Wind power failing

[longview]

Wait a sec. All the hydrogen in the Universe is over 10 billion years old. Hydrogen escapes (being incredibly tiny and being able to pass between other atoms by some electron-sharing voodoo) but it does not evolve!

Refined petroleum I have heard, does lose octane rating with age. But this would be less of a problem with a "super refined" fuel made from carbon and hydrogen. There wouldn't be any super-high-octane rings in it (refineries leave those in to raise octane rating, but they're not stable.)



Yes, this sounds good. Burning pure CH4 (without atmospheric nitrogen in it) the exhaust of pure CO2 could be stored much more easily. Water vapor would condense out just by storing it at night-time.

My main concern with extracting carbon from the atmosphere is the very low concentration. If we could pump PURE carbon dioxide into tanks or underground, it would be a lot more efficient.

I may have used the wrong term, I have heard evolved used with Helium because glass does not contain it.
The same problem happens with hydrogen, it leaks out!

Pure CH4, stored in the dark, will last nearly forever.

While I think we come at the problem from different angles, I believe we both want the same destination.
I want us to be energy sustainable, but sustainable at a level that does not require radically reducing lifestyles to achieve.
In addition, I think it is necessary to find a solution that can scale and raise everyone's standard of living.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I may have used the wrong term, I have heard evolved used with Helium because glass does not contain it.
The same problem happens with hydrogen, it leaks out!

Pure CH4, stored in the dark, will last nearly forever.

While I think we come at the problem from different angles, I believe we both want the same destination.
I want us to be energy sustainable, but sustainable at a level that does not require radically reducing lifestyles to achieve.
In addition, I think it is necessary to find a solution that can scale and raise everyone's standard of living.

I particularly like the idea of co-siting a CH4 plant with a solar plant. I was wrong about "pure CO2" unless there's pure Oxygen stored as well (but why not?).

Compressing air is less efficient (because of heating) but obviously very cheap. Reverse hydro is efficient, but I can't think of a US location with high solar and high mountains (many places in the Andes tho). Heating solids or liquids stored underground, again not very efficient, but fairly cheap and practically unlimited.

The cheapest options should be explored first, because of future uncertainty. We simply don't know what batteries will cost five years from now, let alone ten or twenty. We also don't know how long the current glut of natural gas will last.

What we least agree on is carbon taxes. I think we need them, globally, and the Europeans have shown the way to make them trade neutral: apply taxes to imports (ie tariffs) which reduce to zero from countries that apply their own tax. This is a robust solution which plant builders can rely on far more comfortably than a guaranteed price for power (how US jurisdictions usually encourage nuclear), or a subsidy (higher than market price for power). Any renewable generator should be certain that for the life of their plant they will always be advantaged over emitting sources, but have to compete "on a level playing field" with other renewables.

Oh btw, aviation is a significant fraction of US fossil fuel use. Is it practical to synthesise liquid fuels as well as CH4?

 

[longview]

I particularly like the idea of co-siting a CH4 plant with a solar plant. I was wrong about "pure CO2" unless there's pure Oxygen stored as well (but why not?).

Compressing air is less efficient (because of heating) but obviously very cheap. Reverse hydro is efficient, but I can't think of a US location with high solar and high mountains (many places in the Andes tho). Heating solids or liquids stored underground, again not very efficient, but fairly cheap and practically unlimited.

The cheapest options should be explored first, because of future uncertainty. We simply don't know what batteries will cost five years from now, let alone ten or twenty. We also don't know how long the current glut of natural gas will last.

What we least agree on is carbon taxes. I think we need them, globally, and the Europeans have shown the way to make them trade neutral: apply taxes to imports (ie tariffs) which reduce to zero from countries that apply their own tax. This is a robust solution which plant builders can rely on far more comfortably than a guaranteed price for power (how US jurisdictions usually encourage nuclear), or a subsidy (higher than market price for power). Any renewable generator should be certain that for the life of their plant they will always be advantaged over emitting sources, but have to compete "on a level playing field" with other renewables.

Oh btw, aviation is a significant fraction of US fossil fuel use. Is it practical to synthesise liquid fuels as well as CH4?

Well we do not agree on the need for a carbon tax, because it could not be implemented globally.
I think the best approach is to minimize the overhead of Wind and Solar electricity, and let the market work.

