Finally a leftist big govt. pro tax plan I can agree with

[happycamper]

Just now, Orange said:

I didn't even utter the word "hydrocarbons" on this thread.

No, humans civilization would be brought to its knees if earth were suddenly thrust into the cretaceous-like conditions.  This should be obvious to all above a  6th grade science level.

Again, I didn't claim to have the answers for storing green energy, I said it's possible.  People ARE working on solving this problem, even if you dismiss it as unsolvable, in all your grandeur.  Sorry I don't have a nobel-worthy answer for you on the MWC Board, idiot.

"A lot of people do" say that "possible" = "easy"?  What's "a lot of people", Donald Trump?  Do define terms.

I mean, pretty much anyone who deals with numbers. Elementary problems may be extremely time consuming, but they're possible. You're asking for fairy farts and throwing a tantrum when people bring up alternatives that aren't based in thoughts and prayers.

Just now, Orange said:

You aren't criticizing my ideas, you're basically calling me stupid for not having an engineering background.

No, I'm criticizing your ideas because they're pie in the sky. When it's pointed out to you that they won't work and why by people who understand the basics at play, you throw a tantrum instead of choosing to actually become informed on the subject. It isn't like I know everything (or even a lot) about the subject, if you cared, an afternoon in research would let you talk rings around me. You just haven't even familiarized yourself to the degree to know what is feasible and what isn't. Worse, you think that every disagreement is a direct attack on your character or integrity or something instead of just "no bruh not all animal proteins are as destructive as cattle". 

Just now, Orange said:

We're all a little bit racist/homophobic/misogynist, but our policy positions absolutely are more important, yes.

How you treat people is important too. You are not an ally. 

Just now, Orange said:

Feel free to have the last word.  You're boring me with this endless "I WORK IN ENGINEERING!!!" show-off bullshit.

My man, you think that the basic level of understanding I have comes from engineering? A childhood being obsessed with dinosaurs and a single semester of physics has essentially given me the background on this. The issue is far more your lack of effort to have any discussion in good faith and your lack of effort to ground any discussion in practical terms instead of political gamesmanship. 

[Orange]

2 hours ago, happycamper said:

I mean, pretty much anyone who deals with numbers. Elementary problems may be extremely time consuming, but they're possible. You're asking for fairy farts and throwing a tantrum when people bring up alternatives that aren't based in thoughts and prayers.

No, I'm criticizing your ideas because they're pie in the sky. When it's pointed out to you that they won't work and why by people who understand the basics at play, you throw a tantrum instead of choosing to actually become informed on the subject. It isn't like I know everything (or even a lot) about the subject, if you cared, an afternoon in research would let you talk rings around me. You just haven't even familiarized yourself to the degree to know what is feasible and what isn't. Worse, you think that every disagreement is a direct attack on your character or integrity or something instead of just "no bruh not all animal proteins are as destructive as cattle". 

How you treat people is important too. You are not an ally. 

My man, you think that the basic level of understanding I have comes from engineering? A childhood being obsessed with dinosaurs and a single semester of physics has essentially given me the background on this. The issue is far more your lack of effort to have any discussion in good faith and your lack of effort to ground any discussion in practical terms instead of political gamesmanship. 

So your basis for declaring that, forever and ever, it will be impossible run the country on renewable energy is based off of one physics class and a childhood fascination with dinosaurs?

As for whether I'm an ally or not, I don't think it's for a white, hetero male to say.

Good talk.  

[thelawlorfaithful]

9 minutes ago, Orange said:

So your basis for declaring that, forever and ever, it will be impossible run the country on renewable energy is based off of one physics class and a childhood fascination with dinosaurs?

As for whether I'm an ally or not, I don't think it's for a white, hetero male to say.

Good talk.  

With our current understanding of physics then yes, that’s what he’s saying. Until ET helps us out we’re not likely to get that magic wand to make what you want feasible. It’s not about building a better lightbulb. It’s about not being able to change what light is with what we know or will know in the coming years.

