Australia Just Had Four of Its Hottest Days on Record

[Media_Truth]

Perhaps, perhaps not, by putting all the competing technologies on equal footing, whichever path is best will emerge.
We can make educated guesses however.
Coal is dead within a few decades, because of logistics.
Oil will choke on it own costs, as extraction expenses push the price ever higher.
Pending some major advances in battery technology, batteries will likely not fly a jet over the ocean any time soon.
IMHO, this leaves only man made carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels.
They can be produced as a storage device for the solar and wind surpluses that we know will occur,
in existing refineries. The man made fuels, can then be distributed with existing infrastructure, for existing demand.
As the technology improves, container size unites paired with solar panels could make fuel for remote farming communities,
doubling as an electrical source for some services.
Our future can be very bright, where everyone alive can live a first world lifestyle.

I think your last statement is a direct quote from Coolidge in the 1920s. Last I looked, the fuels that you are touting are currently nothing but vapor. I don't see airline travel with fossil fuels disappearing any time soon. As consumers stop using fossil fuels, it will keep stores available for airlines, and it will keep the prices in check.

 

[longview]

I think your last statement is a direct quote from Coolidge in the 1920s. Last I looked, the fuels that you are touting are currently nothing but vapor. I don't see airline travel with fossil fuels disappearing any time soon. As consumers stop using fossil fuels, it will keep stores available for airlines, and it will keep the prices in check.

Actually it could be airlines making the switch early, as jet fuel is expensive, the man made fuel is chemically identical.
The only difference seen by the Navy, is the man made stuff is a more consistent product.
It really does come down to cost, when the man made fuel, is naturally the least expensive choice, people and companies will choose it.

 

[Media_Truth]

We could continue to speculate on the future of airline travel, but on-topic, it appears that the Australia heat wave has subsided for now. Interesting - the government actually created an area on their website devoted to the heatwave.

Heatwave Service for Australia

 

[Lord of Planar]

Actually it could be airlines making the switch early, as jet fuel is expensive, the man made fuel is chemically identical.
The only difference seen by the Navy, is the man made stuff is a more consistent product.
It really does come down to cost, when the man made fuel, is naturally the least expensive choice, people and companies will choose it.

This just might be the future.

We have ways or extracting CO2 from the air that's not prohibitively expensive. If we can capture it during the burning processes itself, it's cheaper. The key would be to have a large enough storage to hold it until excess green energy is available reduce it back to carbon, or hydrocarbon.

Then of course, it still will not be viable until fossil fuel prices increase significantly.

 

[longview]

This just might be the future.

We have ways or extracting CO2 from the air that's not prohibitively expensive. If we can capture it during the burning processes itself, it's cheaper. The key would be to have a large enough storage to hold it until excess green energy is available reduce it back to carbon, or hydrocarbon.

Then of course, it still will not be viable until fossil fuel prices increase significantly.

Sunfire is now claiming their process can be 80% efficient on a large scale,
which would move the economically viable target closer.
It would sure change the world dynamic a bit, where countries with good energy sources and make their own fuel.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Sunfire is now claiming their process can be 80% efficient on a large scale,
which would move the economically viable target closer.
It would sure change the world dynamic a bit, where countries with good energy sources and make their own fuel.

Especially those near the equator.

 

[longview]

Especially those near the equator.

Or with good geothermal sources like Iceland, or maybe Hawaii, and Alaska.

 

[Tans]

I think your last statement is a direct quote from Coolidge in the 1920s. Last I looked, the fuels that you are touting are currently nothing but vapor. I don't see airline travel with fossil fuels disappearing any time soon. As consumers stop using fossil fuels, it will keep stores available for airlines, and it will keep the prices in check.

I don't see fossil fuels disappearing anytime soon either.

Most cars and trucks on the road use diesel or gasoline.
A lot of homes are heated with oil, natural gas, or propane.
Most pleasure boats and large ships use oil or gasoline.
That's not even counting the airlines or any other airplanes or helicopters.
Electric chainsaws don't work so good out in the deep woods They need gasoline.
Most snowmobiles, dirt bikes, street motorcycles, and other similar stuff uses gasoline.
Heck, my BBQ uses propane.

 

[Tans]

Actually it could be airlines making the switch early, as jet fuel is expensive, the man made fuel is chemically identical.
The only difference seen by the Navy, is the man made stuff is a more consistent product.
It really does come down to cost, when the man made fuel, is naturally the least expensive choice, people and companies will choose it.

If it does become less expensive, perhaps so. That's a big if, though.

 

[longview]

If it does become less expensive, perhaps so. That's a big if, though.

Not really! To provide oil at the entrance of a refinery, has real measurable cost.
To store energy as fuel has the energy cost, as well as the efficiency loss.
A gallon of gasoline contains ~33 Kwh of energy, but at 60% efficiency, it takes about 55 Kwh to make a gallon of gasoline.
From what I have read this includes the energy to break the hydrogen off of water, and the energy to capture CO2
and extract the carbon. The Navy's process does this in one device, but is claiming less efficiency than Sunfire.
If the wholesale price of electricity were $.05 per Kwh, then a gallon of gasoline would cost $2.75 @ 60% efficiency,
or equate out to $2.75 X 35=$96.25 a barrel. (They get about 35 gallons of usable fuel from each barrel of oil.)
Sunfire is claiming 80% efficiency so the comparison price would be 41.25 X$.05X 35=$72.18 per barrel.
As we add solar the duck curve gets much worse, and actual wholesale prices of electricity could drop to very low levels,
for specific time periods. The refineries could even be providing an electrical grid service, by providing a large variable load,
to absorb the unused surpluses.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Perhaps, perhaps not, by putting all the competing technologies on equal footing, whichever path is best will emerge.
We can make educated guesses however.
Coal is dead within a few decades, because of logistics.
Oil will choke on it own costs, as extraction expenses push the price ever higher.
Pending some major advances in battery technology, batteries will likely not fly a jet over the ocean any time soon.
IMHO, this leaves only man made carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuels.
They can be produced as a storage device for the solar and wind surpluses that we know will occur,
in existing refineries. The man made fuels, can then be distributed with existing infrastructure, for existing demand.
As the technology improves, container size unites paired with solar panels could make fuel for remote farming communities,
doubling as an electrical source for some services.
Our future can be very bright, where everyone alive can live a first world lifestyle.

Fossil fuel havn't and still doesn't pay the massive social cost from global warming and pollution.

While you also have politcians like Donald Trump that want to spend billions of dollars propping up unprofitable coal plants.

Donald Trump hopes to save America’s failing coal-fired power plants - Daily chart

 

[Jack Hays]

Fossil fuel havn't and still doesn't pay the massive social cost from global warming and pollution.

While you also have politcians like Donald Trump that want to spend billions of dollars propping up unprofitable coal plants.

Donald Trump hopes to save America’s failing coal-fired power plants - Daily chart

"Social cost" of fossil fuels is a huge propaganda lie.

 

[Tans]

Not really! To provide oil at the entrance of a refinery, has real measurable cost.
To store energy as fuel has the energy cost, as well as the efficiency loss.
A gallon of gasoline contains ~33 Kwh of energy, but at 60% efficiency, it takes about 55 Kwh to make a gallon of gasoline.
From what I have read this includes the energy to break the hydrogen off of water, and the energy to capture CO2
and extract the carbon. The Navy's process does this in one device, but is claiming less efficiency than Sunfire.
If the wholesale price of electricity were $.05 per Kwh, then a gallon of gasoline would cost $2.75 @ 60% efficiency,
or equate out to $2.75 X 35=$96.25 a barrel. (They get about 35 gallons of usable fuel from each barrel of oil.)
Sunfire is claiming 80% efficiency so the comparison price would be 41.25 X$.05X 35=$72.18 per barrel.
As we add solar the duck curve gets much worse, and actual wholesale prices of electricity could drop to very low levels,
for specific time periods. The refineries could even be providing an electrical grid service, by providing a large variable load,
to absorb the unused surpluses.

