He's making fun of the Green New Deal.
"The Green New Deal. Or whatever the hell they call it." Pause. Suppressing a little smile and glancing around. "The Green New Deal. Right? The Green New Deal. I encourage it. I think it's really something that they should promote." Pause. "They should work hard on. Something our country needs desperately." Dramatic rising tone and silent fist pound on "desperately." "They have to go out and get it, but I'll take the other side of that argument, only because I'm mandated to. But they should stay with that argument. Never change." Pause, then quietly: "Never change." Long pause. "No planes. No energy. When the wind stops blowing, that's the end of your electric. Let's hurry up. Darling? Darling, is the wind blowing today? I'd like to watch television, darling."
So much sarcasm. Anyone not hearing the humor would be lost, but the crowd has no trouble absorbing every little edge of humor, and nearly every word and pause feels humorous to me. But if you like the Green New Deal, it's got to be horribly irritating, including the humor. Obviously, it's wrong to say that energy from a wind turbine flows into your house only while the wind is blowing, and you'd lose your mind if you believed that Trump doesn't realize that, but it's just as annoying if you think he knows that but he wants to get the fake science out there and he intends to hide behind a claim that it's just an exaggeration — a joke.
Here's Trump — also from yesterday's speech — trashing his antagonists for not getting his joking (or pretending not to get it):
"If you tell a joke, if you are sarcastic, if you're having fun with the audience, if you're on live television with millions of people and 25,000 people in an arena, and if you say something like 'Russia, please, if you can, get us Hillary Clinton's emails! Please, Russia, please! Please get us the emails! Please!'" The plea is exaggerated. He pauses for a long time an looks around, then starts up again, waving his hands about: "Please! Get us the emails! Please!" Pauses. Laughs. Notices the crowd is reacting with a "Lock her up" chant, which isn't quite absorbing his point, but maybe that's how they have fun, how they irritate their antagonists. He stretches out his hand to quiet them. "So everybody's having a good time, laughing, we're all having fun, and then that fake CNN and others say, 'He asked Russia to go get the emails. Horrible.' I mean, I saw it like 2 weeks ago. I'm watching, and they're talking about, 'One of the points, he asked Russia for the emails.' These people are sick. And I'm telling you, they know the game. They know the game. And they play it dirty. Dirtier than anybody's ever played the game. Dirtier than it's ever been played."
ADDED: A poll:
AND: Poll results:
पोस्ट्स
३५९ टिप्पण्या:
359 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»[OP:] But if you like the Green New Deal, it's got to be horribly irritating, including the humor.
I think he's missing a trick by not calling the the Green Leap Forward.
Yeah. Leftists can’t do humour for some reason.
The closest they can come is that sneering fag Baldwin doing lame, unfunny Trump imitations. And last I heard he was in fear for his life because his act supposedly enraged the president and now the death squads are after him or something. Mind you... THAT made me laugh. Scott Adams has put out a couple devastating Dilbert comics lately but the real humour is coming from the trolls and meme artists from alt-tech. I am sure the donks would put a hefty bounty on Sal The Agorist and his gang.
On target again
Everyone knew Trump was joking about Russia/Wilma's emails. But it fit the narrative, so the Dems and the media used it. All the while knowing the Dem base would buy it hook, line and sinker. And they did. Funny that it does not surface often anymore.
(Chuck used it to smear Trump as part of his master plan.)
Whoops there it is, again.
It depends on who's doing it. The non-opinion parts of the media shouldn't be engaging in political rhetoric, just analyzing it. Instead, they're all on one side.
it's wrong to say that energy from a wind turbine flows into your house only while the wind is blowing
Huh? When the wind isn't blowing, the turbine takes energy off the grid.
Our President is Communicating with a capital C. That contrast with the absurd is how his ideas are taught. The humor gets the attention of superficial folks that don't engage with seriousness tones of voice. Then they remember they understood the taught idea...just like it was theirs.
Humperdink said...All the while knowing the Dem base would buy it hook,line and sinker. And they did
It Does make you wonder about Life Long Liberals; do THEY believe what they are saying?
Our Beloved Professor said.... Obviously, it's wrong to say that energy from a wind turbine flows into your house only while the wind is blowing, and you'd lose your mind if you believed
Could you please explain what you're trying to say here? I'd ask you to cite something, but that's not my place. I just have No Idea what it is that you are trying to say?
"Obviously, it's wrong to say that energy from a wind turbine flows into your house only while the wind is blowing..."
When the wind isn't blowing energy is supplied by typically non-renewable resources: coal, fossil fuels.
When the wind is REALLY blowing wind-power can generate more energy than the grid can handle, leading to energy being sold at a loss to other communities (see: California).
Insert riff on "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" here.
I am Laslo.
First a Kathy Griffin documentary, now a two hour “speech” by Trump.
I am impressed with your dedication.
I guess it’s better than snuggling with a cardinal.
Schlump can do snicker humor now and then, but some subjects like nuclear war, racism, global warming are tricky. At least he isn't always a nasty, mean, vengeful and vindictive boorish man; he just usually is.
If you really don't know what I think is obvious, do you also not know how to Google?
Here. I'm not making a link, so maybe you won't know what to do with this: https://www.windpowerengineering.com/business-news-projects/uncategorized/an-overview-of-6-energy-storage-methods/
It's deplorable that the bitter clingers find delight in Trump's sarcasm.
I think many on the left especially hate Trump for his humor: Alinsky's ridicule works because humor is difficult to defuse without setting oneself up for further mockery.
Indeed, in The Era of That's Not Funny, Trump is cracking wise, while those on the left step through the Twitter minefield with any attempt at humor. They are at the joyless vegan party, smelling the barbequed burgers waft over the backyard fence.
I could make the argument that Trump is the brash NYC version of Mark Twain and Will Rogers, if I had more coffee.
I am Laslo.
gilbar said: "It Does make you wonder about Life Long Liberals; do THEY believe what they are saying?"
If it is not clear to any one on this planet whether the dems are in denial and/or deceived, look no further than their solution when an infant survives an abortion. Forget the "when does life begin" argument. That ship has sailed.
If this isn't a word picture of the slippery slope, there will never be one. As we hurdle down the slope, the only remaining item is to exterminate the sick and elderly.
The point of the Hillary Email joke is that our DOJ and FBI is so corrupt, we have to rely on our enemies to get them. Much how like members of the Soviet Politburo relied on Western Media to report on what was actually happening in Russia.
The point of the Wind Power joke is it's fatal flaw - battery capacity. The tech to STORE energy from wind is stuck, so its true that on a day with no wind there will be little wind energy left over from yesterday.
@ Laslo, I left you an apology for misinterpreting your comment on that Peterson Art thread. Sorry about that.
Trump can't say what's going on, namely the other side is playing to soap opera women as a business model, not playing dirty. Trump can't say it because he has to appeal to soap opera women too, but bring them over to his side. Just enough of them to win.
The win would be for a structurally sane government.
"If it is not clear to any one on this planet whether the dems are in denial and/or deceived, look no further than their solution when an infant survives an abortion."
Look at those kids confronting Feinstein. What they're saying is true because they're saying it. No notion that others get their say, too.
"If you really don't know what I think is obvious, do you also not know how to Google? "
A nice list of things that don't quite work yet, are unstable, or have un-green solutions to their problems.
"..another challenge with battery energy storage is cycle life. Batteries degrade with each charge/discharge cycle and with exposure to extreme hot or cold temperatures. Often they require complex heating and/or cooling systems, adding to the cost of the whole energy storage system."
And also require icky mining for materials.
"Ultracapacitors do not provide long-term energy, so in many cases they complement batteries in applications that need to meet high peak power and long-term energy demands."
Back to batteries.
"Flywheels, like ultracapacitors, aren’t long-term energy storage devices; they are short-duration."
Etc etc.
Short duration is the problem. As I said previously: see California. They can't store the energy wind and solar produce at their peak times, so have to sell the extra at below-cost prices to avoid fritzing their grid. Then they buy power back at times when solar and wind are not providing -- buying power that was often produced by coal.
Being that the site Althouse Googled is part of the Wind Power industry, they are optimistic that the kinks will get worked out:
"The energy storage industry will continue to improve existing methods and innovate fresh concepts that can be implemented to deliver energy to consumers safely and efficiently."
I think they are leaning heavily on "innovate fresh concepts." I hear we can get those done in about twelve years.
I am Laslo.
"If you really don't know what I think is obvious, do you also not know how to Google?"
