Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1401  
Old 04.04.2013, 16:48
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,429
Groaned at 281 Times in 187 Posts
Thanked 18,154 Times in 7,618 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
You use the excess electricity to back-pump from a lower lake to a higher lake, they do it here all the time.

Tom
it's probably one of the best ways, but it is only some 70% efficient. so it is more commonly used to deal with sudden/peak loads (kettles going on during x-factor commercials and such like)

it generally doesn't make sense to generate electricity and store it this way because it uses about 43% more fuel to do so (exceptions of course if marginal cost of generation is free - e.g. wind power).
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #1402  
Old 04.04.2013, 16:57
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,790
Groaned at 151 Times in 102 Posts
Thanked 4,757 Times in 1,873 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Again, as we're going in circles here...
We sure are....
Quote:
View Post
Additionally, many scientists are sponsored by private interests, and this is very important in understanding the results of their research, as the money source does appear to have a significant impact on the interpretation of results.
No denying that. Does this somehow not ring true for your list of peer-reviewed papers?
Quote:
View Post
As to your repeated persistence regarding burning fossil fuels and the environment- I never once stated that burning more fossil fuels wouldn't have an impact on the environment, nor denied that burning less wouldn't be beneficial.
I never said you did. My persistence has been for you to support your claim, in response to my post about burning fossil fuels, that "with this type of logic, we're going to kill ourselves and our planet faster, all in the name of saving it", which you still haven't done.
Quote:
View Post
Like I've repeatedly said, I've tried to address your points, but when I either successfully address a point or provide further information, it gets ignored and dismissed as "rubbish" or a "straw man."
You continually distort my positions and then attack them - exactly what 'straw man' arguments are.
Quote:
View Post
Many of the issues that the climate debate seeks to address cannot be addressed by science...
How do you propose to address them?...
Quote:
View Post
You talk about returning things to "normal," but you never answered MY question as to what "normal" is. Then you claim that it will take 1000 years to return things to this arbitrary "normal," which shows you are completely unaware of the efforts to develop technologies that will counteract the "CO2 problem" in fractions of this time (some have claimed to be able to offset CO2 emissions in less than a decade, entirely with existing technology) which is shocking as you present yourself as someone devoted to the environment...
More distortions of what has been said. I never made the claim about 'normal' CO2 levels, as I was responding to Marton's claim in that post...and where did you ask me what "normal" is?
As to the the technologies being developed to counteract the CO2 problem, this was not a topic of discussion, and again you twist what has or hasn't been said as a means to attack me. Where have I ever stated that I am 'someone devoted to the environment', anyway?

Quote:
View Post
I feel I have to be wary of the environmentalists that point at businesses (such as your favorite whipping-boys: Big Auto and Big Oil) and scream (directly or indirectly) "Big EVIL Company" while ignoring that the organizations that make up the Environmental Movement are also large wealthy organizations that exist to serve their self-interests. Further, you ignore that government bureaucracy is the largest and most wealthy form of organization on the planet (especially examples like the US government) that also has its own agenda (or agendas, depending on the bureaucracies involved). I see you villifying the former organizations, while giving the other two types of organization a pass, as many environmentalists do.
I haven't used any subjective labels in my posts (i.e. "evil"), though you like to keep distorting what's been said to make it seem like that. I also haven't denied or ignored that governmental bureaucracies exist or have their own agendas, let alone given them a pass. I merely pointed out that people in powerful positions will go to extremes to protect that power. That's history and reality...


Quote:
View Post
You've tried to label me as "lazy and unable." Your doppelganger keeps calling me a "bingo card of denialist rhetoric." You keep trying to "move on" past points with which you disagree, so that you may continue to posit your questionable theories, a classic "dismissive" technique. As to changing the subject, I've worked very hard to try to keep the debate centered on AGW/ACC, a theory with which I disagree, but it keeps being dragged into discussions of electric cars, or who uses what oil...
No, I stated that you are either incapable or too lazy to answer my (specific) questions (relating to your claims).
I am trying to 'move on' past this back and forth banter and get back to the topic...
"As to the automobile solution, it isn't off topic" - your own words.
Reply With Quote
  #1403  
Old 04.04.2013, 16:59
st2lemans's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Lugano
Posts: 31,558
Groaned at 2,347 Times in 1,708 Posts
Thanked 38,350 Times in 18,099 Posts
st2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond reputest2lemans has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I see... Clever.
Diagram of the hydro system of Valle Maggia.