[halfmanhalfbronco]

6 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Nobody, well at least none of the three you mentioned give a damn about a players reputation. We’ll argue with anyone. It’s not your reputation, but the things you say and your ideas that are getting so totally pieced up in this thread. I’m sorry you’re being outclassed and schooled on literally almost every point you’ve tried to make. I too wish we could wave a magic wand and the world would all love vegetables and there would be a magic icebox that could refrigerate solar and wind energy until we need to use it, but alas... 

I will argue with anybody if I have the time and am in the mood to discuss the topic.  Same with you two.

I have gone rounds with @happycamper about many social issues and he once referred to me as "hump pepe".  Some of the debates @Joe from WY and I have had have been brutal and nasty, worse than anything we have subjected Orange to.  I have been in heated debate with you as well on a wide variety of issues from pop culture to the role of the US as a global hegemon. When @TheSanDiegan was new to the OT section I roped him into a a multi page debate with about whether or not the world was flat. 

[sean327]

3 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

With our current understanding of physics then yes, that’s what he’s saying. Until ET helps us out we’re not likely to get that magic wand to make what you want feasible. It’s not about building a better lightbulb. It’s about not being able to change what light is with what we know or will know in the coming years.

@Orange is an expert in all things heaven and earth. His law degree gives him extensive knowledge on engineering concepts. Hell, did you think his Oregon St education was wasted?

[halfmanhalfbronco]

16 hours ago, Orange said:

So your basis for declaring that, forever and ever, it will be impossible run the country on renewable energy is based off of one physics class and a childhood fascination with dinosaurs?

As for whether I'm an ally or not, I don't think it's for a white, hetero male to say.

Good talk.  

Good gawd.  The post that started the talk on Nuclear was you responding to me saying that there is no way to get to 90%+ non fossil fuel by 2050 unless the primary source for energy production is nuclear supplemented with renewables.

"Stop it with the nuclear shit, dude.  There's nothing political about wanting to avoid nuclear fallout from a meltdown or nuclear explosion." 

That was your exact quote.  When it was brought up casually that there were safe and efficient nuclear options that could be implemented you doubled down saying it was a matter of the government not investing enough in renewable energy.

You again doubled (tripled?)  down after it was explained there is no way renewables can power a grid 24/7.  When pointed out that the private and public sectors have dumped huge resources into the issue of storing power you went off on some tangent about the benefits the world has seen with Moores law and computing.

The fact is there are dozens of papers on how to expand power generated from nuclear plants.  There is nobody with an idea on how to solve the storage problem for renewables.  We can get to 90% fossil free, we can not do it without nuclear.  Not by 2050 at least.

[BSUTOP25]

8 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Good gawd.  The post that started the talk on Nuclear was you responding to me saying that there is no way to get to 90%+ non fossil fuel by 2050 unless the primary source for energy production is nuclear supplemented with renewables.

"Stop it with the nuclear shit, dude.  There's nothing political about wanting to avoid nuclear fallout from a meltdown or nuclear explosion." 

That was your exact quote.  When it was brought up casually that there were safe and efficient nuclear options that could be implemented you doubled down saying it was a matter of the government not investing enough in renewable energy.

You again doubled (tripled?)  down after it was explained there is no way renewables can power a grid 24/7.  When pointed out that the private and public sectors have dumped huge resources into the issue of storing power you went off on same tangent about the benefits the world has seen with Moores law.

The fact is there are dozens of papers on how to expand power generated from nuclear plants.  There is nobody with an idea on how to solve the storage problem for renewables.  We can get to 90% fossil free, we can not do it without nuclear.  Not by 2050 at least.

But meltdowns and fallout and shit!!!

[NorCalCoug]

22 hours ago, #1Stunner said:

Do we have the technology for the new molten salt reactors?  I think right now it's still a theory, and that the Chinese are developing it.   If we can build the new, safer nuclear reactors, let's do it.

But I don't think the public wants the old, water cooled reactors anymore.  Not after what happened in Japan.

The technology has been there for decades.  It’s just cost prohibitive right now.

[happycamper]

16 hours ago, Orange said:

So your basis for declaring that, forever and ever, it will be impossible run the country on renewable energy is based off of one physics class and a childhood fascination with dinosaurs?

Essentially, yeah, that's how little background knowledge is needed to know that wind and solar by themselves are deficient. 

