Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The simple answer is storage. We don't have it, and won't for a long time if ever. Worse, demand at night may rise as electric cars move into garages for recharge. We can't geo-shift either. Using sunlight in Australia to power the US at night, and vice versa, will never be feasible for so many reasons it isn't worth considering.

Why do you say there's no storage? I thought that was common knowledge that there is. Both at thermal plants, and at rooftop solar panels installed everywhere. Energy is always stored and allocated through the grid anyway, is it not? When the sun is down, the wind may be up; and if not in one place, then in another. Build enough, and there's no shortage. Austrailia? I don't know what brought that up.

Where solar makes sense, we should use as much as we can. It may even have a place in a high-temperature bio-fuel cycle of some sort. If so, then it will be closer to base load. But for now and the forseeable future, it just isn't.

The block is not technical; it is only and completely political. I agree with Al Gore on this. Political will is a renewable resource. We must act now, not say "it just isn't." There's no excuse for any liberals to buy the fossil fuel company line. And anyway, some power outages are better than a destroyed climate.

There's no need to look to nuclear, which is far more expensive, and further out in time. Solar is available and feasible now. But I am not opposed to research into genuinely-safe nuclear options like thorium and fusion.

Edit; Here's one article I found:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...rgy-night2.htm

From this article:
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4571306...re-energy.html

People usually connect their panels to long-life batteries or the power company's grid. Batteries are useful so that they can store energy for use on those days when the clouds are out. Connecting to the grid can actually MAKE you money; if you produce more solar energy than you need, the energy company will "buy" it from you. If it's particularly cloudy for a period of time, you would use the grid's energy. Of course, they'll charge you more for energy than you would sell to them, but the trade-off of having a practically free energy storage unit can't be beat.

Read more: How Does a Solar Panel Store Energy? | eHow http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4571306...#ixzz2Wj5yyQkN

No, Eric, electricity is distributed through the grid. Actually storing it is more difficult. Here are some good primers on the subject, if you're actually interested in educating yourself.

Seriously, you can't roll your eyes and go, "Boring!!" when science and math come up, then turn around and declare all technical issues solved just because it suits your ideological preferences at the time. Well, I mean, you obviously can (and do), but you sound like a child when you do so.

This is not to say that we don't need to move towards renewables, or that storing some amount of power is unfeasible, just that it is rather more difficult than you suppose.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why do you say there's no storage? I thought that was common knowledge that there is. Both at thermal plants, and at rooftop solar panels installed everywhere. Energy is always stored and allocated through the grid anyway, is it not? When the sun is down, the wind may be up; and if not in one place, then in another. Build enough, and there's no shortage. Austrailia? I don't know what brought that up.

Electricity needs to be available on-demand, 24 hours a day. Thermal plants are fine for heating, especially water, but they have no efficacy in electircal generation. Offsetting by combining intermittent sources doesn't work either. Importing from areas that are lit when we are in the dark (like Australia) is also impractical.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green ...

The block is not technical; it is only and completely political. I agree with Al Gore on this. Political will is a renewable resource. We must act now, not say "it just isn't." There's no excuse for any liberals to buy the fossil fuel company line. And anyway, some power outages are better than a destroyed climate.

Nuclear is not a fossil fuel - regardless of the type.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green ...

There's no need to look to nuclear, which is far more expensive, and further out in time. Solar is available and feasible now. But I am not opposed to research into genuinely-safe nuclear options like thorium and fusion...

First, thorium is only marginally safer than uranium, and both are vastly safer than coal. Fusion is a future source. The projection is a demonstartion reactor (providing power to the grid, but not a commercial-ready solution) will be on-line in the 2040s. Assume that means the late 2040s. We have 25 years to wait just to get ther, and probably at least that much longer to get a substantial number of commercial reactors in operation. We need an interim answer.

Thermal electric works just fine. It's not perfect, but it works. There are commercial scale plants running.