Heh. This is what you nice guys get for asking in polite deferential tones. She prefers the bad boys. Next time try "what are you nagging on about now, ya stupid bitch?"
By the way, my 6:13 AM comment wasn't meant as a rebuke to Althouse, just background that it is a complex Russian Nesting Egg, that I thought I delivered in a neutral way.
Wasn't trying to pull pig tails.
I am Laslo.
"If you really don't know what I think is obvious, do you also not know how to Google?"
Sorry Ann, unlike law, the real world runs off of science and not your thoughts of what is obvious.
There is no commercially feasible way to store grid scale energy existing right now. Nothing in your link is possible. Nothing, zero, zip, ain;t gonna' happen.
Batteries - do you have any conception how big the battery would have to be? The world's know supply of lithium would not produce a battery big enough to cover a fraction of the needed storage.
The truth is that when the windmills are spinning there is a fossil fueled power plant sitting somewhere running and venting steam - just waiting for the wind to change. And if there wasn't you would be sitting in the dark every time the wind dropped off. Of course, maybe you could just switch to your solar panels...
The only no carbon alternative is Nuclear.
Nevertheless, Trump should always make the point that the 30,000 emails at the time he "asked Russia for help" were under subpoena by the US government and being sought pursuant to an ongoing investigation, not by his campaign.
I had a student once tell me that electric cars don't cost anything to run because they run on batteries.
"The energy storage industry will continue to improve existing methods and innovate fresh concepts"
Socialism is not a fresh concept, and if you read the Green Deal that's at the heart of it - redistribution of wealth via energy production and consumption.
Weird how no matter what new Apocalypse we are told to fear, the answer is always Socialism. You would think the "sophisticated elites" would have noticed that by now - another fake crisis manufactured so we will give the State more power over us.
Note the chilling rhetoric throughout the Green Deal about certain norms ( like constitutional rights) will need to be bypassed or suspended in light of how serious this crisis is.
Althouse's 6:19 comment is getting under my skin.
"...do you also not know how to Google? ...Here. I'm not making a link, so maybe you won't know what to do with this."
You made an offhand remark; people respond that it has complexities.
And your response is: you're stupid, I googled a hit from the windpowerengineering.com site, and it doesn't really support my point as things currently stand, but I found it on Google.
From the site's front page:
"New Consortium for Battery Innovation prepares energy storage roadmap"
More lead batteries. That might be made in the future.
.From the ecomena site (you can Google it): "Lead-acid batteries contain sulphuric acid and large amounts of lead. The acid is extremely corrosive and is also a good carrier for soluble lead and lead particulate. Lead is a highly toxic metal that produces a range of adverse health effects particularly in young children.
Exposure to excessive levels of lead can cause damage to brain and kidney, impair hearing; and lead to numerous other associated problems...
Lead is highly toxic metal and once the battery becomes inoperative, it is necessary to ensure its proper collection and eco-friendly recycling. A single lead-acid battery disposed of incorrectly into a municipal solid waste collection system, and not removed prior to entering a resource recovery facility for mixed MSW, could contaminate 25 tonnes of MSW and prevent the recovery of the organic resources within this waste because of high lead level...
It is to be noted that recycling of used lead acid batteries is not a simple process that can be undertaken in small scale enterprises. Infact lead-acid battery recycling is regarded as one of the worst polluting industries worldwide."
Frankly, I'd rather be digging more into my "I could make the argument that Trump is the brash NYC version of Mark Twain and Will Rogers..." than discussing wind power with a law professor.
I am Laslo.
Jeffrey Lure, the owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, installed wind turbines all along Lincoln Financial Field when the stadium was built. I get a kick watching the Eagles games at how few of them are actually turning.
well, Ann, if you had any knowledge of the subject of electricity generated by wind that was more than skin deep you would know that sufficient wind energy cannot be generated to power the U.S. that planes and autos don't run on electricity. That one wind turbine in its lifetime will not pay for itself.
Well, Professor (of law), of the methods listed, hydro power is the only one that can provide enough power, and that not very efficiently and requiring construction of large water storage dams, etc., which is an absolute no-no for these same "Great Green Leap Forward" warriors.
I think he's missing a trick by not calling the the Green Leap Forward.
Before it can be successfully redefined, it must be broadly communicated and well-defined.
This is what Trump must do first.
He knows he has them.
And the one thing Socialism is good at (other than imprisoning and executing millions) is killing innovation.
If there really was a climate crisis, adopting Socialism and going stagnant is the worst thing you could do.
I would LOVE for the Left to get Socialism, get what they richly deserve. But not in my country, not while I live.
The party that can’t get high-speed rail from SF to LA wants to get rid of cows, air travel and fossil fuels in 10 years.
That takes some next-level believin’.
I suppose we could pump water upstream of a hydroelectric dam, but I doubt L. Meade will like all that waterboarding.
"The party that can’t get high-speed rail from SF to LA wants to get rid of cows, air travel and fossil fuels in 10 years."
Wrong! I want to get rid of people.
"I had a student once tell me that electric cars don't cost anything to run because they run on batteries"
And when pressed he replied "I can't be bothered to defend such an obvious fact. Just google it."
As for the comment about the e-mails, I repeat I have twice heard the former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell declare on national TV News that he assumed "every competent intelligence agency in the world" - presumably including his own CIA - had collected them, and the former NSA Director General Hayden when asked about this replied that, yes, umm, he rather thought so too.
If anyone really wants to know what is in those e-mails, forget about "the Roosians," just file a FOIA request with our own government!
Trump is funny? That can't be! Bret Stephens at the New York Times just this last December 7 assured us that Trump's is A Presidency Without Humor.
Well, obviously it will no longer be practical to divert all that water tk southern California. But a mass relocation would create too much carbon. So...
If you want to talk about whether the storage methods are good, fine, but it doesn't change what's wrong with Trump's remark (if taken seriously), which is that there isn't even an idea of storage, just direct power from the wind to the thing you are trying to operate, like the way a windmill turns a grindstone.
I use two 36 volt electric forklifts in my business. I bought electric forklifts, not for environmental concerns, but because when you turn the key, they go. At least until the batteries dies. I then plug it into my battery charger, powered by my fossil fueled electric company. I must keep the lifts toasty warm because cold kills the battery. Lots of trade offs that are lost on the Green Dealers.
Now the batteries are nearing then end of their useful life. They are $6000 per - more than I paid for the forklifts. Looking at the batteries, there are composed of lead plates and electrolyte, which is fully encased in plastic, surrounded by steel walls. Where does all that stuff come from anyway?
As an aside the batteries weigh 2900# and act as a counterweight, so there's that.
I'm not hopeful about wind power, but those who oppose it by pretending it only works when the wind blows are completely dishonest. But I'm willing to give Trump credit, because I don't think he actually believes what is false. I think he's doing humor.
Dishonest or ignorant. Don't know which is worse.
It boggles my mind that Althouse (a blogger!) blithely provides a link without making it a link! If one can type (which I presume she can) it's hardly any more difficult to make an html link than it is to just show the url as text.
The "Great Green Leap Forward" is not "socialism" - socialists - bless their little hearts - do not believe in industrial power from pixie dust and unicorn farts, nor dilithium crystals; they construct coal power plants without pollution controls and send you to work in the mines if you protest.
"Dishonest or ignorant. Don't know which is worse."
Since you asked, dishonest by a country mile.
No, Professor, wind power (or solar) can be used to power a cabin in the woods, but industrial power for a modern society - no.
"...but it doesn't change what's wrong with Trump's remark (if taken seriously), which is that there isn't even an idea of storage, just direct power from the wind to the thing you are trying to operate, like the way a windmill turns a grindstone."
Ah: now we turn to literalism. Because Trump doesn't mention storage or batteries. Which means "When the wind stops blowing, that's the end of your electric" is wrong. Except it IS the end of your 'electric' at that moment unless you have power coming in from coal, gas, or miracle batteries that don't exist yet.
But it is Wrong because you need it to be Wrong to get to the point you want to make.
And it's not that it's a Bad Point, it's just that the batteries had to kick in to get you there, because there wasn't enough power in your rhetorical wind.
I am Laslo.
"he wants to get the fake science out there"
A minor technical point: You're referring to engineering, not science. We can argue about the differences and similarities (there are plenty of each), but I like to sum up the difference as: "Scientists dream of Nobel Prizes, engineers dream of accidents."
Blogger Trumpit said...