16 hours ago, Orange said:

As for whether I'm an ally or not, I don't think it's for a white, hetero male to say.

Whether you are, sure. Whether you're not? Nah, some things are patently obvious. I may not be the best source for determining whether someone isn't racist, but I can generally tell if they are. Deciding for people that your comfort with being slightly homophobic and condescending towards women isn't being an ally. 

16 hours ago, Orange said:

Good talk.  

 

[Orange]

2 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Essentially, yeah, that's how little background knowledge is needed to know that wind and solar by themselves are deficient. 

That is Dunning-Kreuger, by definition.  At least I admit the possibility of scientific achievement.  You insist it's not possible.  How dour.  

2 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Whether you are, sure. Whether you're not? Nah, some things are patently obvious. I may not be the best source for determining whether someone isn't racist, but I can generally tell if they are. Deciding for people that your comfort with being slightly homophobic and condescending towards women isn't being an ally. 

 

Assuming a paternal role with regard to women on an internet forum -- while being fully in favor of trashing men -- doesn't make you an ally, either.   It makes you a condescending symbol of the patriarchy.  @Broncomare said her dick was bigger than mine, and I agreed.  People lost their shit, because how dare we talk shit the same way to women as we do men! 

[happycamper]

41 minutes ago, Orange said:

That is Dunning-Kreuger, by definition.  At least I admit the possibility of scientific achievement.  You insist it's not possible.  How dour.  

You don't even understand what you're talking about. You have zero idea what "scientific achievement" would even have to be achieved to allow us to use wind and solar. You don't even seem to know what energy storage is! There's "being a tyro" and then there is being so ignorant of a subject you don't know when what you're saying isn't even wrong. 

41 minutes ago, Orange said:

Assuming a paternal role with regard to women on an internet forum -- while being fully in favor of trashing men -- doesn't make you an ally, either.   It makes you a condescending symbol of the patriarchy.  @Broncomare said her dick was bigger than mine, and I agreed.  People lost their shit, because how dare we talk shit the same way to women as we do men! 

A paternal role? I'm not shielding women from you or consoling them, I'm calling you a stuck up asshole on your own merits. Cue "I have gay friends/friends who are women, so I can't be xxx"  in the next post...

[mugtang]

56 minutes ago, Orange said:

That is Dunning-Kreuger, by definition.  At least I admit the possibility of scientific achievement.  You insist it's not possible.  How dour.  

Assuming a paternal role with regard to women on an internet forum -- while being fully in favor of trashing men -- doesn't make you an ally, either.   It makes you a condescending symbol of the patriarchy.  @Broncomare said her dick was bigger than mine, and I agreed.  People lost their shit, because how dare we talk shit the same way to women as we do men! 

For the record, people lost their shit over your description and use of “beef curtains” not because you agreed her dick was bigger than yours.  

[Orange]

21 minutes ago, mugtang said:

For the record, people lost their shit over your description and use of “beef curtains” not because you agreed her dick was bigger than yours.  

Point stands.  It was a +++++ing stupid double-standard.

[Orange]

1 hour ago, happycamper said:

You don't even understand what you're talking about. You have zero idea what "scientific achievement" would even have to be achieved to allow us to use wind and solar. You don't even seem to know what energy storage is! There's "being a tyro" and then there is being so ignorant of a subject you don't know when what you're saying isn't even wrong. 

A paternal role? I'm not shielding women from you or consoling them, I'm calling you a stuck up asshole on your own merits. Cue "I have gay friends/friends who are women, so I can't be xxx"  in the next post...

lol, You don't even know what "paternal" means.  STFU, dude.

https://www.azocleantech.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=488

However, cost will be the main stumbling block for wind energy storage; the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) has said that flexibility in the form of fast-growing gas plants and hydroelectricity already exists on a lot of grids, and that building new energy storage facilities is almost always more expensive. This certainly will not always be the case; as the technology behind energy storage advances, costs will likely fall and fossil fuel plants are by nature finite so cannot supplement wind-generated electricity forever.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-power-turbine-storage-electricity-appliances/

 

There are many companies moving to fill the energy gap. Using federal loan guarantees and $4 billion in "smart grid" stimulus cash, they are working on utility-scale storage units that they hope will help balance intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar and let electric grid operators match power supplies with demand.

Among the leaders is a Massachusetts company that plans to use hundreds of "flywheels" to store 20 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 200 homes for a day. Beacon Power Corp. is working with a $43 million federal loan guarantee for its $69 million storage project in Stephentown, N.Y., which is scheduled to break ground by year's end.

The plant would store cheap "off peak" electricity in 2,500-pound flywheels that turn faster than the speed of sound. When the electricity prices rise -- or when winds die -- energy can be withdrawn from the wheels and sold to the grid at a premium rate.

 

 

In before more of this "yOu don'T eVen unDerStanD wHat youRe tAlKinG aBouT" bullshit.

[TheSanDiegan]

15 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

I will argue with anybody if I have the time and am in the mood to discuss the topic.  Same with you two.

When @TheSanDiegan was new to the OT section I roped him into a a multi page debate with about whether or not was ridiculed by him for two pages for having made the claim the world was flat. 

FIFY.  

[Orange]

15 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Good gawd.  The post that started the talk on Nuclear was you responding to me saying that there is no way to get to 90%+ non fossil fuel by 2050 unless the primary source for energy production is nuclear supplemented with renewables.

"Stop it with the nuclear shit, dude.  There's nothing political about wanting to avoid nuclear fallout from a meltdown or nuclear explosion." 

That was your exact quote.  When it was brought up casually that there were safe and efficient nuclear options that could be implemented you doubled down saying it was a matter of the government not investing enough in renewable energy.

You again doubled (tripled?)  down after it was explained there is no way renewables can power a grid 24/7.  When pointed out that the private and public sectors have dumped huge resources into the issue of storing power you went off on some tangent about the benefits the world has seen with Moores law and computing.

The fact is there are dozens of papers on how to expand power generated from nuclear plants.  There is nobody with an idea on how to solve the storage problem for renewables.  We can get to 90% fossil free, we can not do it without nuclear.  Not by 2050 at least.

https://interestingengineering.com/scientists-develop-liquid-that-can-store-solar-energy-for-more-than-a-decade

Scientists in Sweden have developed a specialized fluid, called a solar thermal fuel, that can reportedly store energy captured from the sun for over a decade. "A solar thermal fuel is like a rechargeable battery, but instead of electricity, you put sunlight in and get heat out, triggered on demand," Jeffrey Grossman, an engineer works with these materials at MIT explained to NBC News.

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2018/ee/c8ee01011k

The development of solar energy can potentially meet the growing requirements for a global energy system beyond fossil fuels, but necessitates new scalable technologies for solar energy storage. One approach is the development of energy storage systems based on molecular photoswitches, so-called molecular solar thermal energy storage (MOST). 

 

I guess I'll keep looking for those .edu links and scientific journals that discuss powering earth with unicorn fats, or trans-oceanic turbines.  

[halfmanhalfbronco]

1 hour ago, Orange said:

https://interestingengineering.com/scientists-develop-liquid-that-can-store-solar-energy-for-more-than-a-decade

Scientists in Sweden have developed a specialized fluid, called a solar thermal fuel, that can reportedly store energy captured from the sun for over a decade. "A solar thermal fuel is like a rechargeable battery, but instead of electricity, you put sunlight in and get heat out, triggered on demand," Jeffrey Grossman, an engineer works with these materials at MIT explained to NBC News.

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2018/ee/c8ee01011k

The development of solar energy can potentially meet the growing requirements for a global energy system beyond fossil fuels, but necessitates new scalable technologies for solar energy storage. One approach is the development of energy storage systems based on molecular photoswitches, so-called molecular solar thermal energy storage (MOST). 

 

I guess I'll keep looking for those .edu links and scientific journals that discuss powering earth with unicorn fats, or trans-oceanic turbines.  

It is like you have 0 ability to comprehend what you read if it is even slightly technical.  Yes, these solar thermal storage devices have not shown in application they can power small household appliances.  They can't power your AC, let alone store energy for a power gird.  I am actually stunned you thought that article would make a case for you.  Holy tit balls.