There are already several projects underway to make liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
Norsk e-Fuel in Norway
The generic name is Power to liquid technology
Exxon is refitting a UNIT in Baytown to make partial carbon neutral fuel, but it is a great first step.
ExxonMobil planning hydrogen production, carbon capture and storage at Baytown complex
The first step will source the hydrogen from natural gas, and the carbon from captured CO2.
The good point is that process is the same no matter what the source of the hydrogen,
They are combining hydrogen and carbon to make desired liquid fuel products.

In a much bigger picture, once power to liquid technology is optimized, any nation can produce their own fuel,
from whatever sustainable energy sources they have. This will end the fossil fuel economy.
The oil companies will still be around, as they have the infrastructure and expertise to make the new carbon neutral fuels.

 

[mrjurrs]

So how much did Walmart receive, because they received all sorts of tax deductions also?
Quantifying negative impact is difficult, when you have to balance the benefits.

Walmart is not actively destroying the planet we live on. Which walmart deductions are only for the big box retail store sector?

 

[Ug make hammer]

Well we do not agree on the need for a carbon tax, because it could not be implemented globally.
I think the best approach is to minimize the overhead of Wind and Solar electricity, and let the market work.

It can be implemented globally though. If Europe and the US together imposed carbon tariffs, anyone exporting to them would have a good reason to tax at their end instead. The price to the market is the same, but the exporter gets the money instead of the importer.

There are already several projects underway to make liquid hydrocarbon fuels.
Norsk e-Fuel in Norway
The generic name is Power to liquid technology
Exxon is refitting a UNIT in Baytown to make partial carbon neutral fuel, but it is a great first step.
ExxonMobil planning hydrogen production, carbon capture and storage at Baytown complex
The first step will source the hydrogen from natural gas, and the carbon from captured CO2.

Um, this doesn't sound like a source of energy at all. "Cracking" hydrogen requires making solid carbon, and oxygen which they could maybe sell (though not at a premium, it would have residual CO2 in it). What you have there is "gray hydrogen"

The good point is that process is the same no matter what the source of the hydrogen,
They are combining hydrogen and carbon to make desired liquid fuel products.

In a much bigger picture, once power to liquid technology is optimized, any nation can produce their own fuel,
from whatever sustainable energy sources they have. This will end the fossil fuel economy.
The oil companies will still be around, as they have the infrastructure and expertise to make the new carbon neutral fuels.

Yes? And to avoid any government role in this, we're just going to count on ethical consumers to prefer the carbon neutral fuels?

I'm fine with the principle but I'm not going to endorse it until I see costings. Carbon-neutral electricity straight to the grid is barely competitive you admit. Mainly because it shuts out more expensive fossil fuel sources for some of the day, and the power companies are so beholden to those sources that they won't pay full price for carbon-neutral electricity. So what does it cost to build, and how many years does it take to return the investment?

Let's just tax the emitting sources. Spend the money helping people insulate their roof space, or put internal doors on their open plan houses. Give a rebate to people who drive for a living (truckers, delivery drivers, taxis and uber) but nothing to air travellers. It's just a tax, it raises revenue for one thing, and for another it reduces use of fossil fuels. Compared to the main Federal tax on earned income, it's incredibly benign.

 

[longview]

Walmart is not actively destroying the planet we live on. Which walmart deductions are only for the big box retail store sector?

How do you know ether Walmart or Exxon is "actively destroying the planet we live on"?
Also would not the deductions be for any retail store, not just a big box store?
just like the same deductions in the oil industry would likely exists for Exxon as well as some small wildcatter outfit.

 

[mrjurrs]

How do you know ether Walmart or Exxon is "actively destroying the planet we live on"?
Also would not the deductions be for any retail store, not just a big box store?
just like the same deductions in the oil industry would likely exists for Exxon as well as some small wildcatter outfit.

One question. Do you see energy pollution or not?

 

[longview]

It can be implemented globally though. If Europe and the US together imposed carbon tariffs, anyone exporting to them would have a good reason to tax at their end instead. The price to the market is the same, but the exporter gets the money instead of the importer.



Um, this doesn't sound like a source of energy at all. "Cracking" hydrogen requires making solid carbon, and oxygen which they could maybe sell (though not at a premium, it would have residual CO2 in it). What you have there is "gray hydrogen"



Yes? And to avoid any government role in this, we're just going to count on ethical consumers to prefer the carbon neutral fuels?

I'm fine with the principle but I'm not going to endorse it until I see costings. Carbon-neutral electricity straight to the grid is barely competitive you admit. Mainly because it shuts out more expensive fossil fuel sources for some of the day, and the power companies are so beholden to those sources that they won't pay full price for carbon-neutral electricity. So what does it cost to build, and how many years does it take to return the investment?