If we switch full scale to nuclear, we still have to deal with fluctuations in demand. Nuclear doesn't turn on and off real quick. France makes up for it by exporting excess power, and we can use natural gas as a stop gap measure in the interim,butlonger term we still need to solve the storage problem. Hydrogen is a possible solution, but it isn't a great one. Electrolyzing water, then running it back through a fuel cell wastes a lot of energy.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Electricity needs to be available on-demand, 24 hours a day. Thermal plants are fine for heating, especially water, but they have no efficacy in electircal generation. Offsetting by combining intermittent sources doesn't work either. Importing from areas that are lit when we are in the dark (like Australia) is also impractical.

There are lots of deserts in the USA. Thermal solar plants are electrical generating plants. You don't seem up to date on this. The only thing that "doesn't work" is our politics, and that is due to GOPFERS and DINOs only. We don't have time for the GOPFER solution; we need to take our heads out of the ground and know what's up.

Nuclear is not a fossil fuel - regardless of the type.

But why do you put out the fossil fuel company line? Solar power is here, and it meets our needs. We don't need fossil fuels, although since we aren't going to go all green, given our mindset and our politics, natural gas is a good transition fuel that is abundant and cheap; although more environmental safeguards are needed. Safe nucs are too far in the future to be a good transition fuel.

First, thorium is only marginally safer than uranium, and both are vastly safer than coal. Fusion is a future source. The projection is a demonstartion reactor (providing power to the grid, but not a commercial-ready solution) will be on-line in the 2040s. Assume that means the late 2040s. We have 25 years to wait just to get there, and probably at least that much longer to get a substantial number of commercial reactors in operation. We need an interim answer.

We need to get off of oil and coal immediately, if not yesterday. Gas is the interim answer, and solar/wind/electric cars is the way to go ASAP. Other solutions may come along; some experiments show cars can run on air. Innovation is being stimulated. Truly, if our society declines, it will not be because of technical problems. It will be because of political problems.

The storage issue really needs to be addressed, and soon, as Middle East instability grows, the shale boom is looking awfully bubbly, and solar continues to make its way into primetime.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There are lots of deserts in the USA. Thermal solar plants are electrical generating plants. You don't seem up to date on this. The only thing that "doesn't work" is our politics, and that is due to GOPFERS and DINOs only. We don't have time for the GOPFER solution; we need to take our heads out of the ground and know what's up.

Eric, I know about solar electric, and it's fine for very limited applicatins. It can even provide base load, but the cost is outrageous. The Marines needed to power some radio sies located on isolated mountain tops. Since it's sunny just about every day, they use solar arrays. The arrays are fine, but the batteries use more shelter space than the systems they support, and th bateries neeeded to replaced every three years ... like clock work.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green ...

But why do you put out the fossil fuel company line? Solar power is here, and it meets our needs. We don't need fossil fuels, although since we aren't going to go all green, given our mindset and our politics, natural gas is a good transition fuel that is abundant and cheap; although more environmental safeguards are needed. Safe nucs are too far in the future to be a good transition fuel.

If you only want electricity in the daytime, then solar is fine .. unless it rains, of course. BTW, nukes are safe now. Here are the death tolls for all the nuclear accidents in history. Except for Chernobyl, the toll is very low. Even Fukishima, which is zero to date.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green ...

We need to get off of oil and coal immediately, if not yesterday. Gas is the interim answer, and solar/wind/electric cars is the way to go ASAP. Other solutions may come along; some experiments show cars can run on air. Innovation is being stimulated. Truly, if our society declines, it will not be because of technical problems. It will be because of political problems.

I you are concerned about safety, remember, gas is explosive and has exploded with loss of life in the past.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

The storage issue really needs to be addressed, and soon, as Middle East instability grows, the shale boom is looking awfully bubbly, and solar continues to make its way into primetime.

Storage is non-trivial in the grand sense. I live on a storage system (two lakes, with a hydro-power - pump-back system). It's inadequate even for local use. That's not to say that it isn't a good idea.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Storage is non-trivial in the grand sense. I live on a storage system (two lakes, with a hydro-power - pump-back system). It's inadequate even for local use. That's not to say that it isn't a good idea.

Check with the people downstream of Ameren's Tom Sauk resivoir about that...

Energy storage is one of the big hurdles.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

...

Says the guy who claims that visible light input to the planet from the sun is "heat"...

-You may have heard that there's a relationship between light and heat.

Perhaps you've never heard of solar power.

Or sitting in the sun.

Which is solar power.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

... Show me who in the climatology sciences claims that climate and weather are the same thing. You do know that they are not the same thing right? ...

-Obviously.

I'm the one who brought this back in the first place:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...BTW, found this little reminder...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Originally Posted by TnT

At the risk of being repetitive, may I remind us that "weather" does NOT equal "climate." Trying to validate global warming by using examples from weather in Michigan, or wherever is a fool's errand.

Weather, by definition, is HIGHLY VARIABLE!

Climate, by definition, is HIGHLY STABLE...

...

...to correct nonsense like this:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Excellent point. Tornadoes are not just in Kansas anymore!

...because you didn't make the point, at least not then.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

So, we should discuss the science of climatology but only use layman definitions? Straight out of the creationist/denier handbook. No thanks...

-It's called "speaking English."

And your pretty uppity, considering that I'm the one who had to correct YOUR use of the language:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-I assume the the difference is singular vs. plural, since there are different types of light...

...when Justin was about to hand your a$$ to you.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

No, Eric, electricity is distributed through the grid. Actually storing it is more difficult. Here are some good primers on the subject, if you're actually interested in educating yourself.

Seriously, you can't roll your eyes and go, "Boring!!" when science and math come up, then turn around and declare all technical issues solved just because it suits your ideological preferences at the time...

-He just did.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Check with the people downstream of Ameren's Tom Sauk resivoir about that...

Energy storage is one of the big hurdles.

Something they do a little bit around here is use hydro for storage. They pump water up at night when wholesale electricity is cheaper, and run it back down during the day.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

Something they do a little bit around here is use hydro for storage. They pump water up at night when wholesale electricity is cheaper, and run it back down during the day.

Which is fine and all. Except that pump efficiency tops out at under 90%, electric motor (to drive the pump) at around 90%, water turbines top out at 90%, and generators (to make electricity from the turbine) at close to 90% efficiency. Convenient, all those numbers .

So you're only going to get out at best less than two-thirds of the energy you put in, less transmission etc... It's not so awesome a performance if you're looking to use it as a wide-scale solution.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-You may have heard that there's a relationship between light and heat.

Perhaps you've never heard of solar power.

Or sitting in the sun.

Which is solar power.

So a "relationship" between two terms means they are interchangeable? You really are a moron.

-Obviously.

I'm the one who brought this back in the first place:

...to correct nonsense like this:

...because you didn't make the point, at least not then.

You said you'd believe in anthropogenic warming if a climate model could accurately predict the weather. You are not only a moron but a liar as well.

-It's called "speaking English."

No. It's called lying.

And your pretty uppity, considering that I'm the one who had to correct YOUR use of the language:

...when Justin was about to hand your a$$ to you.

When I noticed my typo, I admitted as much right away. Are you now admitting that asking for a climate model to predict the weather is moronic denier crap?

The usual conspiracy theorists; e.g., the Birchers (who actually still exist!), LaRouchites, etc., are missing an awesome opportunity here: Only if there was one-world government - the ultimate bete noire of such groups - could global warming be tamed, in the manner prescribed.

Yet I have not seen or heard a single instance of this being brung up by the far right.

Are they slipping?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Which is fine and all. Except that pump efficiency tops out at under 90%, electric motor (to drive the pump) at around 90%, water turbines top out at 90%, and generators (to make electricity from the turbine) at close to 90% efficiency. Convenient, all those numbers .

So you're only going to get out at best less than two-thirds of the energy you put in, less transmission etc... It's not so awesome a performance if you're looking to use it as a wide-scale solution.

How does 2/3 return compare with the current situation, from power plant through transmission etc?

Vandal, Glick has a point. Sitting in the sun - anything sitting in the sun - collects heat. Heating things is one of the things we currently use electricity, natural gas, or some form of petroleum for. Using the sun for everyday heating has been well understood since at least the 19th century - the French Foreign Legion used solar cookers that could cook a roast in an hour, and that folded up when not is use.

So in that sense, "sitting in the sun" actually is "solar energy". Not "power", another thing entirely, it won't run machinery on any large scale, but useful energy.

Pat, about to deploy the solar-powered clothes dryer as soon as the washing machine quite.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Eric, I know about solar electric, and it's fine for very limited applicatins. It can even provide base load, but the cost is outrageous. The Marines needed to power some radio sies located on isolated mountain tops. Since it's sunny just about every day, they use solar arrays. The arrays are fine, but the batteries use more shelter space than the systems they support, and the batteries need to replaced every three years ... like clock work.

Storage is a non-issue; batteries and storage systems exist and work fine, both at solar plants and at homes. Solar companies offer total conversion with no money down.


"While the panels are the main component of a solar energy system, other parts may need to be replaced. Fortunately the other materials are much lower in cost and easier to attain. These components, such as batteries, may only need to be replaced once every five to ten years."

http://www.envirocitizen.org/article...last/1004.html

If you only want electricity in the daytime, then solar is fine .. unless it rains, of course. BTW, nukes are safe now. Here are the death tolls for all the nuclear accidents in history. Except for Chernobyl, the toll is very low. Even Fukishima, which is zero to date.

Only ruined a wide area of Japan, and made this land that was home for thousands uninhabitable for the foreseeable future, and exposed thousands more to radiation that could kill them and make them sick. We have many nucs from the same company and vintage as Fukushima located near fault lines; that's not safe.

If you are concerned about safety, remember, gas is explosive and has exploded with loss of life in the past.

Natural gas is much safer than nucs, and much safer than coal mines and oil rigs. Remember April 2010? It is long past time to switch to solar and wind. We should have long-since made the transition by now. We are all culpable for not having done this, and we have thereby condemned thousands of innocent species and innocent people to death.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

How does 2/3 return compare with the current situation, from power plant through transmission etc?

You lose those anyway (the energy you're storing comes from a power plant, I assume?). The 2/3 number is only those losses associated with storing and collecting the already-produced-and-transmitted power in a reservoir. All the other losses are the same as they are now.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Vandal, Glick has a point.

No, he doesn't.

Sitting in the sun - anything sitting in the sun - collects heat.

No. You simply don't understand what the scientific definition of heat is. Something sitting in the sun will absorb energy in the form of light. Depending on the properties of the material some of that energy will be transformed into thermal energy (heat). Transforming of energy is not the same thing as "collecting".

Heating things is one of the things we currently use electricity, natural gas, or some form of petroleum for. Using the sun for everyday heating has been well understood since at least the 19th century - the French Foreign Legion used solar cookers that could cook a roast in an hour, and that folded up when not is use.

You don't seem to understand how those cookers actually work, just as Glick also fails to understand.

So in that sense, "sitting in the sun" actually is "solar energy".

Heat and light are two different forms of energy. Glick claimed that carbon dioxide allowed heat from the sun to pass through. That is simply not true.

Not "power", another thing entirely, it won't run machinery on any large scale, but useful energy.

Do you even know what the term power means in a physics context?

Pat, about to deploy the solar-powered clothes dryer as soon as the washing machine quite.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

...You said you'd believe in anthropogenic warming if a climate model could accurately predict the weather. You are not only a moron but a liar as well...

1) No, I posted that at least the theory would have something going for it;

2) I'm still waiting for you to admit that anyone who uses specific climate events (e.g., Hurricane Sandy, a tornado in Oklahoma) as evidence of homoglobowarming is a moron.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

...When I noticed my typo, I admitted as much right away. Are you now admitting that asking for a climate model to predict the weather is moronic denier crap?

-No, you only "noticed" after I let you out of the cell in which Justin was about to bend you over a bunk and make you his bitch.

You're welcome!

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

So a "relationship" between two terms means they are interchangeable? You really are a moron...

-Observing that light causes heat is lying and moronic?

Get help.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Vandal, Glick has a point...

-No. By saying so, you have proven that you are a liar and a moron.

Boy.

I really showed you, didn't I, GB?

How does 2/3 return compare with the current situation, from power plant through transmission etc?

Here's a good write-up on some of the issues with pumped storage.

Vandal, Glick has a point. Sitting in the sun - anything sitting in the sun - collects heat. Heating things is one of the things we currently use electricity, natural gas, or some form of petroleum for. Using the sun for everyday heating has been well understood since at least the 19th century - the French Foreign Legion used solar cookers that could cook a roast in an hour, and that folded up when not is use.

So in that sense, "sitting in the sun" actually is "solar energy". Not "power", another thing entirely, it won't run machinery on any large scale, but useful energy.

Pat, about to deploy the solar-powered clothes dryer as soon as the washing machine quite.

Here are some neat articles on solar thermal. The do the math is good as a general overview, the low-tech magazine stuff is more speculative, but still interesting.

Storage is a non-issue; batteries and storage systems exist and work fine, both at solar plants and at homes. Solar companies offer total conversion with no money down.


"While the panels are the main component of a solar energy system, other parts may need to be replaced. Fortunately the other materials are much lower in cost and easier to attain. These components, such as batteries, may only need to be replaced once every five to ten years."

You still don't know what you are talking about. Seriously.

No, Eric, electricity is distributed through the grid. Actually storing it is more difficult. Here are somegood primers on the subject, if you're actually interested in educating yourself.

Seriously, you can't roll your eyes and go, "Boring!!" when science and math come up, then turn around and declare all technical issues solved just because it suits your ideological preferences at the time. Well, I mean, you obviously can (and do), but you sound like a child when you do so.

This is not to say that we don't need to move towards renewables, or that storing some amount of power is unfeasible, just that it is rather more difficult than you suppose.

A little bit of knowledge goes a long way.

Natural gas is much safer than nucs, and much safer than coal mines and oil rigs. Remember April 2010? It is long past time to switch to solar and wind. We should have long-since made the transition by now. We are all culpable for not having done this, and we have thereby condemned thousands of innocent species and innocent people to death.

Well, I am not as enthusiastic about nukes as some, not by a long shot, but far more people have died from natural gas explosions in the US than have died at nuclear power plants. And of those, all were due to contact with the powerlines, or falling equipment.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

1) No, I posted that at least the theory would have something going for it;

Since you claim to acknowledge that weather and climate are two different things, why would a climate model that predicts weather be at all relevant? This is straight up creationist crap, asking for proof that a cat can give birth to a dog as "something going for it" (evolution).

2) I'm still waiting for you to admit that anyone who uses specific climate events (e.g., Hurricane Sandy, a tornado in Oklahoma) as evidence of homoglobowarming is a moron.

Just as soon as you admit that your chosen term is passive aggressive gay bashing.

-No, you only "noticed" after I let you out of the cell in which Justin was about to bend you over a bunk and make you his bitch.

You're welcome!

Seriously, your chosen metaphors scream volumes.

I admitted the mistake of using the plural form of a word instead of the singular form. No one was going to make me "his bitch".

-Observing that light causes heat is lying and moronic?

Get help.

1 - That of course is not what you said at all. You said that carbon dioxide allows the sun's heat to pass through the atmosphere.

2 - Light does not cause heat. Light and heat are different forms of energy.

Seriously, it is becoming readily apparent that you don't have even the barest understanding of the science involved in the topic.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

...why would a climate model that predicts weather be at all relevant? ...

-It should be able to predict long term trends. It hasn't.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

... Just as soon as you admit that your chosen term is passive aggressive gay bashing...

...admitting this:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...I'm still waiting for you to admit that anyone who uses specific climate events (e.g., Hurricane Sandy, a tornado in Oklahoma) as evidence of homoglobowarming is a moron...

...is not dependent on that, particularly since you yourself claim to believe that anyone who confuses "climate" and "weather" is a moron. It should be a vindication. But it isn't, is it? For you they're completely different when it's convenient for you to claim so, and interdependent when it's convenient for you to claim so.

Well, I guess we hearing from you on that anymore.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

... I admitted the mistake of using the plural form of a word instead of the singular form. No one was going to make me "his bitch"...

-Justin was on his way to making you look pretty stupid.

Now, it seems that you've taken up that mantle yourself...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why do you say there's no storage? I thought that was common knowledge that there is. Both at thermal plants, and at rooftop solar panels installed everywhere. Energy is always stored and allocated through the grid anyway, is it not? When the sun is down, the wind may be up; and if not in one place, then in another. Build enough, and there's no shortage. Austrailia? I don't know what brought that up.

As others have mentioned, electricity is not "stored" in the grid. As for those solar panels, what happens if a cloud or tree shades them?

The block is not technical; it is only and completely political. I agree with Al Gore on this. Political will is a renewable resource. We must act now, not say "it just isn't." There's no excuse for any liberals to buy the fossil fuel company line. And anyway, some power outages are better than a destroyed climate.

You choose power outages, I choose not to. Feel free to have the lights go out when you're in the hospital and the suchlike. Also, from prior post, "bitch switch" coming right up to Eric's power meter. If yer car needs a juice up and we have a bit of a power shortage, sorry, no dice for Eric. Rags has shut him off.

There's no need to look to nuclear, which is far more expensive, and further out in time. Solar is available and feasible now. But I am not opposed to research into genuinely-safe nuclear options like thorium and fusion.

Oh, but there is. France for example has no problems.

Edit; Here's one article I found:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...rgy-night2.htm

From this article:
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4571306...re-energy.html

Well, that's better, but what about if it gets cold or something? How do you keep the salt hot. Remember, we're talking about a lot of salt to get megawatts of power. Uh, what happens if a front stalls out and it rains for a week? And... are they hail proof? Windmills work here 'cause hail dings don't really mess them up. Now those solar cells need to be tougher than car parts because they get hail dings. We don't bother getting them out because we'll get more in 2 years.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Eric

Storage is a non-issue; batteries and storage systems exist and work fine, both at solar plants and at homes. Solar companies offer total conversion with no money down.

I just saw this. Huh? Now this is just lame. There are no batteries that store gigawatts of electricity. What ya been smokin' I want some?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-It should be able to predict long term trends. It hasn't.

Since when are "long term trends" weather? You really, really don't understand the difference between weather and climate do you?

...admitting this:

...is not dependent on that, particularly since you yourself claim to believe that anyone who confuses "climate" and "weather" is a moron. It should be a vindication. But it isn't, is it? For you they're completely different when it's convenient for you to claim so, and interdependent when it's convenient for you to claim so.

Well, I guess we hearing from you on that anymore.

Individual storm events can not be proof of climate shift. Climate shift can increase the likelihood of severe storm events.

I noticed that you completely failed to acknowledge your choice of gay bashing as a rhetorical tool.

-Justin was on his way to making you look pretty stupid.

No, he wasn't.

Now, it seems that you've taken up that mantle yourself...

I noticed that you edited out the part where you claimed that light causes heat. Why is that?