Tom

Last edited by st2lemans; 04.04.2013 at 17:16.
Reply With Quote
  #1404  
Old 04.04.2013, 17:01
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,790
Groaned at 151 Times in 102 Posts
Thanked 4,757 Times in 1,873 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Ok... how do you quantify those costs?
Indeed, not an easy task. How can you put a price on a species, or thousands of them? some things are priceless. This doesn't mean that because we can't always describe a cost in monetary terms, it must not exist.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank pilatus1 for this useful post:
  #1405  
Old 04.04.2013, 17:09
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,558
Groaned at 281 Times in 229 Posts
Thanked 24,661 Times in 10,423 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
There is no way to efficiently store large amounts of electricity.

So the electricity generators have to keep all their generating stations open & in working order for those sunless & windless days when they have a high demand to meet.

Solar power & wind power will not enable us to close even one generating station; unless we are prepared to live with regular power cuts.
As others have said, there are storage technologies and some of these have been around since the 1950s or so.

Secondly, the whole point of the smart grid is that more actions will be supply driven in future. This is already done to some extent today. For example aliminium smelters are huge consumers of electricity, and they rely on electricity being dirt cheap, but they don't care about reliability of supply so much as the process doesn't suffer significxantly if the supply stops for short bursts. So the smelters have special agreements with the power companies that they get the electricity at a considerably cheaper rate, but in return they accept lower reliability statistics which means the supplier can cut them off without notice (load shedding) a certain number of times per year provided the blackout period doesn't exceed a certain number of minutes. Today this is used so that if a generating plant runs into trouble and has to shut down unexpectedly or a transmission line has to be taken out unexpectedly due to short circuit or something, they can shed the smelters quickly so as to keep juice flowing to the higher paying other customers.

In future this will develop much more with different levels of supply reliability to chose from. You could thus even, thanks to smart devices, have different devices in your house on different plans. So you want the light to go on when you need it - every time. But if your freezer stops working for 20 seconds every couple of days, and accepting that can save you some bucks, why say no?
Reply With Quote
  #1406  
Old 04.04.2013, 17:13
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,558
Groaned at 281 Times in 229 Posts
Thanked 24,661 Times in 10,423 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
it's probably one of the best ways, but it is only some 70% efficient. so it is more commonly used to deal with sudden/peak loads (kettles going on during x-factor commercials and such like)

it generally doesn't make sense to generate electricity and store it this way because it uses about 43% more fuel to do so (exceptions of course if marginal cost of generation is free - e.g. wind power).
I believe the 70% figure is somewhat optimistic, even if it is the figure peddled by those who promote this technology.

The real case for pumped storage is not an ecological one but a commercial one. If you buy power at night you can get it at a fraction of what peak power costs, so even if you lose much more than those 30%, you are still making a big profit on the difference. Think of all those nuclear plants in France. It's not feasible to shut them down at night and its not economical to reduce their production, so rather than send this surplus to waste, the French happily sell it to the Swiss for next to nothing. And then at peak time, every little bit of generation counts and earns big money and that is thus payback time for pumped storage plants.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #1407  
Old 04.04.2013, 17:16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Indeed, not an easy task. How can you put a price on a species, or thousands of them? some things are priceless. This doesn't mean that because we can't always describe a cost in monetary terms, it must not exist.
There are hundreds of other pollutants than CO2. This misguided science about Global Warming and CO2 is simply distracting from those more harmful pollutants that have more immediate effect. It makes this battle against CO2 look so farcical. Plants LOVE CO2, and I LOVE plants.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #1408  
Old 04.04.2013, 17:49
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
Longer period of time = a decade at least. Certainly not one place for 6 months. In Greenland it's been some 5 or more °C above average in the same period. Equally meaningless when it comes to climate.