Let's just tax the emitting sources. Spend the money helping people insulate their roof space, or put internal doors on their open plan houses. Give a rebate to people who drive for a living (truckers, delivery drivers, taxis and uber) but nothing to air travellers. It's just a tax, it raises revenue for one thing, and for another it reduces use of fossil fuels. Compared to the main Federal tax on earned income, it's incredibly benign.

I have to disagree on the global implementation of a carbon tax, there may be a way to make it work, but
also a lot of places for it to not work.

What Exxon Baytown is doing is bringing together a stream of hydrogen, and carbon to produce
liquid hydrocarbon fuels, Yes the first step gets the hydrogen from CH4, but that likely has more to do with the scale
of production, and the fuel still has much lower CO2 emissions than fuel made from oil.
The size of a unit at Exxon Baytown is enormous, I think (not for certain) a coworker who went to work for them
told me they have 16 units and process 584,000 barrels of oil a day, so each unit is a big deal.

The transition will happen when it is more profitable for the refinery to make their own feedstock than to make it from oil.
The consumers will switch when the man made carbon neutral fuel, is the least expensive choice at the pump.

Can you think of why the CEO of Exxon came out in favor of carbon taxes?
I think it is not because he cared about the environment, but likely that they saw the carbon taxes
as a way to kill their competition, Exxon is still standard oil at it's root!

 

[longview]

One question. Do you see energy pollution or not?

What is energy pollution?

 

[mrjurrs]

What is energy pollution?

Guess.

 

[longview]

Guess.
View attachment 67387772
View attachment 67387773

View attachment 67387775

I find when someone starts throwing out a new definition, guessing is far too subjective.
I could guess that you mean pollution that results from energy usage, but again I will never know
your definition unless you tell me.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

I find when someone starts throwing out a new definition, guessing is far too subjective.
I could guess that you mean pollution that results from energy usage, but again I will never know
your definition unless you tell me.

What an odd debate style. I've noticed a lot of conservatives employing it. Pretending you don't know they're talking about polluting energy sources. Why not just answer the question?

 

[longview]

What an odd debate style. I've noticed a lot of conservatives employing it. Pretending you don't know they're talking about polluting energy sources. Why not just answer the question?

Not at all, he asked "One question. Do you see energy pollution or not?" I asked him to clarify how he defined energy pollution.
He showed some pictures, but without any definition.
You then assumed that his definition was polluting energy sources, which is an assumption on your part.
If that is what he meant, he could simply end the ambiguity, and state that!
Answering his question, would be me assuming what his definition of energy pollution was, and could be way off the mark
if our definitions were not the same.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Not at all, he asked "One question. Do you see energy pollution or not?" I asked him to clarify how he defined energy pollution.
He showed some pictures, but without any definition.
You then assumed that his definition was polluting energy sources, which is an assumption on your part.
If that is what he meant, he could simply end the ambiguity, and state that!
Answering his question, would be me assuming what his definition of energy pollution was, and could be way off the mark
if our definitions were not the same.

No. Their question was obvious. You just wanted to avoid it. And, your still avoiding it. Now, because of your avoidance tactic, it's no longer about you answering the question honestly, now it's about you pretending to be confused about what the question was. Don't you find your ploy dishonest?

 

[longview]

No. Their question was obvious. You just wanted to avoid it. And, your still avoiding it. Now, because of your avoidance tactic, it's no longer about you answering the question honestly, now it's about you pretending to be confused about what the question was. Don't you find your ploy dishonest?

I can assure the question "One question. Do you see energy pollution or not?" is ambiguous.
Like I said you assumed he meant polluting energy sources, but your assumption could be wrong,
let him answer for himself and clear up what he is asking.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

I can assure the question "One question. Do you see energy pollution or not?" is ambiguous.
Like I said you assumed he meant polluting energy sources, but your assumption could be wrong,
let him answer for himself and clear up what he is asking.

And yet another post where you avoid the question. Or is it that your still not quite sure what the question was? What a tired, dishonest and childish tactic.

 

[PoS]

It's renewable energy and a partial solution.

Thanks for finally admitting the obvious.

Please provide some explanation of both sentences..

This guy is an environmentalist, and even he admits renewables wont work.

 

[longview]

And yet another post where you avoid the question. Or is it that your still not quite sure what the question was? What a tired, dishonest and childish tactic.

If you would like to ask a question, proceed, I will answer, but I cannot reply to the question about energy pollution until it is defined.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

This guy is an environmentalist, and even he admits renewables wont work.

He's actually a paid Nuclear advocate and lobbyist.

 

[PoS]

He's actually a paid Nuclear advocate and lobbyist.

Yeah right, show proof that he's being paid by the nuke lobby.

And nuclear power is greener than wind and solar.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Yeah right, show proof that he's being paid by the nuke lobby.

Michael Shellenberger’s pro-nuclear lobby group ‘Environmental Progress’ – Nuclear-Free Campaign

nuclear.foe.org.au

And nuclear power is greener than wind and solar.

Wow.... You've really enjoyed the Kool-Aide huh. If you ignore the thousands of years before nuclear waste become inert, then nuclear power is totally safe....

Radioactive Waste | US EPA

Learn about how the United States addresses radioactively contaminated sites and radioactive waste. Visit RadTown, the Environmental Protection Agency’s radiation education website to learn more about radiation in the world around us.

www.epa.gov

 

[longview]

Michael Shellenberger’s pro-nuclear lobby group ‘Environmental Progress’ – Nuclear-Free Campaign

nuclear.foe.org.au

Wow.... You've really enjoyed the Kool-Aide huh. If you ignore the thousands of years before nuclear waste become inert, then nuclear power is totally safe....

Radioactive Waste | US EPA

Learn about how the United States addresses radioactively contaminated sites and radioactive waste. Visit RadTown, the Environmental Protection Agency’s radiation education website to learn more about radiation in the world around us.

www.epa.gov

You do know we used to reprocess nuclear waste at Oak Ridge until about 1977, when Carter stopped doing it.
Also some of the next generation reactors can use the spent fuel as fuel.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Michael Shellenberger’s pro-nuclear lobby group ‘Environmental Progress’ – Nuclear-Free Campaign

nuclear.foe.org.au

Wow.... You've really enjoyed the Kool-Aide huh. If you ignore the thousands of years before nuclear waste become inert, then nuclear power is totally safe....

Radioactive Waste | US EPA

Learn about how the United States addresses radioactively contaminated sites and radioactive waste. Visit RadTown, the Environmental Protection Agency’s radiation education website to learn more about radiation in the world around us.

www.epa.gov

Fast breeder reactors can make fuel out of traditional waste. The irrational phobia about those is that they make plutonium, which they do but so do PWR and BWR reactors. And on the timescale that nuclear waste is a problem, we'll also be able to use it as shielding in fusion reactors.

Though I expect when we do get fusion reactors, the anti-nuclear luddites will turn their rage on those too. We may have to wait even more decades for aneutronic fusion because the easiest form of fusion turns the reactor housing itself into nuclear waste (as well as relatively benign light radioactive elements like Tritium).

Short answer is that on the scale of "thousands of years" there are many possible solutions to nuclear waste. We only have to store it somewhere secure for now ... inside reactor buildings will not do.

 

[PoS]

Michael Shellenberger’s pro-nuclear lobby group ‘Environmental Progress’ – Nuclear-Free Campaign

nuclear.foe.org.au

An anti nuclear blog? Youre not fooling anybody with that.

Wow.... You've really enjoyed the Kool-Aide huh. If you ignore the thousands of years before nuclear waste become inert, then nuclear power is totally safe....

Radioactive Waste | US EPA

Learn about how the United States addresses radioactively contaminated sites and radioactive waste. Visit RadTown, the Environmental Protection Agency’s radiation education website to learn more about radiation in the world around us.

www.epa.gov

How many people have died from nuclear waste disposal?

 

[Crakhobarbie]

An anti nuclear blog? Youre not fooling anybody with that.

You asked for proof Michael is a Nuclear lobbyist. I supplied it.

How many people have died from nuclear waste disposal?

Why are nuclear waste storage facilities built to last for ten thousand years? Not because it's safe. And those just house the waste from the 93 reactors we have in the U.S. now. If guys like Michael get their way, that number will rise to 15,000 Worldwide. That's a lot of waste to store for a long, long time. Oh, and then there's the problem of people, like Putin, possibly weaponizing reactors by bombing them. That's a whole new ball of wax to melt down, figuratively speaking. Look, your trying to convince me that it's all about the money and it's totally safe. And I agree the money's important. But don't try and demand nuclear power doesn't come with some enormous, extremely dangerous caveats.