The EPA uses unusual units for this. The actual standard unit for heat is the BTU in the United States. One BTU is the amount of heat required to raise 1 pound of water by 1 degree. Under this unit, 1 kwH of electricity converts to 3412 BTUs if all of it converted to heat. In chemistry, it's about heat. It takes a certain amount of heat to start a reaction, and you get a certain amount of heat out of the result. The rest of the reaction is just rearranging stuff.

A gallon of gasoline as typically sold in the United States (E10 fuel) produces 120,429 BTU. You say Sunfire is 80% efficient. That means you need to use 150,536 BTU to produce a fuel that provides 120,429 BTU. That means you need an additional 30,107 BTU from somewhere to make this work. Perhaps I don't understand, but I just don't see the point in doing it. Fuel is fuel. It's price is determined by the availability of that fuel vs the number of people willing to buy it. So what you are suggesting is effectively spending $100 to get $80 in return.

Am I missing something?

 

[Tans]

Fossil fuel havn't and still doesn't pay the massive social cost from global warming and pollution.

While you also have politcians like Donald Trump that want to spend billions of dollars propping up unprofitable coal plants.

Donald Trump hopes to save America’s failing coal-fired power plants - Daily chart

I've heard this before. Seems no one can seem to put a number on this so-called social cost. This is just more vague claims.

 

[Tans]

"Social cost" of fossil fuels is a huge propaganda lie.

I tend to agree.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The EPA uses unusual units for this. The actual standard unit for heat is the BTU in the United States. One BTU is the amount of heat required to raise 1 pound of water by 1 degree. Under this unit, 1 kwH of electricity converts to 3412 BTUs if all of it converted to heat. In chemistry, it's about heat. It takes a certain amount of heat to start a reaction, and you get a certain amount of heat out of the result. The rest of the reaction is just rearranging stuff.

A gallon of gasoline as typically sold in the United States (E10 fuel) produces 120,429 BTU. You say Sunfire is 80% efficient. That means you need to use 150,536 BTU to produce a fuel that provides 120,429 BTU. That means you need an additional 30,107 BTU from somewhere to make this work. Perhaps I don't understand, but I just don't see the point in doing it. Fuel is fuel. It's price is determined by the availability of that fuel vs the number of people willing to buy it. So what you are suggesting is effectively spending $100 to get $80 in return.

Am I missing something?

Can we start by what is the energy loss of converting crude oil to gasoline?

One application of Sunfire would be to convert the chaotic excess of solar and wind into a stable storage of hydrocarbons for fuel as needed. It is still expensive, but at some point, it may be competitive with drawing oil out of the ground and converting it to fuel.

I don't see any practical use now. But the future is worth exploring.

 

[longview]

Fossil fuel havn't and still doesn't pay the massive social cost from global warming and pollution.

While you also have politcians like Donald Trump that want to spend billions of dollars propping up unprofitable coal plants.

Donald Trump hopes to save America’s failing coal-fired power plants - Daily chart

Question, are their social cost to solar and wind? with their poor duty cycle I am sure someone could show some.
No, social cost are not quantifiable in an accounting sense.

 

[longview]

The EPA uses unusual units for this. The actual standard unit for heat is the BTU in the United States. One BTU is the amount of heat required to raise 1 pound of water by 1 degree. Under this unit, 1 kwH of electricity converts to 3412 BTUs if all of it converted to heat. In chemistry, it's about heat. It takes a certain amount of heat to start a reaction, and you get a certain amount of heat out of the result. The rest of the reaction is just rearranging stuff.

A gallon of gasoline as typically sold in the United States (E10 fuel) produces 120,429 BTU. You say Sunfire is 80% efficient. That means you need to use 150,536 BTU to produce a fuel that provides 120,429 BTU. That means you need an additional 30,107 BTU from somewhere to make this work. Perhaps I don't understand, but I just don't see the point in doing it. Fuel is fuel. It's price is determined by the availability of that fuel vs the number of people willing to buy it. So what you are suggesting is effectively spending $100 to get $80 in return.

Am I missing something?

No process is perfect and the units of measure that people use money.
The energy will come from surplus solar and wind power, that would have to be disposed of as heat
if not stored as fuel, would you rather take a 100% loss or only a 20% loss, and have available fuel as a benefit?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Question, are their social cost to solar and wind? with their poor duty cycle I am sure someone could show some.
No, social cost are not quantifiable in an accounting sense.

Of course you have to account for social cost. There even the American Intelligence Community under Donald Trump acknowledge the threat from climate change.

“Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond. Climate hazards such as extreme weather, higher temperatures, droughts, floods, wildfires, storms, sea level rise, soil degradation, and acidifying oceans are intensifying, threatening infrastructure, health, and water and food security. Irreversible damage to ecosystems and habitats will undermine the economic benefits they provide, worsened by air, soil, water, and marine pollution.”

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/2019-ATA-SFR---SSCI.pdf

While meeting the Paris Agreement could save a millions lives per year globally just by reducing air pollutions.

“Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The latest estimates from leading experts also indicate that the value of health gains from climate action would be approximately double the cost of mitigation policies at global level, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is even higher in countries such as China and India.”

Health benefits far outweigh the costs of meeting climate change goals

Renwables are also starting to become more and more competitive in delivering on demand power.

“So, while it was good news across the board for renewable energy technologies, the highlight was the dramatic price decline for lithium-ion batteries which, when co-located with solar or wind projects, are starting to compete — in many markets, and without subsidy — with coal- and gas-fired generation projects for the provision of “dispatchable power” (power which can be delivered whenever and as necessary).

“Solar PV and onshore wind have won the race to be the cheapest sources of new ‘bulk generation’ in most countries, but the encroachment of clean technologies is now going well beyond that, threatening the balancing role that gas-fired plant operators, in particular, have been hoping to play,” explained Tifenn Brandily, energy economics analyst at BNEF.”

Electrifying news: Solar and wind power has quintupled in a decade | Grist

 

[longview]

Of course you have to account for social cost. There even the American Intelligence Community under Donald Trump acknowledge the threat from climate change.

“Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond. Climate hazards such as extreme weather, higher temperatures, droughts, floods, wildfires, storms, sea level rise, soil degradation, and acidifying oceans are intensifying, threatening infrastructure, health, and water and food security. Irreversible damage to ecosystems and habitats will undermine the economic benefits they provide, worsened by air, soil, water, and marine pollution.”

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/2019-ATA-SFR---SSCI.pdf

While meeting the Paris Agreement could save a millions lives per year globally just by reducing air pollutions.

“Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The latest estimates from leading experts also indicate that the value of health gains from climate action would be approximately double the cost of mitigation policies at global level, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is even higher in countries such as China and India.”

Health benefits far outweigh the costs of meeting climate change goals

Renwables are also starting to become more and more competitive in delivering on demand power.

“So, while it was good news across the board for renewable energy technologies, the highlight was the dramatic price decline for lithium-ion batteries which, when co-located with solar or wind projects, are starting to compete — in many markets, and without subsidy — with coal- and gas-fired generation projects for the provision of “dispatchable power” (power which can be delivered whenever and as necessary).

“Solar PV and onshore wind have won the race to be the cheapest sources of new ‘bulk generation’ in most countries, but the encroachment of clean technologies is now going well beyond that, threatening the balancing role that gas-fired plant operators, in particular, have been hoping to play,” explained Tifenn Brandily, energy economics analyst at BNEF.”

Electrifying news: Solar and wind power has quintupled in a decade | Grist

Reading comprehension! I asked "are their social cost to solar and wind? with their poor duty cycle "

 

[Lord of Planar]

Of course you have to account for social cost. There even the American Intelligence Community under Donald Trump acknowledge the threat from climate change.

“Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond. Climate hazards such as extreme weather, higher temperatures, droughts, floods, wildfires, storms, sea level rise, soil degradation, and acidifying oceans are intensifying, threatening infrastructure, health, and water and food security. Irreversible damage to ecosystems and habitats will undermine the economic benefits they provide, worsened by air, soil, water, and marine pollution.”

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/2019-ATA-SFR---SSCI.pdf

How can you account for social cost when they are not quantified with any reasonable accuracy? Just Chick Little tactics?

Now I see you reading comprehension lacking again. There is no place that the "climate change" stated her is pinning it on mankind. And the on to of that, below what you quoted is the remarks saying that the shipping costs will go down, not up! And that there is no evidence of any problems between the "arctic states."

What is you point of this report?

While meeting the Paris Agreement could save a millions lives per year globally just by reducing air pollutions.

“Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The latest estimates from leading experts also indicate that the value of health gains from climate action would be approximately double the cost of mitigation policies at global level, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is even higher in countries such as China and India.”

Health benefits far outweigh the costs of meeting climate change goals

LOL...

They are speaking of actual pollution. They do have a statement about CO2, but that's only because the polluting power plants they address also generate CO2.

Renwables are also starting to become more and more competitive in delivering on demand power.

“So, while it was good news across the board for renewable energy technologies, the highlight was the dramatic price decline for lithium-ion batteries which, when co-located with solar or wind projects, are starting to compete — in many markets, and without subsidy — with coal- and gas-fired generation projects for the provision of “dispatchable power” (power which can be delivered whenever and as necessary).

“Solar PV and onshore wind have won the race to be the cheapest sources of new ‘bulk generation’ in most countries, but the encroachment of clean technologies is now going well beyond that, threatening the balancing role that gas-fired plant operators, in particular, have been hoping to play,” explained Tifenn Brandily, energy economics analyst at BNEF.”

Electrifying news: Solar and wind power has quintupled in a decade | Grist

I don't see those quotes in that activist rag.

 

[Tans]

Can we start by what is the energy loss of converting crude oil to gasoline?

One application of Sunfire would be to convert the chaotic excess of solar and wind into a stable storage of hydrocarbons for fuel as needed. It is still expensive, but at some point, it may be competitive with drawing oil out of the ground and converting it to fuel.

I don't see any practical use now. But the future is worth exploring.

If it is competitive, great. This company does make a lot of rather vague promises, though. I'll believe it when I can see it.

Right now a barrel of crude oil costs about $60. About half of that becomes gasoline, worth about $61 on the streets today in the United States. The rest becomes other products. They can be sold too. Everything from asphalt to natural gas. There is no heat loss figure for converting crude to gasoline, since that will vary depending on the nature of the crude oil being used. In any case, such a concept does tend to ignore the other products from crude oil.

 

[Tans]

Question, are their social cost to solar and wind? with their poor duty cycle I am sure someone could show some.
No, social cost are not quantifiable in an accounting sense.

Agreed. A social cost sounds like another vague bit of word games.

 

[Tans]

No process is perfect and the units of measure that people use money.
The energy will come from surplus solar and wind power, that would have to be disposed of as heat
if not stored as fuel, would you rather take a 100% loss or only a 20% loss, and have available fuel as a benefit?

Why would solar and wind power be surplus?

 

[Lord of Planar]

If it is competitive, great. This company does make a lot of rather vague promises, though. I'll believe it when I can see it.

Right now a barrel of crude oil costs about $60. About half of that becomes gasoline, worth about $61 on the streets today in the United States. The rest becomes other products. They can be sold too. Everything from asphalt to natural gas. There is no heat loss figure for converting crude to gasoline, since that will vary depending on the nature of the crude oil being used. In any case, such a concept does tend to ignore the other products from crude oil.

You have to calculate your losses across all the produced produced. To selectively choose where to place the waste energy at is stooping to what the warmers do with solar power.