Too warm compared to the usual 30 year average. I think the chart I was looking at used 1972 - 2002.
This at least reduces the granularity a bit, but it still demonstrates that the line between meteorology and climatology is (unnecessarily, maybe?) vague. Since meteorology only seems to be reasonably predictive out to about 1 week, and climatology doesn't take over until about a decade, to whom does the responsibility for the intermediate timeframe fall?
Reply With Quote
  #1409  
Old 04.04.2013, 18:04
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
We sure are....

No denying that. Does this somehow not ring true for your list of peer-reviewed papers?


I never said you did. My persistence has been for you to support your claim, in response to my post about burning fossil fuels, that "with this type of logic, we're going to kill ourselves and our planet faster, all in the name of saving it", which you still haven't done.


You continually distort my positions and then attack them - exactly what 'straw man' arguments are.


How do you propose to address them?...


More distortions of what has been said. I never made the claim about 'normal' CO2 levels, as I was responding to Marton's claim in that post...and where did you ask me what "normal" is?
As to the the technologies being developed to counteract the CO2 problem, this was not a topic of discussion, and again you twist what has or hasn't been said as a means to attack me. Where have I ever stated that I am 'someone devoted to the environment', anyway?



I haven't used any subjective labels in my posts (i.e. "evil"), though you like to keep distorting what's been said to make it seem like that. I also haven't denied or ignored that governmental bureaucracies exist or have their own agendas, let alone given them a pass. I merely pointed out that people in powerful positions will go to extremes to protect that power. That's history and reality...



No, I stated that you are either incapable or too lazy to answer my (specific) questions (relating to your claims).
I am trying to 'move on' past this back and forth banter and get back to the topic...
"As to the automobile solution, it isn't off topic" - your own words.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at Jobsrobertsharpii for this post:
  #1410  
Old 05.04.2013, 02:31
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Well, which is it? We're getting hotter because the polar ice is melting, we're getting colder, or somehow both?
Yes.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1411  
Old 05.04.2013, 02:43
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Again, untrue.
Nope, perfectly true.

Quote:
So you don't miss it this time... What is the "normal" state of the environment?
I don't really care about "normal", I care about "capable of sustaining human civilisation".

Quote:
Is it "good" to attempt to further alter the evolution of the environment by attempting to counteract one possible man-made influence with another man-made influence?
Can I infer from this you agree humanity has impacted the environment ?

Quote:
What frame of reference have we to determine that everything that's happening isn't just a "normal" phenomenon, attributable to a planet with a sentient species?
Why is "a sentient species" important ? Are you trying to make an argument in favour of the "Gaia hypothesis" ?

[quote{What is the ultimate end-goal of this Environmentalism? What is going to happen to all this structure and organization devoted to saving the environment if the environment is "saved"? [/quote]

Why would infrastructure to support sustainability ever need to have anything "happen" to it ?

Quote:
Are these scientists even interested in saving the environment or are they interested in continuing to posit a problem so that they may continue to justify their careers?
Do you have reason to believe scientists would have nothing to do otherwise ? Did nuclear physicists all stand around doing nothing after the Manhattan Project was wound up ?

Quote:
Unfortunately for your claim, there are environmentalists that want humanity to do just that, so no, this isn't a "straw man" argument.
It is a straw man argument, because it is presented as the only alternative being presented.

(Strictly speaking it's a false dilemma fallacy, but straw man is similarly descriptive, and easier to type.)

Quote:
Nice try, though... And I'm still waiting for you to show where you've given any type of consideration to a contrarian POV
How would you propose anyone demonstrate this ?

Quote:
So, once again, you keep saying the same crap over and over, as if it were true the first time. Repetition doesn't bring truth, but hey what's truth compared to environmental dogma?
Undoubtedly, once again, written without a hint of irony.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users groan at drsmithy for this post:
  #1412  
Old 05.04.2013, 02:49
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
About "You store it up somewhere else" -you know the electricity industry have been searching and failing to find an efficient way to store electricity for over 100 years; so they do not have to sell electricity cheaper during off-peak periods. I think the chances of a breakthrough in the near future are practically zero.
There are numerous ways to store energy. Pumping water back upstream in hydro installations. Solar thermal. Flywheels. Good old-fashioned batteries.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank drsmithy for this useful post:
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1413  
Old 05.04.2013, 02:52
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I The only motive would be some altrusitic perversion, or some fear that I will burned to a cinge if I did not install it.
Wow. Altruism is a "perversion" ?

Do you pray to Ayn Rand every day, or just weekly ?
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1414  
Old 05.04.2013, 10:32
fatih.erol's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 391
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 193 Times in 106 Posts
fatih.erol has made some interesting contributions
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

not trying to stir up an already wavy thread, but other than production related matters, do solar panels have environmental side effects?

the sun light reaches the earth, and is captured with photosynthesis at the plants, and absorbed by the surface of water and land, which works in a natural way. Now, if we cover a huge land like a desert with panels, we would be absorbing a lot of energy which normally would have been diffused to earth. and we are covering a land surface, affecting the life underneath as well as the land mass. has there been any studies to determine collateral effects if any?

again, i am asking just to learn. i am not arguing whether covering land with solar panels is worse than covering it with houses or plants, or whether the effect will be worse than drilling and mining for other resources and burning them for energy, or blocking water in a hydroelectric power plant. certainly, by conservation of energy, nothing is actually going to waste, but to its place in the natural lifecycle.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank fatih.erol for this useful post:
  #1415  
Old 05.04.2013, 10:46
fatih.erol's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 391
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanked 193 Times in 106 Posts
fatih.erol has made some interesting contributions
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

maybe, should have google'd first

http://greenliving.nationalgeographi...ergy-2684.html

http://teeic.anl.gov/er/solar/impact/op/

http://solareis.anl.gov/guide/environment/
Reply With Quote
  #1416  
Old 05.04.2013, 10:53
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,558
Groaned at 281 Times in 229 Posts
Thanked 24,661 Times in 10,423 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
not trying to stir up an already wavy thread, but other than production related matters, do solar panels have environmental side effects?

the sun light reaches the earth, and is captured with photosynthesis at the plants, and absorbed by the surface of water and land, which works in a natural way. Now, if we cover a huge land like a desert with panels, we would be absorbing a lot of energy which normally would have been diffused to earth. and we are covering a land surface, affecting the life underneath as well as the land mass. has there been any studies to determine collateral effects if any?

again, i am asking just to learn. i am not arguing whether covering land with solar panels is worse than covering it with houses or plants, or whether the effect will be worse than drilling and mining for other resources and burning them for energy, or blocking water in a hydroelectric power plant. certainly, by conservation of energy, nothing is actually going to waste, but to its place in the natural lifecycle.
There have been studies into this.

Solar panels (PV) have shiny surfaces and thus would reflect some of the light back. This light would otherwise heat the earth, so locally there may be some cooling.

The effects of this, are dwarfed however by the collaterals. For example to get an African nation to agree to having solar panels erected over a large part of their land, the deal would probably involve much of the enery generated also being made availble to the local economy. Pundits are already talking about electrc desalination, meaning seawater can be desalinated and pumped over hunders of miles to permit agriculture in what is now the desert. The climatic effects of this are far larger than what was mentioned above. In Israel for example, where in the last 60 years or so there have been last scale forestation programs and irrigation programs reclaiming large chunks of what was formerly desert, there has been an observable climate change, with average temperatures down by over two degrees C (no doubt a good thing in that part of the world, making the summers more bearable) and rainfall up - from an admittedly very low starting up (again a good thing, having even allowed some natural expanison of forests into areas where they were previously not viable).

But what would happen if the entire Sahara turned green within a space of say 60 years? That would no doubt affect winds and bring unforseen change to other parts of the world. I don't know if there have been any macro studies of that.

