the sun to pass through, lowering the energy available.

The biggest effect, though, is the weather.

Edited to add map.  This map is for flat plate tilted to latitude, which is close to a "typical" rooftop power system.  Note that most of the US is between about 6 and 3.5 equivalent hours a day. 

[tonyhays 86]

58 minutes ago, billvon said:

Sort of.  Higher latitudes result in a greater sun angle, resulting in more air for the sun to pass through, lowering the energy available.

The biggest effect, though, is the weather.

Edited to add map.  This map is for flat plate tilted to latitude, which is close to a "typical" rooftop power system.  Note that most of the US is between about 6 and 3.5 equivalent hours a day. 

Got one of those charts for Australia?  

[billvon 2,400]

5 minutes ago, tonyhays said:

Got one of those charts for Australia?  

Here's one.  This is horizontal placement, not tilted:

https://www.hotspotenergy.com/DC-air-conditioner/australia-solar-map.php

This is for tilted to latitude panels:

http://aussiervproducts.com.au/solar-mapping

[brenthutch 383]

8 hours ago, billvon said:

Agreed.  During such times you'd rely on battery storage or natural gas as a backup.

The private sector is pouring money into them.  California just hit a million solar roofs.  That's an average size of 4kW, so an average cost of $8,000 ($2/watt average install cost.) That's AFTER subsidies - that's what the owner has to pay.  So in just one state that's a spend of $8 billion for solar from property owners alone, which counts for "pouring money" into solar no matter how you look at it..

When the government mandates the private sector to spend money, it is no different than tax and spend.  It is still the government pouring money down a rathole.

Oh BTW, natural gas is NOT a renewable so that blows a hole in the “you can do it to” notion.

[billvon 2,400]

23 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

When the government mandates the private sector to spend money, it is no different than tax and spend.  It is still the government pouring money down a rathole.

The government did not mandate anyone buy solar; those billions are from people freely choosing to do it. (Although that's in the plan for the future, which is a mistake.)

Quote

Oh BTW, natural gas is NOT a renewable so that blows a hole in the “you can do it to” notion.

Never claimed it was.

[brenthutch 383]

7 minutes ago, billvon said:

The government did not mandate anyone buy solar; those billions are from people freely choosing to do it. (Although that's in the plan for the future, which is a mistake.)

Never claimed it was.

You said,

”Renewables are being used RIGHT NOW.  They power my house and my car.  They are powering entire towns.  They could power yours.”

I said, not on a windless February after an ice storm.

You said, we could use natural gas as a back up.

I said natural gas is not renewable.

Question, how do we power our town on renewables if we still have to rely on fossil fuels?  Would it not be more rational to go with fossil fuels from the start?

[turtlespeed 212]

8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You said,

”Renewables are being used RIGHT NOW.  They power my house and my car.  They are powering entire towns.  They could power yours.”

I said, not on a windless February after an ice storm.

You said, we could use natural gas as a back up.

I said natural gas is not renewable.

Question, how do we power our town on renewables if we still have to rely on fossil fuels?  Would it not be more rational to go with fossil fuels from the start?

Federal and State laws mandate that a backup generator of some sort be installed in all emergency rooms.

Wouldn't it be better to just run off the generator instead of the power grid?

[brenthutch 383]

13 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Federal and State laws mandate that a backup generator of some sort be installed in all emergency rooms.

Wouldn't it be better to just run off the generator instead of the power grid?

Especially if it is cheaper!

[turtlespeed 212]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Especially if it is cheaper!

Would you rather drink this

Or one of these?   

 

 

 

[brenthutch 383]

I am definitely a craft beer fan.  I am not a craft energy fan.

[turtlespeed 212]

5 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I am definitely a craft beer fan.  I am not a craft energy fan.

But - The Natty is cheapest.

It even has the word NATURAL in its name.

Edited May 23, 2019 by turtlespeed

[billvon 2,400]

11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You said,

”Renewables are being used RIGHT NOW.  They power my house and my car.  They are powering entire towns.  They could power yours.”

I said, not on a windless February after an ice storm.

You said, we could use natural gas as a back up.

I said natural gas is not renewable.

I said you could use natural gas or an ESS (battery storage) as a backup.  An ESS is recharged by renewable energy.  They are available right now.  Thus you could power your house using all renewables right now if you wanted to. 

Quote

Question, how do we power our town on renewables if we still have to rely on fossil fuels?

You don't have to.  See above.

Quote

Would it not be more rational to go with fossil fuels from the start?

Not if you won't have them at the end.

It's like retirement.  Sure, it seems far away.  But do you start saving for it now?  Or just wait until you stop working, then realize you have no money?

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

I said you could use natural gas or an ESS (battery storage) as a backup.  An ESS is recharged by renewable energy.  They are available right now.  Thus you could power your house using all renewables right now if you wanted to. 

House?  You said town, and in my town we have Pennsylvania State University.  Just last month PSU used 6206 tons of coal, 35,056,803 KWH of electricity 142,710 MMBTU of natural gas and 4860 gallons of oil.  That was for April, obviously February’s numbers would be much higher.  Can you please show the battery that can handle that demand?

[billvon 2,400]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

House?  You said town, and in my town we have Pennsylvania State University.  Just last month PSU used 6206 tons of coal, 35,056,803 KWH of electricity 142,710 MMBTU of natural gas and 4860 gallons of oil.  That was for April, obviously February’s numbers would be much higher.  Can you please show the battery that can handle that demand?

I said "they power my house and my car.  They are powering entire towns.  They could power yours.”  I think you know what I meant.

But I'll play the Speaker's Corner game for you:

Since PSU does not burn coal I checked those numbers to verify them.  I discovered that PSU normally uses about 32 megawatts:

https://news.psu.edu/story/361930/2015/06/30/campus-life/penn-state-cuts-energy-use-nearly-third-during-energy-test

32*24= 768 megawatt-hours a day.  We will double that for a SWAG at heating loads.  That's 1500 megawatt-hours a day.  To handle that you'd need two Rongke flow batteries; 200 megawatts/800 megawatt-hours each.  One is currently being built in China.

 

[BIGUN 1,053]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

But I'll play the Speaker's Corner game for you:

You win. Next subject!

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

 

Since PSU does not burn coal I checked those numbers to verify them.  I discovered that PSU normally uses about 32 megawatts

32*24= 768 megawatt-hours a day.  We will double that for a SWAG at heating loads.  That's 1500 megawatt-hours a day.  To handle that you'd need two Rongke flow batteries; 200 megawatts/800 megawatt-hours each.  One is currently being built in China.

 

Those numbers are for June, when the campus is mostly vacated.

My numbers are from 2014 during the conversion to NG.  It is a more comprehensive assessment of Penn State’s energy use.  As you can see your SWAG is way off.

I looked for a price for this nonexistent (as of now) battery and could not find one.  It is hard to conduct a cost/benefit analysis when the cost is unknown.