Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

[Andres125sx]

Oil & tobacco companies are evil ...

<< pictures of industrial pollution killing children >>

.... think of your children's health and any future generations health...

... take a look at the pictures above ...

... how can you sleep at night ...

Wow, if that´s what you understood from my reply I should try it better because that´s really far from my original post ...

Well, not about tobacco and oil companies wich actually are close to evil but I never tried to criticize Autogyro. He said it´s not clear the impact of fossil fuels to the environement and I posted those pics to illustrate how clear it should be. Sorry if you don´t like them, but they are real.

Autogyro was saying there´s not a major risk identified and proven about the use of fossil fuels. True. But that does not mean there´s not a major risk, only that we have not identified it. IMO we have more than enough knownledge about nature to know it all is a balance. If it´s a balance, centuries polluting all around the planet will obviously have an impact on environement. We don´t need a report to know this I think, and if we wait for it when we get it it will probably be too late. We don´t have an "environement alarm" prepared to flash, we don´t know how to read the changes, what or where we should look at, etc. Nobody told us "look at sea level, when it increases 4cm more than usual that´s the limit".

So if there are some evidences that make us think the impact is not small, but we don´t know how to evaluate it, how can we risk everything assuming we´ll notice when we reach the point of no return?

I´m not saying we´re destroying the planet, I´m saying we don´t know if we´re destroying the planet. Considering the matter of the subject the logic states we should do what we can to lower our environement impact. It´s all about risks. If you risk very little, you don´t need to be too cautious, but when you risk everything you have to be extremely cautious

[Andres125sx]

Let's be honest - the only reason we haven't switched to "green energy" completely is simply because of the costs we, as consumers, would have to pay. Does anyone really care how the electricity coming out of the wall socket was generated? But what do we say when we get the bill?
And, since capitolism is the world religion, the energy companies will not accept losing profit to be green, because their sole purpose is to earn money - that's why they exist. We, the consumers, are left to pay for this conversion. And when some countries, like here in Germany, force the conversion, then we will inevitably pay for it - and be the dumbasses in the end, because no one else even tried, but we pumped a hell of a lot of money into the energy companies and into the government through taxes.

Exactly

That´s what I was trying to explain about capitalism, it make us think only about ourselves, so if we do it, how can we expect a company will do something different? We all take care of our wallet, that´s all.

But the governments can do it, they only need to know if it will increase or decrease their votes...


btw, what conversion are you talking about in Germany?

[Andres125sx]

Just to ilustrate



We don´t now what will be the impact, but we know we´ve changed the balance due to the use of fossil fuels. To me that´s more than enough to make an effort replacing the use of fossil fuels with renewable energies as fast as we can.

We could do it pretty fast, but we have to be conviced it´s neccessary and make the necessary effort (read, pay the increased price, or do not complain when the price goes up due to the investment in renewable energies)

[Tommy Cookers]

you seem to be building a view of science and technology from your political or philosophical outlook, not widely evidence-based
this is what I have complained about when others on this technical site use eg the EU publicity machine product
governments telling lies to boost what seems a good cause is dangerous and anti-democratic, such action has a poor record of success

for substantial parts of its history the world has had eg 1200 ppm of CO2 with no warming
the greenhouse effect is already close to the possible maximum, history suggests that is normal
95% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, this increases with heating and produces cooling by increasing cloud
which explains our history of relatively stable temperature, and the resulting existence of we humans

based on essentially the same data as today, in 1975 all 'climate experts' said that the future would have sudden disastrous coolings
(because we discovered by accident around 1960 that regular sudden coolings had happened in the recent prehistorical past)
global warming was genuinely a joke invented for TV by one who had shown the proof of global cooling - this I saw
he said that although coal etc could cause net cooling (via particulates), increased oil burning would act against that cooling
our (UK) leader Mrs Thatcher gave public funds via our Royal Society to fund research to say that coal caused cooling
because her party's (previous) Government had been brought down by the coalminer's union
this I saw and heard (Govt scientists trying to invent research ideas to access these funds)
Mrs Thatcher then increased oil burning, attempting to kill coal burning
she had dismissed the Govt Chief Scientific Advisor and appointed herself CSA

regardless of any of this, the real problem (in reducing total fossil fuel use) is to reduce it globally
when typically such fuel use elsewhere is stimulated by deliberate Govt subsidy
and effects on price resulting from the reduction of demand by eg the EU countries
countries developing exports see the position of the EU and others as protectionist and anti-competitive

btw
if we believe that the appearance of international consensus proves the correctness of a policy's technological factors
consider Flue Gas Desulphurisation (taking Sulphur emissions out of power station exhaust)
these last 35 years many of the developed countries have had a programme of phasing-in FGD
this was instigated in the EU on the foundation of an implied general 'acid rain' problem
when there was only local problem of 'East German' coal of very high sulphur content
'West German' green politics drove FGD action which was forced across the EU to protect WG from competition
from power exports to WG from neighbouring countries, that would otherwise be cheaper (ie without FGD)
radioactive tracer experiments showed that no UK sulphur reached Europe, but the UK Govt suppressed this information
and the UK surrendered to unneccessary FGD

FGD has cost the world 20000000000 Euro since then ? and has increased CO2 emissions
now a UN programme costing E 500000000 Euro is searching for ways to put sulphurous gases into the atmosphere !!!
because they boost cloud formation and so contribute to cooling the planet
this would cost another 200000000000 E to implement ?
yes, the 'do-gooders' really have damaged (and still are damaging) the planet when they said they were helping it

similarly so the 3 way catalyst
this has increased fuel consumption, hence CO2 emission, by about 12% (mandatory consumption figs) with little benefit
for 80 years we had a lean mixture and so reduced throttling, the 80s designed engines did this to a increased extent
the 3 way cat took us back to 1900, and threw away the benefits of these engines that we (in Europe anyway) had been enjoying
the bad habit of buying a bigger engine than we should is made worse with the 3 way
the 3 way was an attack on an invented problem, because NOx results from running at high power, not from city running
fertiliser produces 10 times vehicle NOx, and lightning and natural plants produce nearer 100 times
fighting the first NOx rules, Chrysler showed the Supreme Court that Joe Public's lawn produced more NOx than his car did

yes of course the 2 way catalyst is good, yes existing non 3 way NOx treatment is good


this thread exists as a reaction to what IMO seems a lack of technical perspective by some in boosting the EV cause
we already get false EV propaganda from our governments and the media that they manipulate
our cars are not the big issue here, and we should not be brainwashed into thinking they are

EVs will surely stand or fall on battery life, unless there is a huge degree of subsidy (bribing the citizen with his own money)
to give tolerable life, batteries are used only over 30-35% capacity, so giving poor range in real-world use
because of this controversy, some life claims have recently been reduced ??

as an EU country the UK is spending E 3000000000 (and rising) annually on so-called renewable energy (notice, not zero or low carbon)
so we eg import shiploads of wood to burn in generation to replace some coal
and use wheat to make ethanol for car fuel
this very non low-carbon, but conveniently 'renewable' activity is as big as our much better-known wind turbine activity

[Andres125sx]

you seem to be building a view of science and technology from your political or philosophical outlook, not widely evidence-based this is what I have complained about when others on this technical site use eg the EU publicity machine product
governments telling lies to boost what seems a good cause ....

May you provide some evidence that supports your POV? Because at least I´ve provided a graph wich shows the use of fossil fuel does actually have a huge impact on environement. Before saying I use EU publicity machine product telling lies I think you should provide some evidence, something that support that view...


Anycase I see you talking about money, that´s not a problem for the planet/environement, just for humans. We should differ, it could be bad for our wallet, but good for the planet. Actually that´s what I´m saying since my first post, renewable energies have a cost, but we should pay it without any doubt.

The theories you defend here are nice, but just theories. The reality is drawn by the data, and the data tell us we´re breaking the balance.

That´s a common problem for humans, if we can´t identify a problem, then we think there´s no problem..... We humans are so arrogant.... We don´t know everything, we don´t master the weather and climate, we have a clue, but that´s all. We have no idea of the real impact of our industry.... but some of us still try to defend we don´t damage the planet...
Sorry but IMHO that´s pretty arrogant, we know we´re breaking the balance (and this is a reality, not a lie of EU publicity), that by itself is damaging the planet. But it looks like we use our ignorance about the impact of that unbalance as a proof of the lack of impact

Let´s stick to what we know for sure, and what we know is we´re breaking the natural balance burning fossil fuels for centuries. Now we could discuss if this will be harmful or not, but what we can´t discuss is the existence of the impact, because it´s here, we can measure it.

[Andres125sx]

btw
if we believe that the appearance of international consensus proves the correctness of a policy's technological factors
consider Flue Gas Desulphurisation (taking Sulphur emissions out of power station exhaust)
these last 35 years many of the developed countries have had a programme of phasing-in FGD
this was instigated in the EU on the foundation of an implied general 'acid rain' problem
when there was only local problem of 'East German' coal of very high sulphur content...

So you don´t take this as a proof of the impact, because it was only a local problem....

To me this is an irrefutable proof of the impact. Yes it was only local and on a very high sulphur content plant, but as you know any big problem has a beginning, and this was the begininning of this one. We did identify it, and you say that´s not a real problem because it was only local... Sorry but to me that does not have any sense, it´s an identified problem, Germany was the first to suffer it because of the high content in sulphur, but the first, not the only one, it´s different.