"The party that can’t get high-speed rail from SF to LA wants to get rid of cows, air travel and fossil fuels in 10 years."
"Wrong! I want to get rid of people."
Not news. How was your relationship with your father? Was he at home or was he absent?
On another more to the point note.
If we converted half of our country's autos to electric power there is only enough lithium to last 10 years.
also
Some modern windmills have to keep turning or their internals will be damaged. That means that when there is no wind they draw power from the grid to run a motor to turn the blades. Not a recipe for efficiency.
No. Wind and solar are not renewable and are energy dead ends for the forseeable future.
There are nuclear options to explore like CANDU and thorium. I'm also a big fan of fuel cells.
Wind turbines are only economically viable today with heavy tax relief, which is to say they are not economically viable in the market. They also are quite good at creating bird frappes. They currently operate in conjunction with hydrocarbon-using generation plants, which come online when the wind stops blowing.
So, Trump's making a joke, doing standup comedy, about an impractical technology that has significant inconveniences, dangers, and downsides. The inconveniences, dangers, and downsides are there whether the wind blows (bird frappes) or doesn't (back to fossil fuels).
By the way, if you want to see one of those water pumping power "storage" facilities, there is one on Lake Michigan at Ludington built in 1969-1973 at a cost of $327 million ($2 billion today). The project led to massive fish kills and a 1996 multi-million dollar settlement with various conservation groups, Indian tribes, and the Michigan DNR.
You want an omlette? Break some eggs.
"Obviously, it's wrong to say that energy from a wind turbine flows into your house only while the wind is blowing..."
I assume we were to read the statement above literally. If so, no amount of Googling will make it true. If you have a single wind turbine and no wind, you have no energy being generated.
Trumpit said...
Schlump can do snicker humor now and then, but some subjects like nuclear war, racism, global warming are tricky. At least he isn't always a nasty, mean, vengeful and vindictive boorish man; he just usually is.
If you like your witch doctor, you can keep your witch doctor, right, Trumpit?
The combination of solar and wind seems to give a more consistent supply of power and folks are working on new and better ways to store energy. Meanwhile the hot air from Trump is driving more and more people out of the empty Republican Party
Amazing how many of the Green Weenies have never heard of (nevermind understand) the Nernst equation. They should Google it!
If the sun's not shining the wind's not blowing, then electricity's not flowing, unless you've got batteries.
The energy storage article left out unicorn farts.
But back on Planet Reality, Trump is not wrong.
Some crazy guy at CNN said "His statement makes me sick, on a personal level, preserving your heritage, reclaiming our heritage, that sounds a lot like a certain leader that killed members of my family and about six million other Jews in the 1940s."
If the late night comedians weren't in the (septic) tank for commie-pinkos lefties, they would have a field day with AOC and her blue state green dealers.
"Dishonest or ignorant. Don't know which is worse."
What the fuck? Really?
PLEASE then explain how it works. Not how it can work in the future, but how it works now.
As in: when the wind isn't blowing how does one get electricity?
Other than buying it from other non-wind sources at a premium price (again: see California. Also: see Germany, which has INCREASED coal usage since 'going green').
Because 'dishonest and ignorant' seems a pretty big stone to throw, here.
I am Laslo.
Appearing live on Facebook for a question and answer session, Premier Jay Weatherill blamed the national energy market for the outages saying a gas-powered generation plant in SA had not been required to come online. “The rules of the energy market are broken,” he said. “We’ll be asking for changes.”
SA Power Networks said in a tweet tonight: “AEMO has instructed us to commence 100MW rotational #load shedding via Govt agreed list due to lack of available generation supply in SA.’’
…
Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg blamed the blackouts on the SA government’s renewable energy target, which he described as ‘‘madness’’.
…
Australia has the largest green energy, contiguous electrical grid on the planet.
Australia has been forced to invent a new term, "rotational load shedding" much more digestible term than the WWII term of "blackout"
AOC want to sell the Green New Deal ('The Green Leap Forward' should be the term used by all Conservatives) she should put DC on the program as proof of efficacy.
windpowerengineering.com
They left out the best method of storing energy: in a Dyson Sphere.
r/v said: "The combination of solar and wind seems to give a more consistent supply of power ..."
Seems?
One of the principal reasons why wind power requires substantial baseload backup is because the power grid isn't really national — much less international — in its scope. This is because — beyond issues of vulnerability and security that too wide-ranging interconnections can foster — there's the fact that conventional power lines (which are normally conducting) have too great resistance losses when carried over many hundreds much less thousands of miles of distance — required for coast-to-coast — for it to be practical.
However, if really broad power-grid networks were to become practical (and they were built), that would tend to average out weather-pattern variations — e.g., the frequent phenomenon where the wind blows fiercely in one place but not at all in another (far away), then next week it's the reverse — so that then the power could be shared over that distance without requiring baseload backup (in this case).
In this regard, the recent room-temperature superconductor patent application from the U.S. Navy is extremely interesting.
" roesch/voltaire said... "The combination of solar and wind seems to give a more consistent supply of power and folks are working on new and better ways to store energy."
More consistent supply of power? I am waiting for someone to explain California's situation, then, since it is in action.
Or Germany.
And, as for the folks "working on new and better ways to store energy": what is one method that they are studying that doesn't involve mining, dangerous materials, or more dams?
I am Laslo.
MIT has made break throughs in molten salt batteries that will change this hot air discussion of wind power.
You know who else powered their flying saucers with wind energy? That's right, the Nazis. Or maybe it was Navajos.
Wind? You want wind? I got your wind right here.
(this is very cool, and very satisfying to stare at)
http://hint.fm/wind/
Ann, you are WAAAAAAY out of line here.
You make a boneheaded statement "Obviously, it's wrong to say that energy from a wind turbine flows into your house only while the wind is blowing,"
That's OK, we all make boneheaded statements. Nobody will hold that against you.
Then, when people questioned what you meant, you respond with snark. Not only snark, but a boneheaded link.
Yes, you can store energy from windmills. But only for an hour or two. Not anywhere near enough to me useful for when the wind stops.
Shame on you, Ann. You all all your readers and especially those who asked what you meant (to whom the snark was directed) an apology.
John Henry
I guess the sarcasm regarding the GND FAQ-stated objectives is useful, but I would like to see the specific requirements of the GND-FAQ challenged on the basis of reality. I would like to take just one of those listed requirements, e.g., upgrading every one of the 5,600,000 commercial buildings, 81,000,000 multi-family housing units, and 53,000,000 single family housing units in the US over ten years.
Why not ask the democrat senators and representatives who support it, especially the 2020 candidates, for a 50,000 foot description of the level of effort necessary to upgrade 10,800 commercial buildings, 158,800 apartments and 103,900 single family houses per week, every week for 520 weeks using actual numbers instead of unicorn farts. What's the new green standard and what's required to get each structure to the new level. What materials are required, who has the existing capacity and what are the logistics involved? How many construction cranes, trucks, front end loaders, cement mixers and other construction equipment do you need and where will they come from? How many millions of skilled tradesmen and laborers would be required to accomplish the conversations and where do they come from? Where do the residents of the existing housing units and tenants of the commercial buildings go while the conversions are in process? If someone refuses to move do you force them at the point of a gun? What happens with factories that are too big or too specialized to relocate? What is the impact of doing all of this have on the other NGD objectives? What does it take for combustion engine replacement and conversion of existing power plants to solar and wind and what are the priorities are for each because everything is going to have to be done simultaneously to make the advertised timeline? Etc, etc, etc.
AOC and her acolytes are clueless about how things actually get done in the real world and it might be useful to help them realize it in the event they ever have the power to try this madness.
What happens when these wind turbines after they are finished and can't be repaired anymore. They are not made from recyclable materials. They are carted away and left to rot in the environment. The wind turbines are also a huge bird killer. And they make a great show when they are struck by lightning.
gilbar said...
Ann Althouse said... If you really don't know what I think is obvious
Then you point to dream solutions that might happen in the distant future. But i guess the sad thing is that our Professor Althouse thinks that dreams and reality are the same thing. I never thought i'd have to say this, but; Put down the pipe Prof, you've smoked enough
roesch/voltaire said..."MIT has made break throughs in molten salt batteries that will change this hot air discussion of wind power."