Besides the climatic effects, we should not ignore the economic effects. Land that is practically worthless today will rise in value enormously. Africa could become the bread basket of the world.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
  #1417  
Old 05.04.2013, 11:03
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
the sun light reaches the earth, and is captured with photosynthesis at the plants, and absorbed by the surface of water and land, which works in a natural way. Now, if we cover a huge land like a desert with panels, we would be absorbing a lot of energy which normally would have been diffused to earth. and we are covering a land surface, affecting the life underneath as well as the land mass. has there been any studies to determine collateral effects if any?

again, i am asking just to learn. i am not arguing whether covering land with solar panels is worse than covering it with houses or plants, or whether the effect will be worse than drilling and mining for other resources and burning them for energy, or blocking water in a hydroelectric power plant. certainly, by conservation of energy, nothing is actually going to waste, but to its place in the natural lifecycle.
The effect of what you are describing, we can already observe. We cover land in black asphalt roads, concrete, and roofing material. The net effect is that cities are warmer. I think these are called Urban Heat Islands.

Now this effect could be a more convincing argument for AGW than CO2. But I think the Anthropological Globalwarming Wankers got too heavily vested and committed in the CO2 argument, with its economic and political slants, that they can no longer think beyond their self-deceptions.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #1418  
Old 05.04.2013, 12:38
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,429
Groaned at 281 Times in 187 Posts
Thanked 18,154 Times in 7,618 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
not trying to stir up an already wavy thread, but other than production related matters, do solar panels have environmental side effects?

the sun light reaches the earth, and is captured with photosynthesis at the plants, and absorbed by the surface of water and land, which works in a natural way. Now, if we cover a huge land like a desert with panels, we would be absorbing a lot of energy which normally would have been diffused to earth. and we are covering a land surface, affecting the life underneath as well as the land mass. has there been any studies to determine collateral effects if any?

again, i am asking just to learn. i am not arguing whether covering land with solar panels is worse than covering it with houses or plants, or whether the effect will be worse than drilling and mining for other resources and burning them for energy, or blocking water in a hydroelectric power plant. certainly, by conservation of energy, nothing is actually going to waste, but to its place in the natural lifecycle.
of course also the environmental impact of producing the panels in the first place. upfront and immediate expenditure of energy over a short time hoping to repay over the longer term.
Reply With Quote
  #1419  
Old 05.04.2013, 14:14
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,554
Groaned at 470 Times in 403 Posts
Thanked 19,349 Times in 10,216 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
There are numerous ways to store energy. Pumping water back upstream in hydro installations. Solar thermal. Flywheels. Good old-fashioned batteries.
About "Pumping water back upstream in hydro installations" True, I think the first installation was in Wales. Unfortunately there are very few places that have suitable geography so the possibility of increasing use of this method is small. Firstly you need to have a short distance upstream from the hydro installation to the up stream storage to avoid the loss of a lot of the storage efficiency due to excessive pumping & secondly you need a suitable large reservoir upstream.

Solar thermal is used to store heat not electricity; it can be used to smooth electricity usage where the main application is to provide heat - does not help to store electricity to power electric cars..

Flywheels & Good old-fashioned batteries; not really practical to store megawatts.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1420  
Old 05.04.2013, 14:18
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,554
Groaned at 470 Times in 403 Posts
Thanked 19,349 Times in 10,216 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I believe the 70% figure is somewhat optimistic, even if it is the figure peddled by those who promote this technology.

The real case for pumped storage is not an ecological one but a commercial one. If you buy power at night you can get it at a fraction of what peak power costs, so even if you lose much more than those 30%, you are still making a big profit on the difference. Think of all those nuclear plants in France. It's not feasible to shut them down at night and its not economical to reduce their production, so rather than send this surplus to waste, the French happily sell it to the Swiss for next to nothing. And then at peak time, every little bit of generation counts and earns big money and that is thus payback time for pumped storage plants.
About "If you buy power at night you can get it at a fraction of what peak power costs" True but this is an artificial situation. If somebody came up with a good way to store off-peak electricity for later use then I suspect the availability of cheap off-peak electricity would vanish.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 07:53.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0