It was only local at that point, but if we would have continued that route, then it may be a general problem today, because the high sulphur content there does not mean there´s no sulphur any other place, just the % is lower, but the problem, with the time, will be the same as it was in Germany. Problem identified and environement damage proven.

If this is not enough for you I really don´t know what do you need to say we´re damaging the planet I´ll repeat it, we shouldn´t need a proof of the damage, with just an idea we should be so overwhelmed we should make any necessary effort to prevent it and solve any impact the planet has already suffer.

We´re not playing cards, we´re playing russian roulette so no mistakes are allowed and any doubt should make us think about the worst case scenario. And we have tons of doubts...

[Tommy Cookers]

you do not think that sulphur in fossil fuel contributes a cooling effect to the climate ?
the UN seems to think that it does
that's why it's arranging for machines to put sulphur into the atmosphere

btw there is now no E German etc coal, it has all been used
with any other coal there would have been no problem (those trees)

if the world needs saving from some situation of the physical environment, we need to take the best-judged actions
not actions that primarily feed the psychological hunger of those parareligious greenists
the UK's wind turbines will never any replace thermal power generating capacity
the UK currently owes E 1500000000
how many more actions will our creditors fund ??

[Andres125sx]

if the world needs saving from some situation of the physical environment, we need to take the best-judged actions
not actions that primarily feed the psychological hunger of those parareligious greenists

No, it´s much better to feed the economical hunger of those petrol companies who have so much power they can make electric cars dissapear from 70´s to today.....

There are interests everywhere, you can´t talk just about one of the parts ignoring it´s actually the other part who have modified our history. It´s petrol companies who have stopped electric vehicles development for decades, not the parareligious greenist

But now, suddenly, it´s the greeenist who have the power and influence to modify our history... sorry but that´s a nosense, it´s petrol companies who have been playing with us. The parareligious greenist only want the best for all of us, some times they don´t know what´s the best for all of us but they don´t have the economical interests and power petrol companies have, so they don´t have their influence

the UK's wind turbines will never any replace thermal power generating capacity

That´s your opinion, reality is they´re doing exactly this right now, without those wind turbines UK would need another plant burning fossil fuels, so you don´t need to talk about the future, they´re replacing thermal power right now.

[Arterius]

...

the UK's wind turbines will never any replace thermal power generating capacity

That´s your opinion, reality is they´re doing exactly this right now, without those wind turbines UK would need another plant burning fossil fuels, so you don´t need to talk about the future, they´re replacing thermal power right now.

This is a quote from a post I made a few years ago with a paper that shows just how useless wind energy actually is in replacing large thermal power generators.

The following link is to a recent report (March 2011)on the use of wind power in the UK.
http://www.jmt.org/stuart-young-report.asp
It shows how unreliable wind really is in large scale use of power generation unless an efficient manner of large scale energy storage is found.

Full report at: http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf

[SectorOne]

That´s your opinion, reality is they´re doing exactly this right now, without those wind turbines UK would need another plant burning fossil fuels, so you don´t need to talk about the future, they´re replacing thermal power right now.

Wind power in the UK is a speck of dust in space.
It´s not anywhere near taking over other sources of energy.

Wind power is the second largest renewable energy source in the UK after biomass.
Renewable energy sources make up 5% of the UK´s total need of energy.

[autogyro]

That´s your opinion, reality is they´re doing exactly this right now, without those wind turbines UK would need another plant burning fossil fuels, so you don´t need to talk about the future, they´re replacing thermal power right now.

Wind power in the UK is a speck of dust in space.
It´s not anywhere near taking over other sources of energy.

Wind power is the second largest renewable energy source in the UK after biomass.
Renewable energy sources make up 5% of the UK´s total need of energy.

Hardly a 'spec of dust' then.
If we built flood barriers across the Wash and Severn Estuaries and placed tidal generators and wind turbines on those barriers, that would supply over a quarter of the countries energy needs, not a 'spec of dust' and only a start, if only we had a socially responsible government instead of a bunch of self serving American lap dogs.
The inevitable major flooding in East Anglia within the next 20 years alone is going to cost more that such a build program.

[SectorOne]

If we built flood barriers across the Wash and Severn Estuaries and placed tidal generators and wind turbines on those barriers, that would supply over a quarter of the countries energy needs, not a 'spec of dust' and only a start,

IF yes. IF you would do that it would have an impact.

But right now, at 5%, it´s a speck of dust in comparison to all the other sources.
Or five specks of dust if you will.

[Tommy Cookers]

....... If we built flood barriers across the Wash and Severn Estuaries and placed tidal generators and wind turbines on those barriers, that would supply over a quarter of the countries energy needs .....

I think you mean over a quarter of the countries electricity needs ?
(the country's energy needs incl domestic, industrial, and agricultural heat being very much greater than its electrical energy needs)

the official information has been for some years rigged to exaggerate greatly the extent of the benefits of renewables
by endlessly implying that energy and electricity are 2 names for one sort of stuff
so pushing the media to imply endlessly that wind turbines etc will free us from fossil fuels

the Severn Tidal Barrage was designed and tested about 30 years ago, and has been written out of history
more recent STB designs are now regularly turned down because of our obligation to the EU to rehome any displaced wildlife
(now that the Wales Govt has stopped their objections)
the last STB (designed to address earlier wildlife objections) was to provide 7% of our electricity
any STB is very good value and quick to build
and in its ability to generate every day and to store energy is a vital complement to wind turbines

the only question is whether an STB or a Bristol Channel TB (this would almost double the energy take)
more likely we will build a small tidal power scheme in the Severn (to make a full STB impossible)

[Andres125sx]

...

the UK's wind turbines will never any replace thermal power generating capacity

That´s your opinion, reality is they´re doing exactly this right now, without those wind turbines UK would need another plant burning fossil fuels, so you don´t need to talk about the future, they´re replacing thermal power right now.

This is a quote from a post I made a few years ago with a paper that shows just how useless wind energy actually is in replacing large thermal power generators.

The following link is to a recent report (March 2011)on the use of wind power in the UK.
http://www.jmt.org/stuart-young-report.asp
It shows how unreliable wind really is in large scale use of power generation unless an efficient manner of large scale energy storage is found.

Full report at: http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf

I understand what you mean, wind energy is not constant so it could never replace energy plants we currently use. Agree. But nobody is trying this, wind turbines are just one of the sources of renewable energy we can use. To replace all the fossil fuels we do need all the renewable energies we can use, including wind turbines.

So if you think about wind turbines as the only replacement for fossil fuels, then I agree, they´re useless. But that´s far from realistic, wind turbines are just a part of the renewable energies, and since they´re only a percentage the lack of consistency is not a problem because it is compensated easily.

So wind energy does not replace fossil fuels by itself, but is a good help replacing fossil fuels, wich is the point of any renewable energy

[autogyro]

....... If we built flood barriers across the Wash and Severn Estuaries and placed tidal generators and wind turbines on those barriers, that would supply over a quarter of the countries energy needs .....

I think you mean over a quarter of the countries electricity needs ?
(the country's energy needs incl domestic, industrial, and agricultural heat being very much greater than its electrical energy needs)

the official information has been for some years rigged to exaggerate greatly the extent of the benefits of renewables
by endlessly implying that energy and electricity are 2 names for one sort of stuff
so pushing the media to imply endlessly that wind turbines etc will free us from fossil fuels

the Severn Tidal Barrage was designed and tested about 30 years ago, and has been written out of history
more recent STB designs are now regularly turned down because of our obligation to the EU to rehome any displaced wildlife
(now that the Wales Govt has stopped their objections)
the last STB (designed to address earlier wildlife objections) was to provide 7% of our electricity
any STB is very good value and quick to build
and in its ability to generate every day and to store energy is a vital complement to wind turbines

the only question is whether an STB or a Bristol Channel TB (this would almost double the energy take)
more likely we will build a small tidal power scheme in the Severn (to make a full STB impossible)

Yes Tommy one quarter of the 'electricity' needs, an important distinction, I stand corrected.
I am aware of the pathetic EU regulations regarding wildlife that has prevented a STB.
However, I live in Norfolk and it is the RSPB that I hold responsible for preventing any form of workable flood defence or TB along the East Anglian coast and the Wash Estuary.
These uninformed environmentalist paid up dicky bird watchers have forced through legislation that allows them to design and implement what they for some unimaginable reason refer to as 'controlled' flooding.
They have taken control of areas of wetland on the coast frequented by wading birds and prevented any form of proper flood barriers being built.
It is inevitable that there will be major flooding along the East Anglian coast inside the next 20 years.
The land is sinking in the east and even without any effects from ice melt and global warming sea levels here are rising.
When the floods happen and thousand perish the dicky bird watchers will all go and hide in their mainly urban homes and pretend it was not their fault for murdering people.
Of course their puerile actions has also prevented any investment in Tidal Barriers across the Wash Estuary.
The government uses this as an excuse to avoid the issue and the country loses yet another sensible and cost effective method for clean energy production.
This time though it will be at the cost of the lives of many Norfolk people in the near future.