From Wiki:
"In 2010, the Liquid Metal Battery Corporation (LMBC) was formed to commercialize the liquid-metal battery technology invented at MIT.[34] LMBC was renamed Ambri in 2012; the name "Ambri" is derived from "cAMBRIdge" Massachusetts, where the company is headquartered and where MIT is located.[35] In 2012 and 2014, Ambri received $40 million in funding from Bill Gates, Khosla Ventures, Total S.A.,[36] and GVB.[37]
In September 2015, Ambri announced a layoff, pushing back commercial sales.[38] but announced a return to the battery business with a redesigned battery in 2016.[39]"
Great technology: $40 million from philanthropists, then layoffs because it isn't panning out for large-scale usage.
It WOULD be great if it does develop to the size needed, but at this point it is a very nice lab experiment, and perhaps not the '?' in:
1. Wind power.
2. ?
3. Success!
I am Laslo.
http://hint.fm/wind/
Mexico is stealing our wind!
I googled molten salt batteries and see they must be heated to remain viable. Hence the term "molten". How are they heated? Asking for friend.
This whole Green New Deal reminds me of Obama and his shovel ready jobs. I'm not surprised to find people buying this absolute bullshit.
There is no way to "store" electricity; efficiently or otherwise. If I recall, there were a couple of Japanese scientist that claimed to be able to store electricity for a small fraction of a second at -600C, but were never able to duplicate the experiment.
Certainly electricity can be stored — capacitors, for instance, store electricity as electricity. Way beyond that, however, the way that relatively ephemeral forms of energy (such as electricity, or light) can be stored is to convert it into a different kind of energy. Given that, there are any number of ways of storing electricity: batteries, of course, but also just pumping water uphill works quite effectively.
As Barbie famously said: "Math is hard"
Here's a picture of the world's biggest battery storage facility by Tesla in the Australian desert
https://insideevs.com/tesla-turns-on-worlds-largest-battery-in-australia/
I looked at a half dozen articles about it and find no mention of acreage but I am guessing 20-30 acres at least.
It is rated at 139 megawatt-hours.
The typical windmill is 1-2MW. Let's say 1.5MW on average. In a good windzone, which are not that common, it will generate 1.5MW about 25% of the time. In a good wind zone, it might generate an average of 0.5MW over the course of a year.
So to charge that massive battery, you would need almost 300 windmills running for 1 hour with all the juice going into the battery.
Figure 10 acres per windmill and you need 3,000 acres of land. Yes, you can farm the land and do other things with it, but it is a Hell of a lot of acreage.
Then, when the wind stops, you can provide 139MW for one hour to your customers.
Here is a picture of a 150MW gas turbine:
https://techpoint.africa/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/DKQa8LuWkAA87JX.jpg
The stairs on the front give an idea of scale. The whole thing will ship on 2-3 trucks. The whole thing, erected, with ancillary stuff, might occupy an acre. Perhaps less.
That will give you 150MW, not for an hour, but continuously for a year. It needs to shut down for maintenance periodically but typically can run abut 95% of the time at 150MW.
John Henry
Professor Althouse thinks that dreams and reality are the same thing.
I think lawyer-types get too invested in words, and the supposed "power of words". You can change laws with words, but not much else.
We installed solar on our house a little over a year ago. WITH the tax credits, (a warm thank you to all who pay taxes), the pay off is around 8-9 years. We did not get a storage system because the cost was prohibitive. We are in New Mexico and have plenty of sun. The excess energy is 'sold' back to the power company and unless it is an unusually harsh month, it covers almost all costs of the transmission fixed fees, tax and night electrical use. Would we have done it without the tax credit? No, at least not at this time. Did we do it to 'help save the environment?' Sure. Did we do it because we thought the investment would be beneficial to us in the long run? Of course. For the record - my wife was one of the first engineers to get involved in energy conservation back in the 80s at an operational level, and I have a MS in Environmental Studies. Our experience in energy or environmental conservation is that it better be cost beneficial at some level, otherwise it is just a wasteful feel good experiment.
The problems for green energy production are scalability and distribution. Althouse, your link addressed none of those. If no back-up exists, or energy can't be moved and/or stored at a regional or nationwide scale, electricity does indeed stop when the turbine stops turning. To pretend otherwise is dishonest or disingenuous. Solar has the same problem. Until you solve those problems, Wind and solar aren't viable as primary sources.
Adding irony to the New Green Deal:
Who is on the forefront of renewable energy technologies?
Israel.
What do Cortez's friends Omar and Tlaib want to see happen to Israel?
Pushed underwater by a Palestine from river to sea.
So I guess we better start banking on the Palestinians to start figuring this energy shit out.
I am Laslo.
Fuck CNN. and Hillary too. Fuck Bill Clinton and his network, with a cigar, in the attic.
Why did Seth Rich need to die?
I'll tell you what - Putin and the Clintons have a lot more in common. Look at the trail of death behind them.
Let me try again:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/the_political_suicide_hotline_ringing_nonstop.html
The 139MWH for the Australia battery is misleading too. That assumes that the battery is discharged till dead.
You can do that once, maybe twice before you kill the battery completely. Realistically, you can only discharge it to about 25% which means that it is really only a 104MWH battery.
Another issue with battery storage is that it is DC power and the US uses AC power. The DC from the battery must be converted back to AC which involves some efficiency loss. Not a lot but some. The real problem is that AC power from an inverter is different from AC power from a rotating generator like a turbine.
It causes power factor problems. These can be addressed with capacitors but is still a problem for the utility company that is trying to maintain a clean, consistent electrical supply.
Get an unclean, inconsistent, power supply and all your appliances will fail much more quickly. This has always been true but is even more true today when everything has electronics.
And for industry? Forget about it.
John Henry
CNN doesn't care about Hilary's corruption and law breaking. CNN doesn't care about Hillary and Bill's Russian money grubbing. CNN does not care at all about HER-> private Server used to fill her coffers while head of the State Dept. Then 30,000 emails bleach-bitted.
NO - CNN cares about a joke.
CNN cares about covering for their Clinton benefactors. It is the Clinton News Network, after all. Same as it ever was.
This says it all.
- 600 degrees C? Another "scientific" breakthrough!
The following is a joke. Please don't Google it.
TRUMP: When you run out of gas, your car won't go!
HUMOR IMPAIRED: Oh yeah> Haven't you ever heard of tow-trucks? Or maybe you can push the car? Maybe if you're on a hill it'll roll down on its own. Stupid Trump and his stupid anti-science !
John Henry: One can buy pure-sine-wave inverters. I use one myself. Or just power standard AC generators using DC motors. That's often done (for large-scale conversions) as well.
Hydro power?
The Hoover dam, backed up by a 100 mile lake, has a nominal capacity, running full bore, of about 2,000MW or 2 Nuke plants. Actual capacity factor is 23% so it is really only 560MW or 0.5 nukes, 4 of those truck transportable turbines.
Grand Coulee? Nameplate capacity is 7,000MW
Actual capacity at 36% capacity factor, 2,500MW or 2.5 nukes.
John Henry
Althouse makes a comment about science.
Other people respond with issues about the science of that comment.
Althouse snarks at them, then provides a link that talks about what may be possible in the future -- and still comes with environmentally-damaging baggage.
She then responds to people pointing that out -- some even explaining the science as it currently stands -- as being "dishonest or ignorant."
My three main questions stand:
1. When the wind isn't blowing how does one get electricity?
2. Explain California.
3. What the fuck?
I am patiently waiting for the goal posts to move in an honest and non-ignorant manner.
I am Laslo.
To echo what several others have said, all the other methods in the article you linked are even more impractical than battery storage.
It is not a question of development. Sure, all of these can be made more efficient but we are at the mercy of the laws of physics.
For example, the rail cars with rocks and pumped water storage depend on how much water and how high. Unless you can selectively increase gravity, there is no getting away from that.
Compressed air same thing. How much air at how much pressure.
Flywheels, how fast can you spin them and how heavy can you make them.
And so on.
John Henry
To echo what several others have said, all the other methods in the article you linked are even more impractical than battery storage.
It is not a question of development. Sure, all of these can be made more efficient but we are at the mercy of the laws of physics.
For example, the rail cars with rocks and pumped water storage depend on how much water and how high. Unless you can selectively increase gravity, there is no getting away from that.
Compressed air same thing. How much air at how much pressure.
Flywheels, how fast can you spin them and how heavy can you make them.
And so on.
John Henry
"Obviously, it's wrong to say that energy from a wind turbine flows into your house only while the wind is blowing..."
“I assume we were to read the statement above literally. If so, no amount of Googling will make it true. If you have a single wind turbine and no wind, you have no energy being generated.”
I think that it really depends on how technical you get here. The problem is that wind turbines only generate power when turning (but not turning too fast because they require cutoffs). Basic physics. Some of the excess can be stored, but storage technology is lagging generation technology. So, not that much, relatively speaking, is being stored, at least as far as the grid is concerned. Much more individually which is where Ann is correct. So what mostly happens is that the electrical grid uses (mostly coal and gas) surge capacity to compensate for when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing (or is blowing too hard). The problem that CA is facing is that they generate too much power through wind and solar, so have to sell it to neighboring states at a loss (esp since they are forced to pay more for it than they can sell it to the neighboring states for), and then buy power back from those very same neighboring states, which have built the surge capacity that CA has refused to allow to be built, at a much higher price. I am happy with the deal, because my electrical bill in AZ is partially subsidized by CA rate payers.
Dishonest or ignorant. Don't know which is worse.
Bad faith commenter gets kicked out so to fill the void blog host comments in bad faith.
I wouldn't wait for an apology, Laslo...
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
but those who oppose it by pretending it only works when the wind blows are completely dishonest.
3/3/19, 7:23 AM
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
Dishonest or ignorant. Don't know which is worse.
Amen, Ann. You really should stop digging.
Wind power DOES, only work when the wind is blowing, with short term storage to even fluctuations.
I've been doing this for 50+ years now. I'll be happy to go as deep as you like in explaining why President Trump is 100% correct here.
Should I feel insulted? I think you just called me "ignorant or dishonest". I am neither and would appreciate an apology.
John Henry
Faster, better, cheaper.
Pick two.
I'd suggest putting excess energy into earth rotation, and taking it out at night.
Morning brag/disclaimer: I worked on the control system for Solar One (10MW heliostat farm), which was kinda fun, and saw a bird get vaporized, which I guess was memorable since I remember it after 40(!) years.
Some where in Mexico there is a Guatemalan refugee walking toward the US border. He is absorbed in thought as he works through the chemical and physical details of a new battery technology that will allow the efficient long term storage of electrical energy. Given a white board, a super computer and a lab at MIT and he could solve our energy issues and save the planet. But Trump and ICE will stop him from entering the US and the world will end in 12 years. Clean renewable energy is why we need open borders and why we need to impeach Trump and then Pence.
To Rusty's point about taxes:
We have a windfarm in Naguabo PR that was severely damaged by Hurricane Maria (9/17). 13 1MW (nominal) windmills. Most of the damage was the fiberglass airfoil being blown off the blades.
The towers are still standing, all but one of the heads are still OK, the 5 mile transmission line to the connection point is still there, the substation and all the switchgear is still there. The land is still there. The permitting is still valid. The 18cent/kwh contract with the utility is still there.
Yet, 18 months later nothing has been done to repair them and rumor is that nothing ever will be done.
The tax benefits come from building them. Once built, there is no further economic benefit.
They won't even be torn down. They will be left as monstrous eyesores for 25 years until they topple of their own accord.
You can see this with all the dead windmills in Altamont Pass on Highway 80 in California.
Fernandistein said...
Morning brag/disclaimer: I worked on the control system for Solar One (10MW heliostat farm) ,
and saw a bird get vaporized, which I guess was memorable
Maybe THIS is the solution?
heliostat farms shining on the border, that new immigrants would need to walk through?
"Unless you can selectively increase gravity, there is no getting away from that. ..."
MIT mumble mumble breakthroughs mumble.
I think that one indication that the wacky, brain dead, GND is more Gaia worship driven socialism than science is that it includes elimination of nuclear power generation. If their real goal were to reduce fossil fuel usage, driven by their belief in the Anthropogenic Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change “Fake Science” hoax, they would be in favor of increasing nuclear power generation instead of eliminating it. Nuclear does a great job at base load production. Some surge capacity would normally be required, but the addition of solar and wind power to the grid requires a lot more surge capacity, and it is best produced by coal and natural gas, because those plants can be rapidly and easily spun up and down every day. Minimizing CO2 emissions would, therefore, require that the base load be supplied by nuclear, and coal and natural gas supply the rest, instead of using solar and wind, which ultimately require significantly more fossil fuel surge or backup generation of electricity than does nuclear.
Blogger iowan2 said...
Australia has been forced to invent a new term, "rotational load shedding" much more digestible term than the WWII term of "blackout"
Now that is worthy of Orwell. I'd not run across the phrase before but I do know that this is a problem in Australia.
What it means is that there is not enough "renewable" energy to meet demand.
Nor is there enough "rotational" Turbines etc, to meet demand.
Since they can't shed "renewable" energy they have to shut off people from rotational energy.
Or, as you say, blackouts.
And if it can't be made to work in Australia with it's vast amounts of desert and very small, 30mm, population how can it work anywhere?
"Madness" doesn't begin to describe it.
And WHY? For WHAT?
John Henry
Blogger Tommy Duncan said..."Some where in Mexico there is a Guatemalan refugee walking toward the US border. He is absorbed in thought as he works through the chemical and physical details of a new battery technology ..."
Blogger rhhardin said..."I'd suggest putting excess energy into earth rotation, and taking it out at night."
Lot of actual LOLs in this thread. Thanks, Althouse!
In the energy world there is no such thing as a free lunch. And you have to count all the costs in an entire life cycle. What do you have to do to get it; how much does it cost to operate; what environmental effects does it have; how are you going to dispose of it when it's no longer productive or useful. Back in the early 80's I was counsel for what was then the largest producer of photovoltaic panels in the world. Solar energy was cost effective at the time for uses off the grid; its true competition for any significant energy consumption was diesel powered generating sets. And if you needed more than a megawatt or so, you bought the gen set.
For transportation--and that includes cars, trains, trucks, ships and airplanes, liquid fossil fuels have unsurpassed energy density. If our host is truly a believer in wind energy, I suggest that a short hop commuter flight from Madison to O'Hare would be a white knuckle experience. Will the battery powered plane get off the ground? Will it stay in the air, all the way?
In retirement, I build and fly electric powered radio control model airplanes. I can tell you that, while things are getting better, current lithium polymer or lithium ion batteries have a definite limit on the number of times they can be recharged. Even the best of them is dead after 500 cycles or so--and most of them fail a lot earlier than that. And then there are the scenarios where, while being charged, they burst into flames. A fellow modeler had a $50,000 fire in his garage when a LiPo battery on charge burst into flames. I charge my batteries in a fireproof container--and I've had a couple of battery fires as well.
Laslo and John Henry are right--there is no such thing as a free lunch, and all the hope and unicorn flatulence in the world won't cure that.
“Some where in Mexico there is a Guatemalan refugee walking toward the US border”
Ok. But keep in mind that he is most likely an illiterate peasant with a 3rd grade education, so is unlikely to actually contribute to the science and engineering until he first learns English, or at least Spanish, and then spends better than a decade in schoo learning these subjects. My guess is that it would take probably a dozen years to a PhD (required to get funding for research) after gaining minimal English competency.
"Should I feel insulted? I think you just called me "ignorant or dishonest". I am neither and would appreciate an apology.
John Henry"
You won't get one. When Althouse steps in it, she moves on. Doubt she'll be back to this thread.
Where are HER-> 30,000 deleted e-mails?
The Deep State does not care.
Merely asking where HER-> deleted e-mails are located - is a crime.
"Dishonest or ignorant. Don't know which is worse."
If I may quote the great Bob Dylan, the answer my friend, is blowing in the wind.
The main, debilitating issue with all these energy sources — beyond their intermittent nature — is their excruciatingly low energy densities. This is true for solar, wind, and biofuels — and the latter to some extent even for conventional fuels such as gas, oil, and coal — resulting in huge volumes of them needed to support industrial civilization. In the case of solar, wind, and biofuels, however, these have the additional considerable disadvantage of being dispersed over (and thus needing to be collected from) a great swath of the landscape.
The solution — as the illimitable xkcd graphically points out — is nuclear power.
People, people, calm down. The answer is dilithium crystals with a bit of Illudium Q-36 for stabilization. That technology is known to every child.
"Here is a picture of a 150MW gas turbine:
https://techpoint.africa/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/DKQa8LuWkAA87JX.jpg
The stairs on the front give an idea of scale. The whole thing will ship on 2-3 trucks. The whole thing, erected, with ancillary stuff, might occupy an acre. Perhaps less."
Scale is a consideration on which the wind power dream completely collapses. Some intrepid reporter should ask AOC if she knows how much land is required to power the US off wind. It'll never happen, of course.
