Ulenspiegel wrote:ROCKMAN wrote:"From a relative point or differential costs we can see that are not impossible and sometimes are even better than today numbers." Which obviously explains why the world has abandoned hydrocarbons and runs primarily on alternative energy sources.
Might want to rethink some of those assumption. Just saying: even while one can try to defend those assumptions one still has to justify them to the fact the overwhelming amount of energy consumed on the planet is from fossil fuels. If those assumptions have failed for many decades and continue to appear invalid today (especially in light of decreased oil prices, low coal prices and an expanding global market for NG) when will they become impactful factors?
Rockman,
the replacement of fossil fuel capacity for the generation of electricity, where BTW oil and therfore oilprice is no factor, is already so fast that large companies with too high share of FF are in trouble. You only have to look at the big utilities in Europe, some are real zombies.
To use as reference point a year decades ago is a useless exercise, FF capacity competes with RE at the price level of 2015, and there is no hope that the situation will improve for FF, quite contrary.
Other point is of course, that external costs are not payed for with a price of 70 USD/barrel, so the current advantage of FFs is to a certain extend a book-keeping trick, not a fair assessment of macro economic costs which have to be paid in the long run.
For me the only interesting question is whether the rate of change is sufficient, IMHO one can not longer dispute the fact that it is happening.
KaiserJeep wrote:That takes the low score for me as the stupidest thing I ever heard anybody say. Not only have electronic devices transformed the world, they have had more impact than virtually anything else mankind has done, with the possible exceptions of Agriculture and powering a technological civilization with FF's.
That both of those larger inventions of mankind are also the prime reasons that the human race has destroyed the ecosystem, is beside the point.
Now note that you were able to make that incredibly stupid comment because of the efforts of me and many other EE's. In the not so recent past, you would have labored mightily to write or type a letter to a newspaper, and the editor would have shaken his head in wonder as he wadded up and then consigned your ignorant comment to the circular file.
I encourage you to keep going, under every username on every forum you frequent. The scale of intelligence must have a point of origin, after all.
There were a couple of things I want to point out to you as well. California was and is a good place to find a good paying job, and Silicon Valley is the best part of the state. I earned a good (not even unusual) white collar income that eventually reached the low six figures the last few years of my career, and my small house is worth 8X what I paid for it in 1986. How do those figures compare to wherever you call home?
That many people here in California are batsh!t crazy I will not dispute. That is why I am moving away after retiring. I mostly like the place - there are no equals to the Sierra Nevada Mountains when it comes to camping - but this place has two huge infestations of Democrats in the SF Bay Area and the LA Basin, and those folks are simply incapable of rational thoughts, or of keeping their thieving hands off of other people's money.
StarvingLion wrote: Considering the "educated" phd dummies in Germany desperately want to be just-like-California, it will be ironic and highly amusing. The unbelievable growth Eulenspiegel is banking on will be instantly crushed, another speculative disaster much like ThyssenKrupps Brazillian Adventure Gone Bad.
All the useless paper engineers with their useless paper nuclear reactor designs (useless cad models and useless software code) will jump up and down with excitement for 20 minutes only to be completely ignored as the procurement officers that is California outsource all electrical generation to China for the mere price of sovereignty.
This is what defines progress since the arrival of the chips: 10x more people, 1/10th the living space, and 10x more corruption.
KaiserJeep wrote:As does California, so do the other 49 states - just a few years later.
You will get more respect around here if you lay off the sarcasm and concentrate more on the grammar. Your source of subject should ideally bear some resemblance to the thread topic.
You forgot to mention Germany's new construction of coal plants to replace the nukes - while talking about renewables.
I'm ready to write off Europe anyways. After lecturing the USA for years on race relations, they let hundreds of black refugees perish in the Mediterranean. They have conclusively shown themselves to be rac!st pr!cks.
Was stört es die Eiche, wenn sich die Wildsau an ihr reibt.
To its credit, Vattenfall thought it was building not only a coal plant that was needed, but also one that is highly efficient. The average coal plant in Germany has an efficiency below 40 percent, whereas Moorburg easily reaches 45 percent. But the original plan was to recover so much waste heat with a connection to a district heat network serving the city of Hamburg that overall efficiency might have exceeded 60 percent. Citizens of Hamburg, who opposed the plant altogether, rejected the connection of their district heat network to the new coal plant in the hopes that the plant would be stopped altogether.
In the end, we end up with the worst of all possible worlds: a coal plant that is a quarter less efficient than it could have been and unlikely to produce enough electricity to pay for itself anyway. The upside is that Hamburg now has a gigantic coal plant that is not only relatively efficient, but also ramps up and down quite well for a coal plant. And it will be on hand to restart the grid after a blackout – if Germany ever gets one.
AdamB wrote:It is the very real start of a movement that recognizes that powering the world with 100% renewables is a myth – and that chasing a myth will not get us to our global goal of meeting the world’s increasing energy needs while reducing carbon emissions and successfully combating climate change.
In 2017, The Myth of Powering the World with 100% Renewables Has Started to Crack
dohboi wrote:“Fossil-free steel” plant planned for Sweden [depending, of course, on where the hydrogen itself comes from! ]
Process would use iron ore pellets; and hydrogen rather than coke or coal. Emissions would be water instead of CO2.
SSAB, LKAB AND VATTENFALL TO BUILD A GLOBALLY-UNIQUE PILOT PLANT FOR FOSSIL-FREE STEEL
https://corporate.vattenfall.com/press- ... ree-steel/
Animation available here: https://twitter.com/unfccc/status/960171351410581505
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
ROCKMAN wrote:dohboi - "Process would use iron ore pellets". And what is the fossil fuel free source of those iron pellets?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests