Originally Posted by Deb C

Dr. Michael Mann: The report is simply an exclamation mark on what we already knew: Climate change is real and it continues unabated, the primary cause is fossil fuel burning, and if we don’t do something to reduce carbon emissions we can expect far more dangerous and potentially irreversible impacts on us and our environment in the decades to come.


New IPCC Report: Climatologists More Certain Global Warming Is Caused By Humans, Impacts Are Speeding Up


The Fifth — and hopefully final — Assessment Report (AR5) from the UN Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) is due next month. The leaks are already here:

Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the UN panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.

That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame.

In conclusion:

I very much doubt the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report will move the needle on climate action because of its inadequacies; because the media has scaled back climate coverage and let go of its best climate reporters; and because the fossil fuel funded disinformation campaign will try to exploit those first two problems to make it seem like this report gives us less to worry about, when it simply underscores what we have known for a quarter-century. Continued inaction on climate change risks the end of modern civilization as we know it.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...s-speeding-up/

So, is that German coal solution still working for you?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Your on board chargers require access to the power grid. How exactly is that useful for rural areas as you originally claimed?

The best answer would be induction loops installed in the ground near power sources that operate by driving the car onto a pad, and waiting for a go-ahead of some sort. The technology is simple, and doesn't even require the operator to leave the vehicle. It does require some period of time to charge the vehicle, even partially.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... A fuel cell is another one of these nifty two-in-one devices. In this case the chemical reactor is a special kind of reactor, an electrochemical reactor. In this sort of reactor, reactants are converted to products with the evolution of heat and electricity. For the purpose of propelling a car, the fuel cell would be connected to an electric motor (a device that converts electricity into work). But for the purpose of generating electricity this single device does the job of reactor+engine+generator in a coal or nuke plant or a IC engine+generator in a gas plant.

You can see why folks were so excited about fuel cells back in the day. The first practical cell carried out the combustion of hydrogen to produce electricity at pretty good efficiencies. Problems were that you need platinum to make the reactors and the amount of platinum need per kw of generating capacity was large, making them too expensive. Also they used hydrogen as fuel, which itself was expensive. Back in the sixties work was conducted on cells that would use hydrocarbons as fuel. I don't think this ever worked out (I certainly have not heard of any natural gas fuel cells). And much work on reducing the amount and cost of electrode materials/catalysts has been done over the years. I haven't followed the field but my impression is progress has been made.

This is one of our power vendors that specializes in hydrogen fule cells. They aren't cheap, but they are ideal under some circumstances ... powering automobiles not being on that list.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It doesn't. Shift away from both coal and nuclear.

A friend of mine (who is more tech-oriented than me) recommends Thorium instead of Uranium plants. He says they existed but were suppressed by the uranium lobby. They are safer, he says. Worth checking into?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013...-china-thorium

OK, then you have to solve the baseload problem, and no, Brian's assumption that two or three intermittant sources add up to a reliable one is simply not true. If you need power on demand 99.99% of the time (that's a net loss of about one hour a year), you need a minimum of 14 different and totally independent sources that each produce power 50% of the time ... like solar. In addition, each one must be capable of handling the entire load.

It's math.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, then you have to solve the baseload problem, and no, Brian's assumption that two or three intermittant sources add up to a reliable one is simply not true.

Why not? When one is off, others are on. What about thorium?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why not? When one is off, others are on. What about thorium?

In answer to your first question, it takes 14 sources to be reliable to 99.99%. Here's the math:

1. Each souce is 50% reliable (the sun doesn't shine at night, etcetra).
2. 50% reliable is the same thing as saying it's not available 50% of the time, or p' = .5
3. 99.99% availablity is the same as saying 0.01% unavailability, or p' = .0001
4. Solve for the brief time when nothing works (the other option is messy):
   
   1. For X sources, .5^^X = .0001 or in other equally valid terms, X log .5 = log .0001
   2. Solving for X: X = log .001 / log .5 = 13.28+
   
   
5. 13.28+ rounds up to 14

And I thought you nixed nuclear power. I'm OK with thorium, though it needs to be refined before it's deployed.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

In answer to your first question, it takes 14 sources to be reliable to 99.99%. Here's the math:

1. Each souce is 50% reliable (the sun doesn't shine at night, etcetra).
2. 50% reliable is the same thing as saying it's not available 50% of the time, or p' = .5
3. 99.99% availablity is the same as saying 0.01% unavailability, or p' = .0001
4. Solve for the brief time when nothing works (the other option is messy):
   
   1. For X sources, .5^^X = .0001 or in other equally valid terms, X log .5 = log .0001
   2. Solving for X: X = log .001 / log .5 = 13.28+
   
   
5. 13.28+ rounds up to 14

The math may not apply; a grid has many power sources, far more than 14, and it all gets put into one pool. And when an individual has solar or wind, (s)he is only dependent on the grid part of the time.

And I thought you nixed nuclear power. I'm OK with thorium, though it needs to be refined before it's deployed.

I'm not dogmatic; I could change my mind and support thorium, or I might not.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is one of our power vendors that specializes in hydrogen fule cells. They aren't cheap, but they are ideal under some circumstances ... powering automobiles not being on that list.

As long as they require platinum to manufacture that will remain the case. We should not assume they always will, though.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The math may not apply; a grid has many power sources, far more than 14, and it all gets put into one pool. And when an individual has solar or wind, (s)he is only dependent on the grid part of the time.


I'm not dogmatic; I could change my mind and support thorium, or I might not.

Could there be any clearer evidence that Eric really doesn't get it?

Generators exist and make electricity in emergencies. Remember hospitals in New York ran on generators during Sandy. They weren't hooked up to the grid; that's the whole point. They can power any appliance; why not a car? They would need to be lighter to be carried on-board, and waiting to charge a battery would be more inconvenient than carrying a gas can. But petroleum is not recyclable. Eventually we will have to switch to renewable energy. We must develop alternatives now while we still can, or go back to horses on the farm and in the country, which will not feed the world today. Fuel cells may be an option in the future. Ethanol is not a good option for cities, but works well in the mid-west farming areas where it's produced. For now, plug-in hybrids are good, though they don't save much greenhouse gases if the grid where you are is powered by coal. So, rural blue state areas are best for that right now. Red states must be brought along eventually to renewable energy. They can't stay in magic pony land forever.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The math may not apply; a grid has many power sources, far more than 14, and it all gets put into one pool. And when an individual has solar or wind, (s)he is only dependent on the grid part of the time.

I mentioned this in the previous post, but didn't repeat it so I will now. For rhe math to work, sources have to be independent of one another. 500 wind generators in one geographical location is still one source. Solar is never independent, but has a higher avilablity if the panels are located in widely spaced longitudinal space (i.e. Hawaii and Florida). And yes, the math counts.

Originally Posted by Eric ...

I'm not dogmatic; I could change my mind and support thorium, or I might not.

OK, but thorium is still not 100% risk free, and is still a bit experimental. Large scale thorium-based power generating plants just don't exist.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

As long as they require platinum to manufacture that will remain the case. We should not assume they always will, though.

The company I linked-to uses Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) technology. No platiunum catalyst required. Apparently, this technology will support automobiles, but I never saw anything suitable from them.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Generators exist and make electricity in emergencies. Remember hospitals in New York ran on generators during Sandy. They weren't hooked up to the grid; that's the whole point. They can power any appliance; why not a car? They would need to be lighter to be carried on-board, and waiting to charge a battery would be more inconvenient than carrying a gas can. But petroleum is not recyclable. Eventually we will have to switch to renewable energy. We must develop alternatives now while we still can, or go back to horses on the farm and in the country, which will not feed the world today. Fuel cells may be an option in the future. Ethanol is not a good option for cities, but works well in the mid-west farming areas where it's produced. For now, plug-in hybrids are good, though they don't save much greenhouse gases if the grid where you are is powered by coal. So, rural blue state areas are best for that right now. Red states must be brought along eventually to renewable energy. They can't stay in magic pony land forever.

A typical generator system for a hospital is larger than a bus. One for a vehicle is called a gasoline or diesel engine and alterntor - in other words, a hybrid like a Prius.

I seem to remember an old engineering class on the difference between a motor, and an engine.

M&L is correct about the baseload problem. I've actually resorted to throwing breakers to kill parasitic loads at home (like the stove, when unused). All those chargers, etc add up.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The company I linked-to uses Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) technology. No platiunum catalyst required.

Platinum is still needed for the electrodes. The membrane takes the place of the electolyte.

Platinum is an excellent catyalst for hydrogen splitting. Noble metal catalysts have been used for hydrogenation reactions for a century or more. We use palladium on carbon for a numbe rof our hydrogenations. Platinum has been the standard ot-to metal for electrodes for probably as long. According to the article they haven't managed to get away from this century-old standard.

Even with platinum you get a lot of overpotential (electrochemical speak for slow kinetics) at the anode, which is why the effiiciency is low 100%.

My Atlantic storms have fizzled. Rats. We still have three weeks+ to go before 15 SEP.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

A typical generator system for a hospital is larger than a bus. One for a vehicle is called a gasoline or diesel engine and alternator - in other words, a hybrid like a Prius.

My neighbor had a small generator that he put on when the power went out. It operated all his appliances; it kept his lights on. Lots of folks do that. Why not a plug-in car? Like I said, it might not be convenient. But maybe if more R&D were put into the idea, it could become more commonplace.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I mentioned this in the previous post, but didn't repeat it so I will now. For the math to work, sources have to be independent of one another. 500 wind generators in one geographical location is still one source. Solar is never independent, but has a higher availability if the panels are located in widely spaced longitudinal space (i.e. Hawaii and Florida). And yes, the math counts.

You are also forgetting what I also pointed out, that solar power plants have batteries to store and distribute power when the sun is not shining. A common pool on the grid means the energy is always there, just as it is now when conventional power plants go down. I take it your contention is that you need 14 large power plants hooked up for this to work for 99.99% reliability, including a large wind farm as one "power plant." Of course, if more people have their own sources at home or work, that reduces the need for 99.99% reliability.

OK, but thorium is still not 100% risk free, and is still a bit experimental. Large scale thorium-based power generating plants just don't exist.

It could be that this is an important enough concern that we might need to build things that don't exist yet? When JFK announced the goal of putting a man on the man, the facilities for doing so did not exist yet. 8 years later, Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You are also forgetting what I also pointed out, that solar power plants have batteries to store and distribute power when the sun is not shining. A common pool on the grid means the energy is always there, just as it is now when conventional power plants go down. I take it your contention is that you need 14 large power plants hooked up for this to work for 99.99% reliability, including a large wind farm as one "power plant." Of course, if more people have their own sources at home or work, that reduces the need for 99.99% reliability.

No, batteries don't have the storage capacity needed to back anything like the hundreds of millions to billions of Watt-hours of energy needed to provide soalr backup, as you can see from the largest batteries currently in use.

Originally Posted by Eric ...

I could be that this is an important enough concern that we might need to build things that don't exist yet? When JFK announced the goal of putting a man on the man, the facilities for doing so did not exist yet. 8 years later, Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon.

Batteries are limited by physics and chemistry. Even the perfect battery is inadequate. Here is the Lithium-Sulphur battery, that is near perfect. For every kilogram of battery, it can store (ideally) 600 Watt-hours of energy. Typically, you'll need at least a million times that much to be of any use backing the output of a 20-25 MegaWatt solar plant. A plant that size will power roughly 1,000 to 1,500 homes.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No, batteries don't have the storage capacity needed to back anything like the GigaJoules of energy needed to provide solar backup, as you can see from the largest batteries currently in use.

I already posted about this long ago. Solar thermal plants have batteries for storage on site.

Here's just one site on it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...sola.html?_r=0

another:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tonyseba...r-power-plant/

From your article, there's a link to this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_battery

Batteries are limited by physics and chemistry. Even the perfect battery is inadequate.

Batteries power lots of things.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I already posted about this long ago. Solar thermal plants have batteries for storage on site.

Here's just one site on it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/sc...sola.html?_r=0

another:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tonyseba...r-power-plant/

From your article, there's a link to this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_battery

Batteries power lots of things.

Note the energy density of these molten salt batteries. We're talking 15% of the energy to wieght density i listed above, so calculate the necessary size and weight accordingly. I don't doubt these wil be employed, but they are specialty devices.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Note the energy density of these molten salt batteries. We're talking 15% of the energy to weight density i listed above, so calculate the necessary size and weight accordingly. I don't doubt these will be employed, but they are specialty devices.

They are already used at solar thermal power plants, to eliminate the baseload problem, as the articles report.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They are already used at solar thermal power plants, to eliminate the baseload problem, as the articles report.

Not on any large plants, and when they do, plan on them taking huge areas to site. That may work in the desert Southwest, and on smaller applications elsewhere, but it isn't a solution to the large-scale energy needs of the country. This is a more honest assessment of wherre we are and where we're going.

The country's "large scale energy needs" are a composite of a great many small-scale energy needs. If one house uses 10,000 kwh per year, and a community has 1,000 houses, then the community uses 10 million kwh. Although there is a place for centralized solar power, a large part of it (and much of the appeal) is decentralized use. If each of those 1,000 houses has a solar array that produces 8,000 kwh per year, the community's power use will be met except for 2 million kwh. Battery systems can be much smaller for such arrays, and there are other possible solutions, too. For example, suppose you have a system of cross-time-zone transfers of power. The home solar arrays let homeowners sell power to the public utilities for credit to buy power from the utility's wind turbines or hydroelectric plants, and the utility resells this electricity to homes in another time zone, or uses it to produce hydrogen for use in fuel cells.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

They are already used at solar thermal power plants, to eliminate the baseload problem, as the articles report.

I read the articles. The largest existing plant is 19.9 MW, which is small in the baseload generating sense of the term.