John Henry said ...And WHY? For WHAT?
indeed! IF global warming/climate change/climate instability/etc WAS the problem these 'science' guys are saying it is; the costs and dangers of nuclear power would be NOTHING in comparison. What's a Chernobyl or two compared to THE WORLD ENDING IN TWELVE YEARS!!!
Even if deaths from nuclear were in the Tens of Millions, that would be a small price to pay compared to Deaths in the BILLIONS!
Right?
Right?
IF CO2 is the urgent danger they say, wouldn't we be willing to except the risk, of Even Nuclear Power? {especially since the risks of nuclear power are really pretty low.}
Of, course, on the other hand; i read this old stoner once saying that you could get electricity out of Wind Turbines even when the wind wasn't blowing, so...
Arc reactor duh, I thought everyone knew that.
Althouse @ 7:22,
Actually, absent sufficient storage (or already-rotating mass as Jalanl mentions above), you really do pretty much just have a sophisticated direct connection between the windmill in you.
And your 7:23? Please stop digging, or I'll be tempted to mansplain this to you!
Laslo some current information on the molten salt approach from MIT-The MIT team has discovered a different way of separating the electrodes, using a regular steel mesh coated with titanium nitride. Where the ceramic layer sorts molecules according to their physical size, using the size of holes in the porous ceramic material, the steel mesh uses its electrical properties instead to achieve the same result. And it's much more durable.
“Ok. But keep in mind that he is most likely an illiterate peasant with a 3rd grade education, so is unlikely to actually contribute to the science and engineering until he first learns English, or at least Spanish, and then spends better than a decade in school learning these subjects. My guess is that it would take probably a dozen years to a PhD (required to get funding for research) after gaining minimal English competency.”
BTW - this is part of the absurdity of our current de facto immigration policy. Many of the illegal immigrants coming across our borders don’t have the education to run a cash register at McDonalds, nor the language to take orders there. So, the clean houses and hang out at Home Depot looking for work, which being under the table, doesn’t contribute nearly enough in taxes to support their cost to our society. Meanwhile, citizenship or even permanent residency, is made extremely difficult for H1B visa holders, many of whom already have advanced STEM degrees. Making it nearly impossible to enforce immigration laws and preventing border security essentially removes our ability to select the best and brightest potential immigrants in favor of those who stand to make the most relative advantage out of immigrating here which are the illiterate peasants we are seeing so many of.
"MIT.... breakthroughs..."
You can read about "breakthroughs every frikkin' day. And in an astounding array of topics:
Batteries, capacitors, transmission, fuel from algae, cancer cures, ending male pattern baldness.
Breakthroughs are common as dirt. Actual, practical, commercial applications, not so much.
I believe Althouse’s posts reflect a larger problem in trying to discuss green energy, or for that matter, energy production in general, with non-specialists. As a chemical engineer, I don’t know how many times I have tried to explain the very issues that Laslo brings up, and hit a wall of misunderstanding. There is no commercially availablilable way to store large amounts of energy, in the megawatt range. Sure, there are home systems that cost an arm and a leg, but nothing for the average person, much less what one would need for industry or transportation.
Laslo is right, and Ann is wrong. Sorry to have to say that as I enjoy reading this blog very much!
Blogger Original Mike said...
Some intrepid reporter should ask AOC if she knows how much land is required to power the US off wind. It'll never happen, of course.
Puerto Rico govt wants to power PR with solar. They estimate that this will require 10,000 MW (nominal) of solar panels to meet the average 3,000 load. Plus a shitload of batteries.
I actually did the math and calculated how much land it will take. I got 80 square miles.
Some will be on rooftops and parking lots but most will displace greenery. What is the effect of that on the environment?
I overlaid 80 sq miles on a map of PR here. Calculations are there too:
http://darkislandpr.blogspot.com/2018/01/comments-on-pr-microgrid-regulations.html
John Henry
“indeed! IF global warming/climate change/climate instability/etc WAS the problem these 'science' guys are saying it is; the costs and dangers of nuclear power would be NOTHING in comparison. What's a Chernobyl or two compared to THE WORLD ENDING IN TWELVE YEARS!!!
Even if deaths from nuclear were in the Tens of Millions, that would be a small price to pay compared to Deaths in the BILLIONS!
Right?”
The problem there is that nuclear energy technology has come quite always from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island (and Chernobyl was much worse specifically because it was built and run by a communist/socialist state). One of the big differences is that the newer designs are designed to fail safely. With the older technologies, you have to actively intervene to prevent runaway nuclear reactions. The newer technologies reverse that, and require active measures to keep the reactors running. Stop them, and the nuclear reactors automatically stop. The major nuclear reactor accidents we have seen have essentially involved the emergency measures for stopping them fast enough. Using modern fair safe technology, this wouldn’t matter - the instant that you quit keeping the running they would automatically start shutting down.
"Some will be on rooftops and parking lots but most will displace greenery. What is the effect of that on the environment?"
One of the great things about the development of fossil fuel power generation is it allowed us to stop cutting down the forests. The GNDers would take us back to the era of massive environmental degradation.
The irony; it burns.
The wind turbine removes energy from the climate and converts it to electricity, much of which is converted to heat. Since the climate is finite, how much wind energy can we remove from it without ill effect? the Law of Conservation of Energy suggests that there's no Free Lunch.
Not sure what Ann's point is in her qualifications about wind power. The idea that it works even when the wind does not blow is dubious. Here is something that happened that Judith Curry called attention to in her written testimony in early February for recent congressional hearings.
" Last week, central Minnesota experienced a natural gas ‘brownout,’ as Xcel Energy advised customers to turn thermostats down to 60 degrees and avoid using hot water.27 Why? Because the wind wasn’t blowing during an exceptionally cold period. Utilities pair natural gas plants with wind farms, where the gas plants can be ramped up and down quickly when the wind isn’t blowing. With bitter cold temperatures and no wind, there wasn’t enough natural gas."
I live in California. My TV works when the wind stops blowing. Even at night. So Ann is right. So there!
"I'd suggest putting excess energy into earth rotation, and taking it out at night."
Lot of actual LOLs in this thread.
He wasn't kidding about the earth's rotation.
World energy use is about 5*10^20 joules/year, and the earth's rotational energy is about 2*10^29 joules, so that's enough energy to last for 400 million years, and by then I'd bet batteries will be a lot better.
Now, you're probably thinking, "good luck accessing that rotational energy so you can convert it to something useful!", but simple coils on the moon would serve as generators as they pass thru the earth's magnetic field.
“I live in California. My TV works when the wind stops blowing. Even at night. So Ann is right. So there!”
Except that your TV is a good part working on electricity shipped in from coal and natural gas plants in AZ and NV.
Excellent discussion - one of the best comment threads.
On finfmills they also kill a lot of birds.
Bsttery technology has not advanced a lot of the last 150 years, lead acid batteries is a pretty old technology (invented 1859). Especially when you compare what has happened with advances in computers (Babbage to now).
Converting the mass of one environmentalist to energy by the Scottish Method (E=McTwo) would yield about 5*10^18 joules, so you'd only need to "transition" about 100 of them per year to supply all the world's energy needs.
Can I haz Federal Grant now?
Laslo, there are no answers to your questions, the laws of physics do not allow it. Now, if only AOC can sprinkle pixie dust on the windmills, that might work. But, we cannot burn unicorn farts because that is not green. Case closed.
simple coils on the moon would serve as generators
Buy your extension cords NOW, while you still can.
"There is no commercially availablilable way to store large amounts of energy, in the megawatt range. Sure, there are home systems that cost an arm and a leg, but nothing for the average person, much less what one would need for industry or transportation."
I keep watching this technology because I want a battery to power our furnace through an extend electricity outage (think ice storms).
"roesch/voltaire said...
Laslo some current information on the molten salt approach from MIT-The MIT team has discovered a different way of separating the electrodes, using a regular steel mesh coated with titanium nitride. Where the ceramic layer sorts molecules according to their physical size, using the size of holes in the porous ceramic material, the steel mesh uses its electrical properties instead to achieve the same result. And it's much more durable."
Yeah, I read that MIT-sponsored release.
Nice cut-n-paste, but cut-n-paste me the news when it's viable.
I am Laslo.
"But, we cannot burn unicorn farts because that is not green."
I'm imagining a closed system. Millions of unicorns with tubes up their asses. Feed the unicorns biofuel.
And Ca is oayning higher electric rates than other states.
The electric generation / grid is a royal mess in Ca, and going to get worse with the renewable mandates.
“Now, you're probably thinking, "good luck accessing that rotational energy so you can convert it to something useful!", but simple coils on the moon would serve as generators as they pass thru the earth's magnetic field.”
But you the have the transmission problem. Probably the est place to throw up solar panels is in space. Probably but not necessarily I geostationary orbit. For our purposes the supply is effectively infinite. The problem is how do we get it from there to here (getting it from the moon would be much worse). Can’t just run a wire from the solar panels down to our national grids (we may sometime surmount that problem, but not likely in the near future). Microwaves would fry anything in it’s way, including a lot of birds but that may be cleaner than the deaths they face today with industrial grade wind turbines. Similar with using lasers, though the birds might not just burst into flames. Or maybe lasers would cause more of that while microwaves would just cook the birds quickly. Of course, that might be an advantage over cutting them in half with windmills, because cooking typically makes food last longer. Still, need some sort of collection facility so that the dead birds can be repurposed, and used for food for some species, even if we are too squeamish ourselves.
And I'm Watchin' and I'm waitin'
Hopin' for the best
Even think I'll go to prayin'
Every time I hear 'em sayin' that there's
No way to delay
Those breakthroughs comin' every day
No way to delay
Those breakthroughs comin' every day
A middle-aged neighbor in a swimming pool tells Benjamin Braddock "one word:Thorium".
Prof. Althouse,
Thanks for pointing out the availability of the Google. Here's a pretty good search result on the non-viability of renewable energy.
https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/
“Except that your TV is a good part working on electricity shipped in from coal and natural gas plants in AZ and NV.”
I forgot to thank you for your help on my electricity bills here in AZ. Our utilities here make money on both sides of the deal. They pay less than market rates for your excess electricity, when wind and solar are generating a lot of power then make a profit on the other side, selling the surge capacity back to you, when they aren’t generating enough power, through our coal and gas plants.
"1. When the wind isn't blowing how does one get electricity?"
Wind is an extremely inefficient way to get electricity.
Make up electricity comes from natural gas, nuclear,coal, and hydro.In Illinoise we have gas turbine-basically a 747 jet engine-"peaker plants". Usually reserved for our swealtering summers.
In some cases the windmills have to use a motor to keep the blades turning so as not to damage internals. Sort of defeating their stated purpose. The real purpose is to rake in huge subsidies. Producing electricity is what sells it to the rubes.
Excellent discussion - one of the best comment threads.
Agreed.
I appreciate the commenters on this thread.
Bruce Hayden said...
The problem there is that nuclear energy technology has come quite always from Chernobyl
That's not a problem Bruce, that just makes nuclear energy EVEN better (which is totally true), what i was saying was that nuclear energy could be EVEN WORSE than their worst nightmares, and it would Still be Better than what (they 'say') will happen do to CO2.
If CO2 was the problem that they say it is; then they'd be All pro nuke. The fact that they Aren't pro nuke, is Proof that CO2 isn't a real problem; because Nuclear power isn't just A solution, it's the Only solution.
10:10 Jeffrey Pace - interesting article
Here's a direct link. Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet
Despite what you’ve heard, there is no “battery revolution” on the way, for well-understood technical and economic reasons.
As for house cats, they don’t kill big, rare, threatened birds. What house cats kill are small, common birds, like sparrows, robins and jays. What kills big, threatened, and endangered birds—birds that could go extinct—like hawks, eagles, owls, and condors, are wind turbines.
In fact, wind turbines are the most serious new threat to important bird species to emerge in decades. The rapidly spinning turbines act like an apex predator which big birds never evolved to deal with.
Making fun of opponent's ideas is a great way to torpedo them. Trump, the wheeler-dealer, deals those wheels with speed and high-rotation.
But you the have the transmission problem.
I was figuring on some kind of travel breakthrough which results in everyone living on the moon.
I actually did the math and calculated how much land it will take. I got 80 square miles.
You know what's sinister? Try looking up "sunlight watts per square mile" or "per square foot" and it'll always return it in socialist units: square meters. That's what's sinister.
Oh, HELL! Let's get down to essentials!!
What does the Girl with a Ponytail on a Treadmill think about this issue?
Inquiring minds want to know!
"What does the Girl with a Ponytail on a Treadmill think about this issue?"
If only we could harness the power of Swish Swish.
I am Laslo.
BTW, don't expect hydro power to last. Here in Washington, Home of new pres. candidate Jay Inslee (GND enthusiast), the legislature has been promoting the idea of breaching several Columbia River dams to promote Salmon habitat. We get approximately 65% of our energy in the Pacific Northwest from hydro. Other renewables (wind, solar, etc.) produce about 3%. Think they care that they can't replace hydro with anything not fossil fuel or nuclear? Of course not. The image is all that matters, the science will come after.
Great thread. Thanks guys. Not you, Ann.
more from Jeffrey's link
Solar farms have similarly large ecological impacts. Building a solar farm is a lot like building any other kind of farm. You have to clear the whole area of wildlife.
In order to build one of the biggest solar farms in California the developers hired biologists to pull threatened desert tortoises from their burrows, put them on the back of pickup trucks, transport them, and cage them in pens where many ended up dying.
Really? Dead turtles for the greater universal good.
OMG. Men mansplaining the real world in empirical terms. Don't y'all know how counterproductive that is? Laws of physics! Pff. Gimme substantive due process any day.
Back to the fun stuff. Like, the poll. Dirtier is running operatives at a campaign, fabricating a dossier with Russian collusion, then using sarcastic statements to justify deep-state persecution.
And hardin: "Trump can't say it because he has to appeal to soap opera women too" And to Bob Dylan women. He has a chance, but as this thread shows, green-energy thick-headedness poses a problem even with nice women who claim to want a "serious" candidate but simply do not know what it means to be serious about energy.
Laslo, tsk tsk. After all the leeway Althouse gave you with posting your oftentimes obscene little stories, this is how you repay her?
Ungrateful. You people here sure are snowflakes, so easily injured.
The electricity generated by wind turbines stops flowing when the wind blows outside an operational range. This down time is supplemented with alternatives sources, including energy batteries and other buffers, which have issues separable from the original conversion technologies.
Higher prices for energy - and MORE carbon.
Universal stupidity
"Consider California. Between 2011–17 the cost of solar panels declined about 75 percent, and yet our electricity prices rose five times more than they did in the rest of the U.S. It’s the same story in Germany, the world leader in solar and wind energy. Its electricity prices increased 50 percent between 2006–17, as it scaled up renewables.
I used to think that dealing with climate change was going to be expensive. But I could no longer believe this after looking at Germany and France.
Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.
Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.
Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too.
Laslo Spatula said... If only we could harness the power of Swish Swish.
That's NOTHING!
Imagine (Just IMAGINE!) if we could harness a portion of the energy Ponytail girl arouses in others!
I just heard Mara Eliason (sp?) on NPR reporting on CPAC and claiming that Trump was "in a bad mood" during a Castro-length rant. Looks to me like Trump was having the time of his life, as was the audience. I think seeing that put Eliason in a bad mood, and - per usual with these people - the rest is just projection.
How much nuclear generation capacity could have been implemented with the money spent on windmills, solar panels and other green energy projects?
What impact would that nuclear capacity have had on CO2 emissions?
If the world is ending in 12 years if we do nothing, why aren't we building all the nuclear power capacity we can as fast as we can? Our existence depends on it!
Since ending CO2 emissions in the US would have negligible overall impact on global warming, why aren't we at war with the biggest polluters? Otherwise the world ends in 12 years!
Clearly, only socialism can save us. Collectivize the farms and starve 200 million Americans to death. That will save us.
So wind-generated electricity stops when the wind stops? Poppycock! That's like saying that coal-generated electricity stops when the coal is no longer burned. Or that the nuclear-generated electricity stops when the atoms stop splitting. Stupid anti-science Trump!
'Russia, please, if you can, get us Hillary Clinton's emails!
Maybe the dingo ate your baby. That said, more than nine trimesters later, Water Closet is still soiling the political and social environment. And, who was Deep Plumber? Was it Rich?
And - Althouse is in the wind...
"Laslo, tsk tsk. After all the leeway Althouse gave you with posting your oftentimes obscene little stories, this is how you repay her?"
I appreciate the "tsk tsk".
People don't 'tsk tsk' enough.
My dear departed grandmother could gently 'tsk tsk' with just a look of her eyes, no actual 'tsk' sound needed.