[happycamper]

1 hour ago, Orange said:

https://interestingengineering.com/scientists-develop-liquid-that-can-store-solar-energy-for-more-than-a-decade

Scientists in Sweden have developed a specialized fluid, called a solar thermal fuel, that can reportedly store energy captured from the sun for over a decade. "A solar thermal fuel is like a rechargeable battery, but instead of electricity, you put sunlight in and get heat out, triggered on demand," Jeffrey Grossman, an engineer works with these materials at MIT explained to NBC News.

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2018/ee/c8ee01011k

The development of solar energy can potentially meet the growing requirements for a global energy system beyond fossil fuels, but necessitates new scalable technologies for solar energy storage. One approach is the development of energy storage systems based on molecular photoswitches, so-called molecular solar thermal energy storage (MOST). 

 

I guess I'll keep looking for those .edu links and scientific journals that discuss powering earth with unicorn fats, or trans-oceanic turbines.  

"When an energy demand occurs, the fluid is pushed through a catalyst that converts the molecules back to their original form, warming the liquid by 63degrees Celsius. "

So where is the power supposed to come from? That isn't anywhere near hot enough to use as a boiler for a separate water tank. 

[Orange]

3 hours ago, happycamper said:

"When an energy demand occurs, the fluid is pushed through a catalyst that converts the molecules back to their original form, warming the liquid by 63degrees Celsius. "

So where is the power supposed to come from? That isn't anywhere near hot enough to use as a boiler for a separate water tank. 

 

3 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

It is like you have 0 ability to comprehend what you read if it is even slightly technical.  Yes, these solar thermal storage devices have not shown in application they can power small household appliances.  They can't power your AC, let alone store energy for a power gird.  I am actually stunned you thought that article would make a case for you.  Holy tit balls.

This settles it.  Unless I have, right now, the description for an invention that will earn me a Nobel Prize, you clowns think it can never be done, ever.  That's how +++++ing intellectually dishonest you both are.

The point of my posts is that PEOPLE ARE WORKING ON THIS SHIT and there is zero reason to think the technology for storage won't get better, and that a method for scaling up won't present itself in the coming decades.

 

Just wow.

[happycamper]

Just now, Orange said:

 

This settles it.  Unless I have, right now, the description for an invention that will earn me a Nobel Prize, you clowns think it can never be done, ever.  That's how +++++ing intellectually dishonest you both are.

The point of my posts is that PEOPLE ARE WORKING ON THIS SHIT and there is zero reason to think the technology for storage won't get better, and that a method for scaling up won't present itself in the coming decades.

 

Just wow.

You remember the whole "at some point the solution becomes worse..." posts?

My man, to be able to maintain electrical power, in winter, throughout the entire night, we'd have to generate three times the power even if storage is at 100% efficiency.

Now that we've stored it, we have to account for inefficiencies. Let's say that we invent a fluid that gains 130 Celsius AND it is absurdly efficient - let's say 50%. Great! Now, we use this fluid to run a steam turbine. Steam turbines are at about 80% efficiency. Now we need 3/0.8/0.5=7.5 times the generation power for solar to work (this is ignoring any cloudy days, ever, by the way). From what I remember of probably this article :https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030/ (I bought it back in the day and it was easy to find, but I don't have a subscription) they required 100,000 square miles (!!) of solar to be covered to power the US, all in the Southwest. With our storage system, we now need... 750,000 square miles of coverage. This is also before transmission losses. That is an area three times the size of Texas; it's about 1/3 the size of the continental US. The ecological consequences of this are so severe it doesn't bare thinking about. You're killing every plant in this area. You're making the entire area denuded of erosion preventing vegetation, you're placing 750,000 square miles of impervious surfaces, and you're placing a ridiculous quantity of concrete and helical piers. This is an environmental catastrophe that dwarfs your global warming concerns, and guess what? Other countries are less able to do this. What about Russia, which doesn't have a massive southwest? What about Canada? What about China, which needs power for 5 times as many people? What about India, which gets monsoons? Hell, what about England?

Stuff like this is why so many people support nuclear. There are already entire countries that base their power on it (France). It's safe (less deaths than any other power source by megawatt). It's cost competitive. While it isn't "renewable" there is a LOT of uranium and thorium in the earth and we've essentially stopped exploring for it.