But I actually think I'm being a Feminist here: I am not disagreeing with her because she's a woman, I am disagreeing with her as a capable, intelligent adult who might not have been in those science classes that had all of those men in them.
I am Laslo.
Trump jokes about HIllary's deleted e-mails - and the nexus of hack D-party-Journo-hack CNN-Schiffty-D (who by the way should be told to go pound sand on daily basis) spring into collective totalitarian cult action to decry a joke and call it a crime. The left ARE the mob.
Crickets on Hillary's deleted e-mails.
Dirtier than it's ever been played.
LBJ played dirtier. Chuck will be along in a couple minutes to proclaim that even Big Mike agrees that Trump is a liar.
Ungrateful. You people here sure are snowflakes, so easily injured.
"Dishonest or ignorant. Don't know which is worse."
Worse is being both dishonest and ignorant.
Laszlo, John Henry:
Let it go. Althouse occasionally flies off the handle about strange things no one sees coming, and really over-reacts when she says something not entirely defensibe and commenters bring it up (regardless of how benign or friendly it is brought up). She probably does owe an apology for calling people ignorant or dishonest -- it was not a big deal until ALthouse made it a big deal. Wind power can be stored for an hour or so under the right circumstances . . . okay.
Original Mike is right that an apology will never come. It is not common for her to throw around insults on matters here when commenters have a valid point but it does happen. I have yet to see her take responsibility for silly name calling. Maybe it's happened but I have not seen it.
I am coming around to the view this is just Althouse being a chick and holding people accountable to Secret Option # 3. It happens, just not often enough to get worked up.
“Worse is being both dishonest and ignorant.”
Why Trump is reviled.
@rsbasail - Nice to know there is another ChE on this blog.
Science is dishonest and ignorant.
And probably sexist.
California judge will declare batteries violate the Equal Protection clause because women want them to work.
Hawaii judge will issue a nationwide injunction against math.
But if you're dependent solely on wind and solar, you are at the mercy of the changing weather, because they can't provide a consistent supply of power when you need it. And battery technology is not good enough now to smooth out the bumps.
So it's a "fake but true" joke, which is what the Left relies on each time there's a hate crime that turns out to be a hoax, right?
“But I actually think I'm being a Feminist here: I am not disagreeing with her because she's a woman, I am disagreeing with her as a capable, intelligent adult who might not have been in those science classes that had all of those men in them.”
I see it as insulting her intelligence as IF she cannot understand the science. You think she didn’t do any research at all? She gave links that proved what she asserted. No? Did her link not back up her claim? Here is her claim.
“I'm not hopeful about wind power, but those who oppose it by pretending it only works when the wind blows are completely dishonest. But I'm willing to give Trump credit, because I don't think he actually believes what is false. I think he's doing humor.”
Did she go into great detail and make claims about how much energy the batteries can hold? You folks here are all to quick jump like a pack of hyenas onto on anyone with the temerity to veer from the accepted view. Even if it’s the blog owner herself.
I didn't vote for Trump. But I have said for years I want a president like the politician Warren Beatty played in "Bulworth". Posts like this remind me that I pretty much got my wish.
"I am coming around to the view this is just Althouse being a chick and holding people accountable to Secret Option # 3. It happens, just not often enough to get worked up."
I've been called 'deplorable' by Hillary; I can handle being called 'ignorant or dishonest' by Althouse.
I also once had a woman call me an "utter asshole", but she sucked my cock later that night, so you just take it as it comes.
I am Laslo.
"She gave links that proved what she asserted. No?"
No.
There's a 15w solar panel in the yard whose only function is to keep a 12v battery in the basement charged (powers my ham radio in contests).
At the moment, noon, the battery is at 12.58v and the solar panel is at 14.62v. But the charging is too small to measure owing to clouds. The MPPT system does the best it can. It must be charging a little because otherwise the solar panel would show 20v or so. The voltage falls as soon as you draw current - how much current do you draw to get the most charging. That's what the MPPT system does.
Anyway it's unmeasureable today.
On a clear day it generates about 6w of charging.
"She gave links that proved what she asserted. No? Did her link not back up her claim? Here is her claim."
Actually, the link did NOT prove her claim.
Her claim was ""Obviously, it's wrong to say that energy from a wind turbine flows into your house only while the wind is blowing..."
The link was a green engineering company talking about things that don't work now, or don't exist yet.
Plenty has been written above about why her claim is inaccurate.
You can choose to ignore it, or disbelieve it. What you can't do is prove her statement with current available technology at the necessary scale. Again: California, Germany, Australia, etc etc.
However, the more people learned about such things the better they would be capable of making decisions on how to best invest in the future.
Which would be nice.
I am Laslo.
Ah yes, Ann tilting at Windmills!
DickinB, France also gets a lot of energy from hydro. They have lots of little dams with locks for river traffic. Generates electricity for them.
Offshore turbines could be replaced by sailboats turning a horizontal wheel, for aesthetics. Huge market for sailboat captains.
Ben Franklin proposed turnstiles at house entrances that pumped water into a tub on the roof. We could put them at the border.
"Huge market for sailboat captains."
Sailboat captains?
Think bigger, my friend: monkeys with sailor hats.
And each sailboat will have a picture of a kitten on the side.
I'd take a train across the ocean to see that.
I am Laslo.
The best would be Leyden jars powered by an array of dunking bird toys.
I have a stirling engine powered by hot coffee but it's not hooked up to anything.
OK, I've gone back and read the posts (before sticking my oar in above), and boy, this sounds like one of Stephen Den Beste's posts back in the early 2000s.
Being an engineer, SDB raised pretty much all the issues above. The goalposts have moved a little with improved solar panels and batteries, but the answer on the far side of the equals sign remains the same: green energy doesn't work well.
He wrote several columns on the subject, responding to people who simply cannot or would not look at the math.
This isn't policy arguments we're talking about here: It's reality, and it doesn't care for your feelings.
If you can find a vending machine, stirling engines might be the way to go.
Well since I have now been called out twice by name for personal attacks on a comments page where I had not written a single thing — you paying attention here, Meade? — I suppose the field is cleared for me to say the following:
This blog post was about Trump’s brand of humor and how he uses it. Not the technical merits of electrical power storage. As always, any departure by Althouse from basic Cult of Trump orthodoxy will earn her some of her own share of personal attacks from the Althouse commentariat.
I understand Althouse’s blog post, such as it is, and I don’t much disagree with it. Trump was rolling, with his own humor and his own base. CPAC systematically excludes anyone who is not a Trump supporter. This should not be viewed as anything like a normal comedy performance in front of an open crowd. Imagine Barack Obama in front of a South Side church audience. Imagine Ocasio-Cortez in front of a MoveOn crowd in Brooklyn. Imagine Gavin Newsome or Nancy Pelosi in Malibu or San Francisco. They could kill it with their own respective audiences, and yet it would be regarded as unwatchable bullshit in TrumpWorld. “Bullshit” now being a Presidential term of art.
So I am very sorry,Althouse; I will do you no favors with your devoted pro-Trump readership by saying that you have managed to capture in words some essential truths about Trump’s peculiar brand and usage of humor. My praising you will earn you more condemnation from a crowd where even the humor is fueled by anger and rage.
No need to break hot coffee down into hydrogen and oxygen, a big green energy saving right there.
If you want to talk about whether the storage methods are good, fine, but it doesn't change what's wrong with Trump's remark (if taken seriously), which is that there isn't even an idea of storage...
[...]
I'm not hopeful about wind power, but those who oppose it by pretending it only works when the wind blows are completely dishonest.
Oh give it up, Althouse. This is childish. Childish casuistry is not a good look.
Heat pumps are infinitely efficient for the first little bit of heating. More use should be made of that.
"My praising you will earn you more condemnation from a crowd where even the humor is fueled by anger and rage."
Don't you have to wear a toga when you say something like that?
I am Laslo.
Chuck - did you read Ann's entire post at the top? In part it is about "the green new deal" and the topic of energy.
The north wind doth blow,
And we shall have snow,
And what will poor Robin do then?
Poor thing.
He’ll sit in a barn,
And keep himself warm,
And hide his head under his wing,
Poor thing.
Chuck said..."My praising you will earn you more condemnation from a crowd where even the humor is fueled by anger and rage."
Drama queen. The only one here who might (and I emphasize might) actually be miffed at Althouse is John Henry. And if I'm wrong, those people are free to speak up and say so.
Anger and rage is what powers a washing machine.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा