Eye-opening factoid:the amount of solar and wind capacity that was added worldwide last year, he said.
IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol told The Associated Press in an interview that there is a long line of renewable projects waiting for the green light to connect to the grid. The stalled projects could generate 1,500 gigawatts of power, or five times
https://apnews.com/article/renewable-energy-climate-change-electrical-grids-82d1fedd21e58d36e27c6c2396498c0c
Eye-opening factoid:the amount of solar and wind capacity that was added worldwide last year, he said.
IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol told The Associated Press in an interview that there is a long line of renewable projects waiting for the green light to connect to the grid. The stalled projects could generate 1,500 gigawatts of power, or five times
https://apnews.com/article/renewable-energy-climate-change-electrical-grids-82d1fedd21e58d36e27c6c2396498c0c
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore -
is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy
copper futures.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore -
is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy
copper futures.
Huh?
Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines' >are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might use
liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe. Or, >just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge.
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore -
is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy
copper futures.
Huh?
Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines' >are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might use
liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe. Or, >just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge.
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore -
is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy
copper futures.
Huh?
Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines' >are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might use
liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe. Or, >just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge.
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/18/iea-grid-lack-of-ambition-endangering-the-green-energy-revolution/
"Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding
or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes
to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while
annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs
to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 6:38:52?PM UTC-4, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/18/iea-grid-lack-of-ambition-endangering-the-green-energy-revolution/
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore -
is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy
copper futures.
Huh?
Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines' >> >are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might use
liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe. Or,
just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge.
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.
"Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding
or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount
equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed
country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes
to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while
annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs
to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
That's worldwide, not just the U.S. Looks like they're going to have to settle for less.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore -
is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy
copper futures.
Huh?
Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines' >are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might useNantucket.
liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe. Or, >just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge. I meant offshore windmills that deliver power to onshore loads. That's popular lately, as long as the windmills aren't visible from
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.I thought that the point of an all-electric all-renewable world was to
have wind and solar power the grid.
Even a dinky power line needs right-of-way, construction access and
crews, poles, insulators, wires, maintenance. If it only transmits a megawatt, or less, some of the time, the costs will make the windmill
or solar panel unattractive.
So the USA will have to be covered with a lot of miles of fairly fine
mesh of transmission lines. The low duty cycle uses copper
inefficiently.
Goofy. It probably won't happen.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore - is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy copper futures.
Huh? Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines' are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might use liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe.
Or, just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge.
I meant offshore windmills that deliver power to onshore loads. That's popular lately, as long as the windmills aren't visible from Nantucket.
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.
I thought that the point of an all-electric all-renewable world was to have wind and solar power the grid.
Even a dinky power line needs right-of-way, construction access and crews, poles, insulators, wires, maintenance. If it only transmits a megawatt, or less, some of the time, the costs will make the windmill or solar panel unattractive.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 6:38:52 PM UTC-4, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore - >> is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy
copper futures.
Huh?
Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines'
are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might use >liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe. Or, >just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge.
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/18/iea-grid-lack-of-ambition-endangering-the-green-energy-revolution/
"Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding
or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes
to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while
annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs
to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
That's worldwide, not just the U.S. Looks like they're going to have to settle for less.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore -
is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy
copper futures.
Huh?
Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines' >are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might use
liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe. Or, >just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge.
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/18/iea-grid-lack-of-ambition-endangering-the-green-energy-revolution/
"Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding
or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes
to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while
annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs
to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 16:35:22 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 6:38:52?PM UTC-4, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
That's worldwide, not just the U.S. Looks like they're going to have to settle for less.
The power of an NG or coal or nuke power plant is gigawatts in a fairly small footprint, and a pretty big solar site or windmill is megawatts. And the power plant uses its transmission lines 24/7.
So the USA will have to be covered with a lot of miles of fairly fine mesh of transmission lines.
The low duty cycle uses copper inefficiently.
Goofy. It probably won't happen.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore -
is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy
copper futures.
Huh?
Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines' >are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might use
liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe. Or, >just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge.
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:35:27 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 6:38:52 PM UTC-4, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore -
is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy >> copper futures.
Huh?
Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines'
are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might use >liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe. Or, >just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge.
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/18/iea-grid-lack-of-ambition-endangering-the-green-energy-revolution/
"Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding
or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes
to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while
annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
That's worldwide, not just the U.S. Looks like they're going to have to settle for less.Not to anybody with half a brain.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:38:52 AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore - >> is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy
copper futures.
Huh?
Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines'
are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might use >liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe. Or, >just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge.
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/18/iea-grid-lack-of-ambition-endangering-the-green-energy-revolution/
society , Getting rid of a few Republican politicans - the really dumb ones who like Donald Trump - might help."Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require addingThe US power grid grew at a steady 5% per year from the 1950's to about 2000, when the US started off-shoring manufacturing and generating capacity stagnated for some twenty years. It can start growing again at 5% per year without any drastic change in
or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes
to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while
annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs
to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
[...]
In the future we might even have HVDC/MVDC/LVDC(/ELVDC) networks for
DC distribution and LVDC/LVAC conversion at each electric motor.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore -
is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy
copper futures.
Huh?
Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines' >are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might use
liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe. Or, >just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge.
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.For offshore wind plants, use HVDC to carry the power to the shore in aluminum underwater cables.
If the power is in HVDC format use underground cables also on shore.
There will be much less right-of-way issues with underground cables
than with HV AC poles. Do the DC to AC conversion closer to the
consumption.
In the future we might even have HVDC/MVDC/LVDC(/ELVDC) networks for
DC distribution and LVDC/LVAC conversion at each electric motor.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore -
is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy
copper futures.
Huh?
Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines' >>are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might use
liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe. Or, >>just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge. >>
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.
For offshore wind plants, use HVDC to carry the power to the shore in >aluminum underwater cables.
If the power is in HVDC format use underground cables also on shore.
There will be much less right-of-way issues with underground cables
than with HV AC poles. Do the DC to AC conversion closer to the
consumption.
In the future we might even have HVDC/MVDC/LVDC(/ELVDC) networks for
DC distribution and LVDC/LVAC conversion at each electric motor.
On 10/19/23 13:58, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
[...]
In the future we might even have HVDC/MVDC/LVDC(/ELVDC) networks for
DC distribution and LVDC/LVAC conversion at each electric motor.
Edison avenged at last!
Jeroen Belleman
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:54:14 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/19/23 13:58, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
[...]
In the future we might even have HVDC/MVDC/LVDC(/ELVDC) networks for
DC distribution and LVDC/LVAC conversion at each electric motor.
Edison avenged at last!
Jeroen Belleman
Think of all the copper we can scavenge from all those transformers we
don't need anymore.
What voltage should an outlet in the kitchen be? 20 KVDC?
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 7:58:46?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
For offshore wind plants, use HVDC to carry the power to the shore in
aluminum underwater cables.
If the power is in HVDC format use underground cables also on shore.
There will be much less right-of-way issues with underground cables
than with HV AC poles. Do the DC to AC conversion closer to the
consumption.
In the future we might even have HVDC/MVDC/LVDC(/ELVDC) networks for
DC distribution and LVDC/LVAC conversion at each electric motor.
Undergrounding has major right of way issues, far more than overhead,
because it's MUCH more expensive,
requiring that it take the most direct route. In U.S., 1M$/mi in built up areas may be an underestimate.
The industry is pushing UHVDC, U as in ultra, to double the capacity of existing right of ways. But is it has been implemented in very few places. China is breaking ground on the technology.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:54:14 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/19/23 13:58, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
[...]
In the future we might even have HVDC/MVDC/LVDC(/ELVDC) networks for
DC distribution and LVDC/LVAC conversion at each electric motor.
Edison avenged at last!
Jeroen Belleman
Think of all the copper we can scavenge from all those transformers we
don't need anymore.
What voltage should an outlet in the kitchen be? 20 KVDC?
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 06:27:55 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:54:14 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/19/23 13:58, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
[...]
In the future we might even have HVDC/MVDC/LVDC(/ELVDC) networks for
DC distribution and LVDC/LVAC conversion at each electric motor.
Edison avenged at last!
Jeroen Belleman
Think of all the copper we can scavenge from all those transformers we >>don't need anymore.
What voltage should an outlet in the kitchen be? 20 KVDC?
I vote for 400 Vdc. Some computer centers use 380 Vdc (+/-190 V), most
EVs have batteries at 400 V, although some are 800 V.
Perhaps +/-400 Vdc would also be OK, since it would be easy to make
three phase 230/400 Vac from it.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:49:56 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 06:27:55 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:54:14 +0200, Jeroen Belleman >>><jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/19/23 13:58, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
[...]
In the future we might even have HVDC/MVDC/LVDC(/ELVDC) networks for >>>>> DC distribution and LVDC/LVAC conversion at each electric motor.
Edison avenged at last!
Jeroen Belleman
Think of all the copper we can scavenge from all those transformers we >>>don't need anymore.
What voltage should an outlet in the kitchen be? 20 KVDC?
I vote for 400 Vdc. Some computer centers use 380 Vdc (+/-190 V), most
EVs have batteries at 400 V, although some are 800 V.
400 DC is probably safer than 240/50 and certainly safer than 120/60.
Perhaps +/-400 Vdc would also be OK, since it would be easy to make
three phase 230/400 Vac from it.
Since PoE has got popular, there are a lot of 54 volt wall-warts
around. That's an interesting voltage.
But for residential use, converting to DC outlets would make all our
gadgets obsolete, so that may not happen for a few hundred years.
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:54:42 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:38:52 AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore -
is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy >> copper futures.
Huh?
Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines'
are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might use >liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe. Or, >just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge.
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/18/iea-grid-lack-of-ambition-endangering-the-green-energy-revolution/
in society , Getting rid of a few Republican politicans - the really dumb ones who like Donald Trump - might help."Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding
or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes
to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while
annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
The US power grid grew at a steady 5% per year from the 1950's to about 2000, when the US started off-shoring manufacturing and generating capacity stagnated for some twenty years. It can start growing again at 5% per year without any drastic change
(1.05)^n=2, makes n= Log(2)/log(1.05)= 14 years. Allowing 5 years to get the ball rolling puts it at 2023 +20= 2043. They're not going to make it. The world will be a sizzling cauldron before then.
Power suppliers size lines with an allowance of 3% loss at full capacity, and the present situation demonstrates they're not exactly brilliant when it comes to anticipation of growth
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:58:34 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> >wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore - >>> is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy
copper futures.
Huh?
Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines' >>are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might use >>liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe. Or, >>just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge.
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.
For offshore wind plants, use HVDC to carry the power to the shore in >aluminum underwater cables.
If the power is in HVDC format use underground cables also on shore.
There will be much less right-of-way issues with underground cables
than with HV AC poles. Do the DC to AC conversion closer to the >consumption.
In the future we might even have HVDC/MVDC/LVDC(/ELVDC) networks for
DC distribution and LVDC/LVAC conversion at each electric motor.
Cost is no object.
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:49:56 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 06:27:55 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:54:14 +0200, Jeroen Belleman >>><jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/19/23 13:58, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
[...]
In the future we might even have HVDC/MVDC/LVDC(/ELVDC) networks for >>>>> DC distribution and LVDC/LVAC conversion at each electric motor.
Edison avenged at last!
Jeroen Belleman
Think of all the copper we can scavenge from all those transformers we >>>don't need anymore.
What voltage should an outlet in the kitchen be? 20 KVDC?
I vote for 400 Vdc. Some computer centers use 380 Vdc (+/-190 V), most
EVs have batteries at 400 V, although some are 800 V.
400 DC is probably safer than 240/50 and certainly safer than 120/60.
Perhaps +/-400 Vdc would also be OK, since it would be easy to make
three phase 230/400 Vac from it.
Since PoE has got popular, there are a lot of 54 volt wall-warts
around. That's an interesting voltage.
But for residential use, converting to DC outlets would make all our
gadgets obsolete, so that may not happen for a few hundred years.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 16:14:46 -0700, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:49:56 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 06:27:55 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:54:14 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/19/23 13:58, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
[...]
In the future we might even have HVDC/MVDC/LVDC(/ELVDC) networks for >>>>>> DC distribution and LVDC/LVAC conversion at each electric motor.
Edison avenged at last!
Jeroen Belleman
Think of all the copper we can scavenge from all those transformers we >>>> don't need anymore.
What voltage should an outlet in the kitchen be? 20 KVDC?
I vote for 400 Vdc. Some computer centers use 380 Vdc (+/-190 V), most
EVs have batteries at 400 V, although some are 800 V.
400 DC is probably safer than 240/50 and certainly safer than 120/60.
Perhaps +/-400 Vdc would also be OK, since it would be easy to make
three phase 230/400 Vac from it.
Since PoE has got popular, there are a lot of 54 volt wall-warts
around. That's an interesting voltage.
48 Vdc is a quite common telecom voltage.
In India they make a full series of household applications running
from 48 Vdc, for off-grid villages pith solar panels. No need to use
DC/AC converters to make 220 Vac and then AC/DC conversion at each
device with the extra losses. Not so much losses with direct DC/DC
conversion or no conversions at all (resistive loads).
But for residential use, converting to DC outlets would make all our
gadgets obsolete, so that may not happen for a few hundred years.
Most likely only a single format (either AC or DC) is supplied to each
house. In each house there can be a converter to make the missing
format. Within the house separate wiring is required for AC and DC.
If at least 330 Vdc is supplied to a house, the in-house DC/AC
converter can make 230 Vac single phase with a full bridge converter.
To make 230/400 Vac three phase you would need at least 700 Vdc
(+/-350 Vdc) and three half-bridge converters.
With both DC and AC sockets are installed in a house, the user can
freely use devices made for DC or AC.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:15 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:54:42 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:38:52 AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
The distributed nature of solar and wind power - especially offshore -
is going to require millions of miles of new transmission lines. Buy
copper futures.
Huh?
Steel poles, with aluminum wires, is how 'miles of new transmission lines'
are likely to be built.
Offshore (meaning ships at sea? archipelagos somewhere?) might use >liquid or gaseous hydrogen, delivered in batches or through a pipe. Or,
just economize, and when the batteries get low, take 'em ashore to recharge.
Offshore (off-the-grid) can also have its own solar or wind facilities, of course.https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/18/iea-grid-lack-of-ambition-endangering-the-green-energy-revolution/
change in society , Getting rid of a few Republican politicans - the really dumb ones who like Donald Trump - might help."Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount
equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
The US power grid grew at a steady 5% per year from the 1950's to about 2000, when the US started off-shoring manufacturing and generating capacity stagnated for some twenty years. It can start growing again at 5% per year without any drastic
(1.05)^n=2, makes n= Log(2)/log(1.05)= 14 years. Allowing 5 years to get the ball rolling puts it at 2023 +20= 2043. They're not going to make it. The world will be a sizzling cauldron before then.There's nothing magical about 5%. If we need to do better, we can
equally brilliant at delivering new transmission capacity when the politicians get serious.Power suppliers size lines with an allowance of 3% loss at full capacity, and the present situation demonstrates they're not exactly brilliant when it comes to anticipation of growthThey don't build new line until they are confident that there will be a market for them. They seem to have been brilliant at predicting that the politician were going to dither about actually tackling anthropogenic global warming. They will probably be
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 16:14:46 -0700, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:49:56 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 06:27:55 -0700, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> >>wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:54:14 +0200, Jeroen Belleman >>><jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/19/23 13:58, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
[...]
In the future we might even have HVDC/MVDC/LVDC(/ELVDC) networks for >>>>> DC distribution and LVDC/LVAC conversion at each electric motor.
Edison avenged at last!
Jeroen Belleman
Think of all the copper we can scavenge from all those transformers we >>>don't need anymore.
What voltage should an outlet in the kitchen be? 20 KVDC?
I vote for 400 Vdc. Some computer centers use 380 Vdc (+/-190 V), most >>EVs have batteries at 400 V, although some are 800 V.
400 DC is probably safer than 240/50 and certainly safer than 120/60.
Perhaps +/-400 Vdc would also be OK, since it would be easy to make >>three phase 230/400 Vac from it.
Since PoE has got popular, there are a lot of 54 volt wall-warts48 Vdc is a quite common telecom voltage.
around. That's an interesting voltage.
In India they make a full series of household applications running
from 48 Vdc, for off-grid villages pith solar panels. No need to use
DC/AC converters to make 220 Vac and then AC/DC conversion at each
device with the extra losses. Not so much losses with direct DC/DC conversion or no conversions at all (resistive loads).
But for residential use, converting to DC outlets would make all our >gadgets obsolete, so that may not happen for a few hundred years.Most likely only a single format (either AC or DC) is supplied to each house. In each house there can be a converter to make the missing
format. Within the house separate wiring is required for AC and DC.
If at least 330 Vdc is supplied to a house, the in-house DC/AC
converter can make 230 Vac single phase with a full bridge converter.
To make 230/400 Vac three phase you would need at least 700 Vdc
(+/-350 Vdc) and three half-bridge converters.
With both DC and AC sockets are installed in a house, the user can
freely use devices made for DC or AC.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 16:14:46 -0700, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote:
On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:49:56 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 06:27:55 -0700, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> >>wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:54:14 +0200, Jeroen Belleman >>><jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/19/23 13:58, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
[...]
In the future we might even have HVDC/MVDC/LVDC(/ELVDC) networks for >>>>> DC distribution and LVDC/LVAC conversion at each electric motor.
Edison avenged at last!
Jeroen Belleman
Think of all the copper we can scavenge from all those transformers we >>>don't need anymore.
What voltage should an outlet in the kitchen be? 20 KVDC?
I vote for 400 Vdc. Some computer centers use 380 Vdc (+/-190 V), most >>EVs have batteries at 400 V, although some are 800 V.
400 DC is probably safer than 240/50 and certainly safer than 120/60.
Perhaps +/-400 Vdc would also be OK, since it would be easy to make >>three phase 230/400 Vac from it.
Since PoE has got popular, there are a lot of 54 volt wall-warts48 Vdc is a quite common telecom voltage.
around. That's an interesting voltage.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:32:22 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 16:14:46 -0700, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote: >On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:49:56 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 06:27:55 -0700, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:54:14 +0200, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/19/23 13:58, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
With both DC and AC sockets are installed in a house, the user can freely use devices made for DC or AC.
There's a metallic corrosion problem with DC not present with AC.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:33:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:15 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:54:42 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:38:52 AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
change in society , Getting rid of a few Republican politicans - the really dumb ones who like Donald Trump - might help."Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount
equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes
to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs
to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
The US power grid grew at a steady 5% per year from the 1950's to about 2000, when the US started off-shoring manufacturing and generating capacity stagnated for some twenty years. It can start growing again at 5% per year without any drastic
(1.05)^n=2, makes n= Log(2)/log(1.05)= 14 years. Allowing 5 years to get the ball rolling puts it at 2023 +20= 2043. They're not going to make it. The world will be a sizzling cauldron before then.
There's nothing magical about 5%. If we need to do better, we can.
The only way that type of growth makes sense is if the growth produces more revenue with which they can expand their building rate, otherwise their growth would exponentially diminish year over year.
be equally brilliant at delivering new transmission capacity when the politicians get serious.Power suppliers size lines with an allowance of 3% loss at full capacity, and the present situation demonstrates they're not exactly brilliant when it comes to anticipation of growth.
They don't build new line until they are confident that there will be a market for them. They seem to have been brilliant at predicting that the politician were going to dither about actually tackling anthropogenic global warming. They will probably
I don't consider them brilliant when they parameterize their analyses with things like "accounts per branch per mile per past 10 years" in making a determination on the necessity of under-/above- ground feeds. That type of thing makes them sound likemindless number hacks.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 2:21:36 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 5:32:22 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:<snip>
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 16:14:46 -0700, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote: >On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 00:49:56 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 06:27:55 -0700, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 14:54:14 +0200, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
On 10/19/23 13:58, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
With both DC and AC sockets are installed in a house, the user can freely use devices made for DC or AC.
There's a metallic corrosion problem with DC not present with AC.If there's enough leakage current to create corrosion, the installation is defective.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 2:19:43 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:change in society , Getting rid of a few Republican politicans - the really dumb ones who like Donald Trump - might help.
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:33:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:<snip>
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:15 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:54:42 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:38:52 AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
"Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding
or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount
equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed
country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes
to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs
to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
The US power grid grew at a steady 5% per year from the 1950's to about 2000, when the US started off-shoring manufacturing and generating capacity stagnated for some twenty years. It can start growing again at 5% per year without any drastic
generating companies what to get paid for satisfying that demand, and the transmission network that gets it to the customers is a necessary part of the apparatus for doing that.(1.05)^n=2, makes n= Log(2)/log(1.05)= 14 years. Allowing 5 years to get the ball rolling puts it at 2023 +20= 2043. They're not going to make it. The world will be a sizzling cauldron before then.
There's nothing magical about 5%. If we need to do better, we can.
The only way that type of growth makes sense is if the growth produces more revenue with which they can expand their building rate, otherwise their growth would exponentially diminish year over year.Power lines aren't financed that way. They don't get paid directly for the current that they carry - they get paid by the people who generate the current and the people who buy it, and they get built because people want to buy more current and the
Finding more money to build more power lines isn't a problem if people want to buy more power.
probably be equally brilliant at delivering new transmission capacity when the politicians get serious.Power suppliers size lines with an allowance of 3% loss at full capacity, and the present situation demonstrates they're not exactly brilliant when it comes to anticipation of growth.
They don't build new line until they are confident that there will be a market for them. They seem to have been brilliant at predicting that the politician were going to dither about actually tackling anthropogenic global warming. They will
mindless number hacks.I don't consider them brilliant when they parameterize their analyses with things like "accounts per branch per mile per past 10 years" in making a determination on the necessity of under-/above- ground feeds. That type of thing makes them sound like
They provide the numbers that their customers understand. You aren't a customer - or at least not one with serious money to spend - so you opinion doesn't matter.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 16:14:46 -0700, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote:
Since PoE has got popular, there are a lot of 54 volt wall-warts48 Vdc is a quite common telecom voltage.
around. That's an interesting voltage.
In India they make a full series of household applications running
from 48 Vdc, for off-grid villages pith solar panels.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 2:32:22?AM UTC-7, upsid...@downunder.com wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 16:14:46 -0700, john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote:
Since PoE has got popular, there are a lot of 54 volt wall-warts48 Vdc is a quite common telecom voltage.
around. That's an interesting voltage.
In India they make a full series of household applications running
from 48 Vdc, for off-grid villages pith solar panels.
That was also a common power supply voltage a century ago, with
rural folk using banks of lead-acid batteries and charging 'em from a windmill >generator.
The ugly old battery jars were common in antique stores for a while...
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/155693011982>
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 10:59:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:change in society , Getting rid of a few Republican politicans - the really dumb ones who like Donald Trump - might help.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 2:19:43 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:33:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:<snip>
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:15 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:54:42 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:38:52 AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
"Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding
or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount
equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed
country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes
to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs
to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
The US power grid grew at a steady 5% per year from the 1950's to about 2000, when the US started off-shoring manufacturing and generating capacity stagnated for some twenty years. It can start growing again at 5% per year without any drastic
generating companies what to get paid for satisfying that demand, and the transmission network that gets it to the customers is a necessary part of the apparatus for doing that.(1.05)^n=2, makes n= Log(2)/log(1.05)= 14 years. Allowing 5 years to get the ball rolling puts it at 2023 +20= 2043. They're not going to make it. The world will be a sizzling cauldron before then.
There's nothing magical about 5%. If we need to do better, we can.
The only way that type of growth makes sense is if the growth produces more revenue with which they can expand their building rate, otherwise their growth would exponentially diminish year over year.
Power lines aren't financed that way. They don't get paid directly for the current that they carry - they get paid by the people who generate the current and the people who buy it, and they get built because people want to buy more current and the
As usual you completely missed the point that these new lines are purposed to add green energy sources onto the grid. There is no speculation to it, the load demand is already in place.
Dunno how they did it in the mythical 50s, but these days the regulatory authorities allow the power industry to tack on an increment of rate increase, temporarily, to finance the costs. NY in their infinite lack of wisdom just disallowed this for abig wind project which as a result may pull out of the project altogether.
Finding more money to build more power lines isn't a problem if people want to buy more power.
It's not a matter of buying more power, it's a matter of getting green power to the existing customer base.
probably be equally brilliant at delivering new transmission capacity when the politicians get serious.Power suppliers size lines with an allowance of 3% loss at full capacity, and the present situation demonstrates they're not exactly brilliant when it comes to anticipation of growth.
They don't build new line until they are confident that there will be a market for them. They seem to have been brilliant at predicting that the politician were going to dither about actually tackling anthropogenic global warming. They will
like mindless number hacks.I don't consider them brilliant when they parameterize their analyses with things like "accounts per branch per mile per past 10 years" in making a determination on the necessity of under-/above- ground feeds. That type of thing makes them sound
They provide the numbers that their customers understand. You aren't a customer - or at least not one with serious money to spend - so you opinion doesn't matter.
The ignorance of their customer base pegs the Richter scale, there is no such comprehension of their gobbledygook.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 4:05:17 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:drastic change in society , Getting rid of a few Republican politicans - the really dumb ones who like Donald Trump - might help.
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 10:59:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 2:19:43 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:33:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:<snip>
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:15 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:54:42 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:38:52 AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
"Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding
or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount
equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed
country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes
to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while
annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs
to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
The US power grid grew at a steady 5% per year from the 1950's to about 2000, when the US started off-shoring manufacturing and generating capacity stagnated for some twenty years. It can start growing again at 5% per year without any
generating companies what to get paid for satisfying that demand, and the transmission network that gets it to the customers is a necessary part of the apparatus for doing that.(1.05)^n=2, makes n= Log(2)/log(1.05)= 14 years. Allowing 5 years to get the ball rolling puts it at 2023 +20= 2043. They're not going to make it. The world will be a sizzling cauldron before then.
There's nothing magical about 5%. If we need to do better, we can.
The only way that type of growth makes sense is if the growth produces more revenue with which they can expand their building rate, otherwise their growth would exponentially diminish year over year.
Power lines aren't financed that way. They don't get paid directly for the current that they carry - they get paid by the people who generate the current and the people who buy it, and they get built because people want to buy more current and the
eventually add about 30% to the demand for electric power, which probably will mean adding more transmission lines but it's a much more ad hoc process than youy seem to imagineAs usual you completely missed the point that these new lines are purposed to add green energy sources onto the grid. There is no speculation to it, the load demand is already in place.
Except that the green energy sources are replacing fossil-carbon-fired electrical generators. They can be put closer to the customers they are supplying and in many cases the existing lines will be perfectly adequate. The move to electric vehicles will
big wind project which as a result may pull out of the project altogether.Dunno how they did it in the mythical 50s, but these days the regulatory authorities allow the power industry to tack on an increment of rate increase, temporarily, to finance the costs. NY in their infinite lack of wisdom just disallowed this for a
In the mythical 1950s, electrical power generation was a closely regulated monopoly. When the privatision of natural monoplies got fashionable in the 1980, some very stupud scheme were set up - remember ENRON?probably be equally brilliant at delivering new transmission capacity when the politicians get serious.
Finding more money to build more power lines isn't a problem if people want to buy more power.
It's not a matter of buying more power, it's a matter of getting green power to the existing customer base.The power stops being green the moment it is generated. After that it is just electric current.
Power suppliers size lines with an allowance of 3% loss at full capacity, and the present situation demonstrates they're not exactly brilliant when it comes to anticipation of growth.
They don't build new line until they are confident that there will be a market for them. They seem to have been brilliant at predicting that the politician were going to dither about actually tackling anthropogenic global warming. They will
like mindless number hacks.I don't consider them brilliant when they parameterize their analyses with things like "accounts per branch per mile per past 10 years" in making a determination on the necessity of under-/above- ground feeds. That type of thing makes them sound
They provide the numbers that their customers understand. You aren't a customer - or at least not one with serious money to spend - so you opinion doesn't matter.
The ignorance of their customer base pegs the Richter scale, there is no such comprehension of their gobbledygook.None that you can detect.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Except that the green energy sources are replacing fossil-carbon-fired electrical generators.
They can be put closer to the customers they are supplying and
in many cases the existing lines will be perfectly adequate.
The move to electric vehicles will eventually add about 30% to
the demand for electric power, which probably will mean adding
more transmission lines but it's a much more ad hoc process than youy seem to imagine
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 10:56:55 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:drastic change in society , Getting rid of a few Republican politicians - the really dumb ones who like Donald Trump - might help.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 4:05:17 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 10:59:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 2:19:43 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:33:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:<snip>
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:15 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:54:42 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:38:52 AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
"Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding
or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount
equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed
country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes
to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while
annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs
to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
The US power grid grew at a steady 5% per year from the 1950's to about 2000, when the US started off-shoring manufacturing and generating capacity stagnated for some twenty years. It can start growing again at 5% per year without any
the generating companies want to get paid for satisfying that demand, and the transmission network that gets it to the customers is a necessary part of the apparatus for doing that.(1.05)^n=2, makes n= Log(2)/log(1.05)= 14 years. Allowing 5 years to get the ball rolling puts it at 2023 +20= 2043. They're not going to make it. The world will be a sizzling cauldron before then.
There's nothing magical about 5%. If we need to do better, we can.
The only way that type of growth makes sense is if the growth produces more revenue with which they can expand their building rate, otherwise their growth would exponentially diminish year over year.
Power lines aren't financed that way. They don't get paid directly for the current that they carry - they get paid by the people who generate the current and the people who buy it, and they get built because people want to buy more current and
will eventually add about 30% to the demand for electric power, which probably will mean adding more transmission lines but it's a much more ad hoc process than you seem to imagine.As usual you completely missed the point that these new lines are purposed to add green energy sources onto the grid. There is no speculation to it, the load demand is already in place.
Except that the green energy sources are replacing fossil-carbon-fired electrical generators. They can be put closer to the customers they are supplying and in many cases the existing lines will be perfectly adequate. The move to electric vehicles
It's ad hoc to the extent the new builds have to be made specific to the circumstances of their location. And that is anything but uniform. For some reason they need thousands of hectares per 100 MW solar capacity, so that is really limiting puttingthe installation close to the end users.
a big wind project which as a result may pull out of the project altogether.Dunno how they did it in the mythical 50s, but these days the regulatory authorities allow the power industry to tack on an increment of rate increase, temporarily, to finance the costs. NY in their infinite lack of wisdom just disallowed this for
probably be equally brilliant at delivering new transmission capacity when the politicians get serious.In the mythical 1950s, electrical power generation was a closely regulated monopoly. When the privatisation of natural monoplies got fashionable in the 1980s, some very stupid scheme were set up - remember ENRON?
Finding more money to build more power lines isn't a problem if people want to buy more power.
It's not a matter of buying more power, it's a matter of getting green power to the existing customer base.
The power stops being green the moment it is generated. After that it is just electric current.
Power suppliers size lines with an allowance of 3% loss at full capacity, and the present situation demonstrates they're not exactly brilliant when it comes to anticipation of growth.
They don't build new line until they are confident that there will be a market for them. They seem to have been brilliant at predicting that the politician were going to dither about actually tackling anthropogenic global warming. They will
sound like mindless number hacks.I don't consider them brilliant when they parameterize their analyses with things like "accounts per branch per mile per past 10 years" in making a determination on the necessity of under-/above- ground feeds. That type of thing makes them
They provide the numbers that their customers understand. You aren't a customer - or at least not one with serious money to spend - so you opinion doesn't matter.
The ignorance of their customer base pegs the Richter scale, there is no such comprehension of their gobbledygook.
None that you can detect.
They do publish commentary from the public on the matter. Most of it is laughable.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
<about needing new additional power lines>
Except that the green energy sources are replacing fossil-carbon-fired electrical generators.Unreliable renewable sources (such as wind or solar) will add the need
new power lines, since one day you have to get energy from one site,
the next day from an other site if you want to use electricity every
day at nominal power levels.
They can be put closer to the customers they are supplying and
in many cases the existing lines will be perfectly adequate.
No way.
You can put a coal or NG fired power plant within a large city, but is unrealistic to assume large wind or solar farms within a city.
more transmission lines but it's a much more ad hoc process than youy seem to imagine.The move to electric vehicles will eventually add about 30% to the demand for electric power, which probably will mean adding
When average EV battery capacity becomes so large that you on average needs to charge them once a week, you can schedule the charging when there is more unreliable renewable energy available.
The current HV transfer capacity is inadequate at least in Scandinavia. Take a look at production and area prices:
https://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/
Follow this page for a few hours or few days.
At the upper half of the page, there is the current bidding prices in different regions.
Each country is an own region and some countries are divided into multiple regions. The price can greatly vary between countries and also there can be huge price differences within a country.
One would expect that the same average price would apply to the whole Scandinavia, but why is there so much differences ?
The reason is that the cross border and cross region transfer capacity is inadequate.
For instance Norway has a big surplus thanks to plenty of hydro and
the price is low in northern regions. However, the price in southern
Norway can be many times that. The reason is multiple HVDC cables to
UK, the Netherlands and Denmark but inadequate transfer capacity
between mid-Norway and south Norway.
With better cross border and cross region HV lines or cables, the
price difference would be much smaller.
That same page also shows the total production separated by source for
each country and also the whole Scandinavia. It should be noted that
during the low consumption (summer) very little fossil fuels are used. Norway is the great producer of hydro. Both Sweden and Finland produce
a lot of nuclear and hydro and sometimes some wind.
The 'thermal power' for both Sweden and Finland contains some byproducts from the pulp and paper industry, so it is partially renewable.
During the cold period (winter) more fossil fuels needs to be used.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:40:16 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:drastic change in society , Getting rid of a few Republican politicians - the really dumb ones who like Donald Trump - might help.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 10:56:55 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 4:05:17 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 10:59:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 2:19:43 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:33:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:<snip>
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:15 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:54:42 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:38:52 AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
"Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding
or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount
equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed
country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes
to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while
annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs
to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
The US power grid grew at a steady 5% per year from the 1950's to about 2000, when the US started off-shoring manufacturing and generating capacity stagnated for some twenty years. It can start growing again at 5% per year without any
the generating companies want to get paid for satisfying that demand, and the transmission network that gets it to the customers is a necessary part of the apparatus for doing that.(1.05)^n=2, makes n= Log(2)/log(1.05)= 14 years. Allowing 5 years to get the ball rolling puts it at 2023 +20= 2043. They're not going to make it. The world will be a sizzling cauldron before then.
There's nothing magical about 5%. If we need to do better, we can.
The only way that type of growth makes sense is if the growth produces more revenue with which they can expand their building rate, otherwise their growth would exponentially diminish year over year.
Power lines aren't financed that way. They don't get paid directly for the current that they carry - they get paid by the people who generate the current and the people who buy it, and they get built because people want to buy more current and
will eventually add about 30% to the demand for electric power, which probably will mean adding more transmission lines but it's a much more ad hoc process than you seem to imagine.As usual you completely missed the point that these new lines are purposed to add green energy sources onto the grid. There is no speculation to it, the load demand is already in place.
Except that the green energy sources are replacing fossil-carbon-fired electrical generators. They can be put closer to the customers they are supplying and in many cases the existing lines will be perfectly adequate. The move to electric vehicles
the installation close to the end users.It's ad hoc to the extent the new builds have to be made specific to the circumstances of their location. And that is anything but uniform. For some reason they need thousands of hectares per 100 MW solar capacity, so that is really limiting putting
The reason is perfectly obvious - solar power depends on the area of solar cells collecting the sunlight. You can put solar cells on the roof of a house, which is putting the source directly above the end user. Cities that are big enough to go formultistory buildings need solar farms beyond the outer suburbs, and they do compete with the truck farms that sell the produce to the same city, but it's not "really limiting" - just the usual juggling to get the right mix of land use.
for a big wind project which as a result may pull out of the project altogether.Dunno how they did it in the mythical 50s, but these days the regulatory authorities allow the power industry to tack on an increment of rate increase, temporarily, to finance the costs. NY in their infinite lack of wisdom just disallowed this
probably be equally brilliant at delivering new transmission capacity when the politicians get serious.In the mythical 1950s, electrical power generation was a closely regulated monopoly. When the privatisation of natural monoplies got fashionable in the 1980s, some very stupid scheme were set up - remember ENRON?
Finding more money to build more power lines isn't a problem if people want to buy more power.
It's not a matter of buying more power, it's a matter of getting green power to the existing customer base.
The power stops being green the moment it is generated. After that it is just electric current.
Power suppliers size lines with an allowance of 3% loss at full capacity, and the present situation demonstrates they're not exactly brilliant when it comes to anticipation of growth.
They don't build new line until they are confident that there will be a market for them. They seem to have been brilliant at predicting that the politician were going to dither about actually tackling anthropogenic global warming. They will
sound like mindless number hacks.I don't consider them brilliant when they parameterize their analyses with things like "accounts per branch per mile per past 10 years" in making a determination on the necessity of under-/above- ground feeds. That type of thing makes them
speak their language in preference for doing the work required to master a different grammar and vocabulary.They provide the numbers that their customers understand. You aren't a customer - or at least not one with serious money to spend - so you opinion doesn't matter.
The ignorance of their customer base pegs the Richter scale, there is no such comprehension of their gobbledygook.
None that you can detect.
They do publish commentary from the public on the matter. Most of it is laughable.But you can't quote any of it, and "laughable" may just mean that you don't understand it. Quite a lot of technical jargon looks like gobbledygook to people who don't understand it. It's a foreign language, and people prefer to despise people who don't
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 9:52:08 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:drastic change in society , Getting rid of a few Republican politicians - the really dumb ones who like Donald Trump - might help.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:40:16 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 10:56:55 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 4:05:17 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 10:59:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 2:19:43 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:33:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:<snip>
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:15 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:54:42 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:38:52 AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
"Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding
or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount
equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed
country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes
to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while
annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs
to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
The US power grid grew at a steady 5% per year from the 1950's to about 2000, when the US started off-shoring manufacturing and generating capacity stagnated for some twenty years. It can start growing again at 5% per year without any
and the generating companies want to get paid for satisfying that demand, and the transmission network that gets it to the customers is a necessary part of the apparatus for doing that.(1.05)^n=2, makes n= Log(2)/log(1.05)= 14 years. Allowing 5 years to get the ball rolling puts it at 2023 +20= 2043. They're not going to make it. The world will be a sizzling cauldron before then.
There's nothing magical about 5%. If we need to do better, we can.
The only way that type of growth makes sense is if the growth produces more revenue with which they can expand their building rate, otherwise their growth would exponentially diminish year over year.
Power lines aren't financed that way. They don't get paid directly for the current that they carry - they get paid by the people who generate the current and the people who buy it, and they get built because people want to buy more current
vehicles will eventually add about 30% to the demand for electric power, which probably will mean adding more transmission lines but it's a much more ad hoc process than you seem to imagine.As usual you completely missed the point that these new lines are purposed to add green energy sources onto the grid. There is no speculation to it, the load demand is already in place.
Except that the green energy sources are replacing fossil-carbon-fired electrical generators. They can be put closer to the customers they are supplying and in many cases the existing lines will be perfectly adequate. The move to electric
putting the installation close to the end users.It's ad hoc to the extent the new builds have to be made specific to the circumstances of their location. And that is anything but uniform. For some reason they need thousands of hectares per 100 MW solar capacity, so that is really limiting
multistory buildings need solar farms beyond the outer suburbs, and they do compete with the truck farms that sell the produce to the same city, but it's not "really limiting" - just the usual juggling to get the right mix of land use.The reason is perfectly obvious - solar power depends on the area of solar cells collecting the sunlight. You can put solar cells on the roof of a house, which is putting the source directly above the end user. Cities that are big enough to go for
You're not likely to find a 1,000 acre+ 'truck farm'. The usual thing is usually to purchase the land from another corporate entity, things like obsolete timber land, or full landfill, or some other undesirable state of condition. Other than that andthey need to go the eminent domain stretch which causes lengthy delays/ appeals in court.
for a big wind project which as a result may pull out of the project altogether.Dunno how they did it in the mythical 50s, but these days the regulatory authorities allow the power industry to tack on an increment of rate increase, temporarily, to finance the costs. NY in their infinite lack of wisdom just disallowed this
will probably be equally brilliant at delivering new transmission capacity when the politicians get serious.In the mythical 1950s, electrical power generation was a closely regulated monopoly. When the privatisation of natural monoplies got fashionable in the 1980s, some very stupid scheme were set up - remember ENRON?
Finding more money to build more power lines isn't a problem if people want to buy more power.
It's not a matter of buying more power, it's a matter of getting green power to the existing customer base.
The power stops being green the moment it is generated. After that it is just electric current.
Power suppliers size lines with an allowance of 3% loss at full capacity, and the present situation demonstrates they're not exactly brilliant when it comes to anticipation of growth.
They don't build new line until they are confident that there will be a market for them. They seem to have been brilliant at predicting that the politician were going to dither about actually tackling anthropogenic global warming. They
sound like mindless number hacks.I don't consider them brilliant when they parameterize their analyses with things like "accounts per branch per mile per past 10 years" in making a determination on the necessity of under-/above- ground feeds. That type of thing makes them
t speak their language in preference for doing the work required to master a different grammar and vocabulary.They provide the numbers that their customers understand. You aren't a customer - or at least not one with serious money to spend - so you opinion doesn't matter.
The ignorance of their customer base pegs the Richter scale, there is no such comprehension of their gobbledygook.
None that you can detect.
They do publish commentary from the public on the matter. Most of it is laughable.But you can't quote any of it, and "laughable" may just mean that you don't understand it. Quite a lot of technical jargon looks like gobbledygook to people who don't understand it. It's a foreign language, and people prefer to despise people who don'
I seriously doubt the utility engineering bunch are going to be over my head in any matter.
I know bullshit when I hear it.
And the idiot criteria I originally referred to was in regards to designating above ground lines for underground refurbishment. It was a completely mindless presentation of factoid regurgitation by an engineer who didn't have a clue in hell about thewhy's and therefore's, and consequently didn't offer anything up.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 1:46:50 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:any drastic change in society , Getting rid of a few Republican politicians - the really dumb ones who like Donald Trump - might help.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 9:52:08 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 11:40:16 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 10:56:55 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 4:05:17 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Friday, October 20, 2023 at 10:59:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 2:19:43 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 10:33:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:<snip>
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 11:46:15 PM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 11:54:42 PM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:38:52 AM UTC+11, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2023 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 12:41:35?PM UTC-7, john larkin wrote:
"Achieving all national climate and energy goals will require adding
or replacing 80 million kilometres of power lines by 2040 – an amount
equal to the entire existing global grid – according to a detailed
country-by-country analysis carried out for the report. Major changes
to how grids operate and are regulated are also essential, while
annual investment in grids, which has remained broadly stagnant, needs
to double to more than USD 600 billion a year by 2030."
The US power grid grew at a steady 5% per year from the 1950's to about 2000, when the US started off-shoring manufacturing and generating capacity stagnated for some twenty years. It can start growing again at 5% per year without
and the generating companies want to get paid for satisfying that demand, and the transmission network that gets it to the customers is a necessary part of the apparatus for doing that.(1.05)^n=2, makes n= Log(2)/log(1.05)= 14 years. Allowing 5 years to get the ball rolling puts it at 2023 +20= 2043. They're not going to make it. The world will be a sizzling cauldron before then.
There's nothing magical about 5%. If we need to do better, we can.
The only way that type of growth makes sense is if the growth produces more revenue with which they can expand their building rate, otherwise their growth would exponentially diminish year over year.
Power lines aren't financed that way. They don't get paid directly for the current that they carry - they get paid by the people who generate the current and the people who buy it, and they get built because people want to buy more current
vehicles will eventually add about 30% to the demand for electric power, which probably will mean adding more transmission lines but it's a much more ad hoc process than you seem to imagine.As usual you completely missed the point that these new lines are purposed to add green energy sources onto the grid. There is no speculation to it, the load demand is already in place.
Except that the green energy sources are replacing fossil-carbon-fired electrical generators. They can be put closer to the customers they are supplying and in many cases the existing lines will be perfectly adequate. The move to electric
putting the installation close to the end users.It's ad hoc to the extent the new builds have to be made specific to the circumstances of their location. And that is anything but uniform. For some reason they need thousands of hectares per 100 MW solar capacity, so that is really limiting
multistory buildings need solar farms beyond the outer suburbs, and they do compete with the truck farms that sell the produce to the same city, but it's not "really limiting" - just the usual juggling to get the right mix of land use.The reason is perfectly obvious - solar power depends on the area of solar cells collecting the sunlight. You can put solar cells on the roof of a house, which is putting the source directly above the end user. Cities that are big enough to go for
they need to go the eminent domain stretch which causes lengthy delays/ appeals in court.You're not likely to find a 1,000 acre+ 'truck farm'. The usual thing is usually to purchase the land from another corporate entity, things like obsolete timber land, or full landfill, or some other undesirable state of condition. Other than that and
Why would you want a single thousand acres site for your solar farm? Solar power is thoroughly modular. Wind farms have bigger modular chunks, but they can share land with agriculture much more easily.this for a big wind project which as a result may pull out of the project altogether.
Dunno how they did it in the mythical 50s, but these days the regulatory authorities allow the power industry to tack on an increment of rate increase, temporarily, to finance the costs. NY in their infinite lack of wisdom just disallowed
will probably be equally brilliant at delivering new transmission capacity when the politicians get serious.In the mythical 1950s, electrical power generation was a closely regulated monopoly. When the privatisation of natural monoplies got fashionable in the 1980s, some very stupid scheme were set up - remember ENRON?
Finding more money to build more power lines isn't a problem if people want to buy more power.
It's not a matter of buying more power, it's a matter of getting green power to the existing customer base.
The power stops being green the moment it is generated. After that it is just electric current.
Power suppliers size lines with an allowance of 3% loss at full capacity, and the present situation demonstrates they're not exactly brilliant when it comes to anticipation of growth.
They don't build new line until they are confident that there will be a market for them. They seem to have been brilliant at predicting that the politician were going to dither about actually tackling anthropogenic global warming. They
them sound like mindless number hacks.I don't consider them brilliant when they parameterize their analyses with things like "accounts per branch per mile per past 10 years" in making a determination on the necessity of under-/above- ground feeds. That type of thing makes
don't speak their language in preference for doing the work required to master a different grammar and vocabulary.They provide the numbers that their customers understand. You aren't a customer - or at least not one with serious money to spend - so you opinion doesn't matter.
The ignorance of their customer base pegs the Richter scale, there is no such comprehension of their gobbledygook.
None that you can detect.
They do publish commentary from the public on the matter. Most of it is laughable.But you can't quote any of it, and "laughable" may just mean that you don't understand it. Quite a lot of technical jargon looks like gobbledygook to people who don't understand it. It's a foreign language, and people prefer to despise people who
why's and therefore's, and consequently didn't offer anything up.I seriously doubt the utility engineering bunch are going to be over my head in any matter.You've been adverstising your over-confidence here for years.
I know bullshit when I hear it.Or think you do.
And the idiot criteria I originally referred to was in regards to designating above ground lines for underground refurbishment. It was a completely mindless presentation of factoid regurgitation by an engineer who didn't have a clue in hell about the
Or had assumed more background knowledge in his audience than you had mastered.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
They can be put closer to the customers they are supplying andYou can put a coal or NG fired power plant within a large city, but is unrealistic to assume large wind or solar farms within a city.
in many cases the existing lines will be perfectly adequate.No way.
The move to electric vehicles will eventually add about 30% to
the demand for electric power,
more transmission lines but it's a much more ad hoc process than youy seem to imagineWhen average EV battery capacity becomes so large that you on average
needs to charge them once a week, you can schedule the charging when
there is more unreliable renewable energy available.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman ><bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
<about needing new additional power lines>
Except that the green energy sources are replacing fossil-carbon-fired electrical generators.
Unreliable renewable sources (such as wind or solar) will add the need
new power lines, since one day you have to get energy from one site,
the next day from an other site if you want to use electricity every
day at nominal power levels.
They can be put closer to the customers they are supplying and
You can put a coal or NG fired power plant within a large city, but is >unrealistic to assume large wind or solar farms within a city.
in many cases the existing lines will be perfectly adequate.
No way.
The move to electric vehicles will eventually add about 30% to
the demand for electric power, which probably will mean adding
more transmission lines but it's a much more ad hoc process than youy seem to imagine
When average EV battery capacity becomes so large that you on average
needs to charge them once a week, you can schedule the charging when
there is more unreliable renewable energy available.
The current HV transfer capacity is inadequate at least in
Scandinavia. Take a look at production and area prices:
https://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/
Follow this page for a few hours or few days.
At the upper half of the page, there is the current bidding prices in >different regions.
Each country is an own region and some countries are divided into
multiple regions. The price can greatly vary between countries and
also there can be huge price differences within a country.
One would expect that the same average price would apply to the whole >Scandinavia, but why is there so much differences ?
The reason is that the cross border and cross region transfer capacity
is inadequate.
For instance Norway has a big surplus thanks to plenty of hydro and
the price is low in northern regions. However, the price in southern
Norway can be many times that. The reason is multiple HVDC cables to
UK, the Netherlands and Denmark but inadequate transfer capacity
between mid-Norway and south Norway.
With better cross border and cross region HV lines or cables, the
price difference would be much smaller.
That same page also shows the total production separated by source for
each country and also the whole Scandinavia. It should be noted that
during the low consumption (summer) very little fossil fuels are used.
Norway is the great producer of hydro. Both Sweden and Finland produce
a lot of nuclear and hydro and sometimes some wind.
The 'thermal power' for both Sweden and Finland contains some
byproducts from the pulp and paper industry, so it is partially
renewable.
During the cold period (winter) more fossil fuels needs to be used.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 2:21:53?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:people controlling the terra-bucks have gotten the message. It is an indisputable fact that mankind has overdone it, they know by analyzing the types and proportions of carbon isotopes -12, -13, and -14. That's in addition to the historical data on a
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:14:24 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William SlomanThe greenies will wreck our power systems, electricity will become
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
<about needing new additional power lines>
Except that the green energy sources are replacing fossil-carbon-fired electrical generators.
Unreliable renewable sources (such as wind or solar) will add the need
new power lines, since one day you have to get energy from one site,
the next day from an other site if you want to use electricity every
day at nominal power levels.
They can be put closer to the customers they are supplying and
You can put a coal or NG fired power plant within a large city, but is
unrealistic to assume large wind or solar farms within a city.
in many cases the existing lines will be perfectly adequate.
No way.
The move to electric vehicles will eventually add about 30% to
the demand for electric power, which probably will mean adding
more transmission lines but it's a much more ad hoc process than youy seem to imagine
When average EV battery capacity becomes so large that you on average
needs to charge them once a week, you can schedule the charging when
there is more unreliable renewable energy available.
The current HV transfer capacity is inadequate at least in
Scandinavia. Take a look at production and area prices:
https://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/
Follow this page for a few hours or few days.
At the upper half of the page, there is the current bidding prices in
different regions.
Each country is an own region and some countries are divided into
multiple regions. The price can greatly vary between countries and
also there can be huge price differences within a country.
One would expect that the same average price would apply to the whole
Scandinavia, but why is there so much differences ?
The reason is that the cross border and cross region transfer capacity
is inadequate.
For instance Norway has a big surplus thanks to plenty of hydro and
the price is low in northern regions. However, the price in southern
Norway can be many times that. The reason is multiple HVDC cables to
UK, the Netherlands and Denmark but inadequate transfer capacity
between mid-Norway and south Norway.
With better cross border and cross region HV lines or cables, the
price difference would be much smaller.
That same page also shows the total production separated by source for
each country and also the whole Scandinavia. It should be noted that
during the low consumption (summer) very little fossil fuels are used.
Norway is the great producer of hydro. Both Sweden and Finland produce
a lot of nuclear and hydro and sometimes some wind.
The 'thermal power' for both Sweden and Finland contains some
byproducts from the pulp and paper industry, so it is partially
renewable.
During the cold period (winter) more fossil fuels needs to be used.
intermittent and unaffordable, people will revolt and elect some
sensible people, and eventually things will get fixed in maybe 20
years, namely about where we were 20 years ago.
Maybe the political leadership want to keep their heads. Only a person suffering a combination of mental illness and low IQ could deny the absolute necessity for eliminating fossil fuel GHG emissions entirely and as fast as possible. Apparently the
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:14:24 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman ><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
<about needing new additional power lines>
Except that the green energy sources are replacing fossil-carbon-fired electrical generators.
Unreliable renewable sources (such as wind or solar) will add the need
new power lines, since one day you have to get energy from one site,
the next day from an other site if you want to use electricity every
day at nominal power levels.
They can be put closer to the customers they are supplying and
You can put a coal or NG fired power plant within a large city, but is >unrealistic to assume large wind or solar farms within a city.
in many cases the existing lines will be perfectly adequate.
No way.
The move to electric vehicles will eventually add about 30% to
the demand for electric power, which probably will mean adding
more transmission lines but it's a much more ad hoc process than youy seem to imagine
When average EV battery capacity becomes so large that you on average >needs to charge them once a week, you can schedule the charging when
there is more unreliable renewable energy available.
The current HV transfer capacity is inadequate at least in
Scandinavia. Take a look at production and area prices:
https://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/
Follow this page for a few hours or few days.
At the upper half of the page, there is the current bidding prices in >different regions.
Each country is an own region and some countries are divided into
multiple regions. The price can greatly vary between countries and
also there can be huge price differences within a country.
One would expect that the same average price would apply to the whole >Scandinavia, but why is there so much differences ?
The reason is that the cross border and cross region transfer capacity
is inadequate.
For instance Norway has a big surplus thanks to plenty of hydro and
the price is low in northern regions. However, the price in southern >Norway can be many times that. The reason is multiple HVDC cables to
UK, the Netherlands and Denmark but inadequate transfer capacity
between mid-Norway and south Norway.
With better cross border and cross region HV lines or cables, the
price difference would be much smaller.
That same page also shows the total production separated by source for >each country and also the whole Scandinavia. It should be noted that >during the low consumption (summer) very little fossil fuels are used. >Norway is the great producer of hydro. Both Sweden and Finland produce
a lot of nuclear and hydro and sometimes some wind.
The 'thermal power' for both Sweden and Finland contains some
byproducts from the pulp and paper industry, so it is partially
renewable.
During the cold period (winter) more fossil fuels needs to be used.The greenies will wreck our power systems, electricity will become intermittent and unaffordable, people will revolt and elect some
sensible people, and eventually things will get fixed in maybe 20
years, namely about where we were 20 years ago.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:people controlling the terra-bucks have gotten the message. It is an indisputable fact that mankind has overdone it, they know by analyzing the types and proportions of carbon isotopes -12, -13, and -14. That's in addition to the historical data on a
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 2:21:53?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:14:24 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William SlomanThe greenies will wreck our power systems, electricity will become
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
<about needing new additional power lines>
Except that the green energy sources are replacing fossil-carbon-fired electrical generators.
Unreliable renewable sources (such as wind or solar) will add the need >> >new power lines, since one day you have to get energy from one site,
the next day from an other site if you want to use electricity every
day at nominal power levels.
They can be put closer to the customers they are supplying and
You can put a coal or NG fired power plant within a large city, but is >> >unrealistic to assume large wind or solar farms within a city.
in many cases the existing lines will be perfectly adequate.
No way.
The move to electric vehicles will eventually add about 30% to
the demand for electric power, which probably will mean adding
more transmission lines but it's a much more ad hoc process than youy seem to imagine
When average EV battery capacity becomes so large that you on average
needs to charge them once a week, you can schedule the charging when
there is more unreliable renewable energy available.
The current HV transfer capacity is inadequate at least in
Scandinavia. Take a look at production and area prices:
https://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/
Follow this page for a few hours or few days.
At the upper half of the page, there is the current bidding prices in
different regions.
Each country is an own region and some countries are divided into
multiple regions. The price can greatly vary between countries and
also there can be huge price differences within a country.
One would expect that the same average price would apply to the whole
Scandinavia, but why is there so much differences ?
The reason is that the cross border and cross region transfer capacity >> >is inadequate.
For instance Norway has a big surplus thanks to plenty of hydro and
the price is low in northern regions. However, the price in southern
Norway can be many times that. The reason is multiple HVDC cables to
UK, the Netherlands and Denmark but inadequate transfer capacity
between mid-Norway and south Norway.
With better cross border and cross region HV lines or cables, the
price difference would be much smaller.
That same page also shows the total production separated by source for >> >each country and also the whole Scandinavia. It should be noted that
during the low consumption (summer) very little fossil fuels are used. >> >Norway is the great producer of hydro. Both Sweden and Finland produce >> >a lot of nuclear and hydro and sometimes some wind.
The 'thermal power' for both Sweden and Finland contains some
byproducts from the pulp and paper industry, so it is partially
renewable.
During the cold period (winter) more fossil fuels needs to be used.
intermittent and unaffordable, people will revolt and elect some
sensible people, and eventually things will get fixed in maybe 20
years, namely about where we were 20 years ago.
Maybe the political leadership want to keep their heads. Only a person suffering a combination of mental illness and low IQ could deny the absolute necessity for eliminating fossil fuel GHG emissions entirely and as fast as possible. Apparently the
Earth is greening and getting better for plants and people. Sorry to disappoint.
750 PPM of CO2 or so would be great.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 3:29:47?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:people controlling the terra-bucks have gotten the message. It is an indisputable fact that mankind has overdone it, they know by analyzing the types and proportions of carbon isotopes -12, -13, and -14. That's in addition to the historical data on a
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 2:21:53?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:14:24 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William SlomanThe greenies will wreck our power systems, electricity will become
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
<about needing new additional power lines>
Except that the green energy sources are replacing fossil-carbon-fired electrical generators.
Unreliable renewable sources (such as wind or solar) will add the need >> >> >new power lines, since one day you have to get energy from one site,
the next day from an other site if you want to use electricity every
day at nominal power levels.
They can be put closer to the customers they are supplying and
You can put a coal or NG fired power plant within a large city, but is >> >> >unrealistic to assume large wind or solar farms within a city.
in many cases the existing lines will be perfectly adequate.
No way.
The move to electric vehicles will eventually add about 30% to
the demand for electric power, which probably will mean adding
more transmission lines but it's a much more ad hoc process than youy seem to imagine
When average EV battery capacity becomes so large that you on average
needs to charge them once a week, you can schedule the charging when
there is more unreliable renewable energy available.
The current HV transfer capacity is inadequate at least in
Scandinavia. Take a look at production and area prices:
https://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/
Follow this page for a few hours or few days.
At the upper half of the page, there is the current bidding prices in
different regions.
Each country is an own region and some countries are divided into
multiple regions. The price can greatly vary between countries and
also there can be huge price differences within a country.
One would expect that the same average price would apply to the whole
Scandinavia, but why is there so much differences ?
The reason is that the cross border and cross region transfer capacity >> >> >is inadequate.
For instance Norway has a big surplus thanks to plenty of hydro and
the price is low in northern regions. However, the price in southern
Norway can be many times that. The reason is multiple HVDC cables to
UK, the Netherlands and Denmark but inadequate transfer capacity
between mid-Norway and south Norway.
With better cross border and cross region HV lines or cables, the
price difference would be much smaller.
That same page also shows the total production separated by source for >> >> >each country and also the whole Scandinavia. It should be noted that
during the low consumption (summer) very little fossil fuels are used. >> >> >Norway is the great producer of hydro. Both Sweden and Finland produce >> >> >a lot of nuclear and hydro and sometimes some wind.
The 'thermal power' for both Sweden and Finland contains some
byproducts from the pulp and paper industry, so it is partially
renewable.
During the cold period (winter) more fossil fuels needs to be used.
intermittent and unaffordable, people will revolt and elect some
sensible people, and eventually things will get fixed in maybe 20
years, namely about where we were 20 years ago.
Maybe the political leadership want to keep their heads. Only a person suffering a combination of mental illness and low IQ could deny the absolute necessity for eliminating fossil fuel GHG emissions entirely and as fast as possible. Apparently the
Earth is greening and getting better for plants and people. Sorry to
disappoint.
750 PPM of CO2 or so would be great.
That's just some dime store tabloid misinformation for the lowest elements of society. Not worthy of a reply.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 1:14:34?AM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
<about needing new additional power lines>
Except that the green energy sources are replacing fossil-carbon-fired electrical generators.Unreliable renewable sources (such as wind or solar) will add the need
new power lines, since one day you have to get energy from one site,
the next day from an other site if you want to use electricity every
day at nominal power levels.
Less so if you have a respectable amount of grid scale storage.
They can be put closer to the customers they are supplying and
in many cases the existing lines will be perfectly adequate.
No way.
You can put a coal or NG fired power plant within a large city, but is unrealistic to assume large wind or solar farms within a city.
Nobody is assuming that. You can put them close to cities, and it lots of cases that's where the big fossil-fueled power plants were built anyway.
Smaller ones where put in - or very close - to city centres in the early days of electrification, and still are where district heating is popular.
plenty of power and it should allow you to match the load to the power available. You don't need huge batteries in each car to do it.more transmission lines but it's a much more ad hoc process than youy seem to imagine.The move to electric vehicles will eventually add about 30% to the demand for electric power, which probably will mean adding
When average EV battery capacity becomes so large that you on average needs to charge them once a week, you can schedule the charging when there is more unreliable renewable energy available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded
from 2008 makes the point that if you move over to mainly electric vehicles, the car batteries - which spend 95% of their time parked - could collectively delver about three time as much power as the local national grid. You recharge them when there is
The current HV transfer capacity is inadequate at least in Scandinavia. Take a look at production and area prices:
https://www.svk.se/en/national-grid/the-control-room/
Follow this page for a few hours or few days.
At the upper half of the page, there is the current bidding prices in different regions.
That's the mechanism that matches the consumption to available capacity
Each country is an own region and some countries are divided into multiple regions. The price can greatly vary between countries and also there can be huge price differences within a country.
But it is designed match supply to demand, and the huge variations average out to sensible average prices,
while compensating the people who keep expensive fast start gas-turbine generation capacity idling most
of the time until the system runs out of cheaper power generation. It a highly specialised and technical
free market, even if it looks chaotic to people who don't see the point.
One would expect that the same average price would apply to the whole Scandinavia, but why is there so much differences ?
To move power to where it is needed.
The reason is that the cross border and cross region transfer capacity is inadequate.
If were you'd have power failures and the lights would go out from time
to time, as happens frequnetly in third world countries.
For instance Norway has a big surplus thanks to plenty of hydro and
the price is low in northern regions. However, the price in southern
Norway can be many times that. The reason is multiple HVDC cables to
UK, the Netherlands and Denmark but inadequate transfer capacity
between mid-Norway and south Norway.
Wrong.
With better cross border and cross region HV lines or cables, the
price difference would be much smaller.
But better - bigger - HV links are an expensive capital investment,
and a clever free market can let you get away with a just adequate system.
The 'thermal power' for both Sweden and Finland contains some byproducts from the pulp and paper industry, so it is partially renewable.
The pulp and paper mill where my father was research manager
when I was growing up had a Norwegian (Kamyr) continuous digester and its own steam plant.
Tasmania has a lot of hydroelectric generating capacity, but it made sense to use some of
the steam to generate electric power on site
During the cold period (winter) more fossil fuels needs to be used.
No surprise there.
How many full charge/discharge cycles does the EV battery last, before...
the storage capacity is reduced ? The use of EV battery to support the
power grid will shorten the battery life and needs a costly earlier replacement.An other poster said that their company us paying USD2/kWh
to use the charge from the EV battery. Is that enough ?
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:14:24 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
The greenies will wreck our power systems, electricity will become intermittent and unaffordable, people will revolt and elect some sensible people, and eventually things will get fixed in maybe 20 years, namely about where we were 20 years ago.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:18:06 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 2:21:53?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:14:24 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
Earth is greening and getting better for plants and people.
Sorry to disappoint.
750 PPM of CO2 or so would be great.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:21:53?AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:14:24 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
<snip>
The greenies will wreck our power systems, electricity will become intermittent and unaffordable, people will revolt and elect some sensible people, and eventually things will get fixed in maybe 20 years, namely about where we were 20 years ago.
John Larkin gets his information from climate change denial propaganda.
His "greenies" are invented by climate change denial propaganda machine.
Power from renewable sources is cheaper than power generated by burning fossil carbon.
It is intermittent, but not unreliable.
Geographical averaging helps.
Grid scale storage helps more.
Sensible people aren't suckered by climate change denial propaganda -
which is in practice only aimed at the fossil carbon extraction industries cash flow high for a few more years while they diversify into renewables.
In twenty years the propaganda will have served its purpose,
and the suckers who were gullible enough to fall for it will deny that that they7 were ever that foolish.
Earth is greening and getting better for plants and people.
750 PPM of CO2 or so would be great.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 19:25:41 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman ><bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:21:53?AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:14:24 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
<snip>
The greenies will wreck our power systems, electricity will become intermittent and unaffordable, people will revolt and elect some sensible people, and eventually things will get fixed in maybe 20 years, namely about where we were 20 years ago.
The transition can be done safely in a few decades as long as the
worst alarmists are kept out of policy making
John Larkin gets his information from climate change denial propaganda.
His "greenies" are invented by climate change denial propaganda machine.
We have also seen alarmist propaganda in this newsgroup.
Power from renewable sources is cheaper than power generated by burning fossil carbon.
This situation is partially achieved by emission trading of fossil
fuels. Thus renewables look relatively cheaper.
The cost of PV solar can go very low in sunny regions and
environmentally harmless especially if the panels are mounted sparsely
so that grass will receive some sun light and rain and when installed
high enough, animals can graze that grass.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:29:47?PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
Earth is greening and getting better for plants and people.
That word 'greening' is too vague.
Coloration isn't the issue. There's not enough green growth to sequester the >added carbon (we aren't seeing lots of old-growth millennium-old timber under the
thin green seasonal canopy).
Better for plants, I dunno; do you mean better for vegetable reproductive success, or what?
As for people, we're suffering climate change.
750 PPM of CO2 or so would be great.
It'd be near twice the present pollution. That's still only a couple of percent, though, of
toxic atmospheric levels.
The deadly effect is in the food/water/housing detriments. Those, we need more than
seasonal green coloration.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 19:25:41 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:21:53?AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:14:24 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
<snip>
The greenies will wreck our power systems, electricity will become intermittent and unaffordable, people will revolt and elect some sensible people, and eventually things will get fixed in maybe 20 years, namely about where we were 20 years ago.
The transition can be done safely in a few decades as long as the worst alarmists are kept out of policy making.
John Larkin gets his information from climate change denial propaganda. >His "greenies" are invented by climate change denial propaganda machine.
We have also seen alarmist propaganda in this newsgroup.
Power from renewable sources is cheaper than power generated by burning fossil carbon.
This situation is partially achieved by emission trading of fossil fuels. Thus renewables look relatively cheaper.
The cost of PV solar can go very low in sunny regions and environmentally harmless especially if the panels are mounted sparsely so that grass will receive some sun light and rain and when installed high enough, animals can graze that grass.
It is intermittent, but not unreliable.
What is the reliability of weather forecasts?
Geographical averaging helps.
Requires new power lines.
Grid scale storage helps more.
For how long breaks should be handled at what cost ?
Sensible people aren't suckered by climate change denial propaganda -
Avoid also worst alarmist propaganda.
which is in practice only aimed at the fossil carbon extraction industries cash flow high for a few more years while they diversify into renewables.
It is sad to see that fully functional relatively new power plants are dismantled long before their end of life due to alarmist propaganda.
The remaining fossil plants will require fossil fuels for a few decades, why shutting down the fossil industry prematurely ?
When new fossil systems are no longer installed, the fossil industry will fade away with time.
In twenty years the propaganda will have served its purpose, and the suckers who were gullible enough to fall for it will deny that that they were ever that foolish.
I am equally afraid of the worst alarmists.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 00:30:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:29:47?PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
Earth is greening and getting better for plants and people.
That word 'greening' is too vague.
Argue that with NASA.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
Coloration isn't the issue. There's not enough green growth to sequester the added carbon (we aren't seeing lots of old-growth millennium-old timber under the thin green seasonal canopy).
Better for plants, I dunno; do you mean better for vegetable reproductive success, or what?
As for people, we're suffering climate change.
750 PPM of CO2 or so would be great.
It'd be near twice the present pollution. That's still only a couple of percent, though, of toxic atmospheric levels.
Pollution? CO2 feeds all life on earth.
The deadly effect is in the food/water/housing detriments. Those, we need more than seasonal green coloration.
What we need more of, besides CO2, is common sense.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 09:41:22 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 19:25:41 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 5:21:53?AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 17:14:24 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 19:56:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
<snip>
The greenies will wreck our power systems, electricity will become intermittent and unaffordable, people will revolt and elect some sensible people, and eventually things will get fixed in maybe 20 years, namely about where we were 20 years ago.
The transition can be done safely in a few decades as long as the worst alarmists are kept out of policy making.
John Larkin gets his information from climate change denial propaganda. >>His "greenies" are invented by climate change denial propaganda machine.
We have also seen alarmist propaganda in this newsgroup.
Power from renewable sources is cheaper than power generated by burning fossil carbon.
This situation is partially achieved by emission trading of fossil fuels. Thus renewables look relatively cheaper.
Stop subsidizing dumb projects and let the market decide.
The cost of PV solar can go very low in sunny regions and environmentally harmless especially if the panels are mounted sparsely so that grass will receive some sun light and rain and when installed high enough, animals can graze that grass.
Just apply money.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 00:30:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:29:47?PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
Earth is greening and getting better for plants and people.
That word 'greening' is too vague.
Argue that with NASA.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
Coloration isn't the issue. There's not enough green growth to sequester the
added carbon (we aren't seeing lots of old-growth millennium-old timber under the
thin green seasonal canopy).
Better for plants, I dunno; do you mean better for vegetable reproductive success, or what?
As for people, we're suffering climate change.
750 PPM of CO2 or so would be great.
It'd be near twice the present pollution. That's still only a couple of percent, though, ofPollution? CO2 feeds all life on earth.
toxic atmospheric levels.
The deadly effect is in the food/water/housing detriments. Those, we need more thanWhat we need more of, besides CO2, is common sense.
seasonal green coloration.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 06:56:06 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:and low life hack under orders from the Trump administration, did not anticipate the evolving climate change processes and their deleterious effects of plant life. The big ones are droughts, excessive heat, and fires. In case you haven't noticed, plants
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:04:45?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 00:30:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:29:47?PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:Argue that with NASA.
Earth is greening and getting better for plants and people.
That word 'greening' is too vague.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
Another aged source with speculative findings, as admitted by the study authors themselves, and largely obsolete and outright wrong as determined by more recent studies. For one thing, the NASA article, written by a PR/Communications office journalist
'decline', and that could take years. All the boreal forests are in rapid and widespread decline.
A broad perspective by a plant specialist on the ultimate effects of excessive CO2:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/dont-plants-do-better-environments-very-high-co2
In addition to dispelling the myth of CO2 improvement, he also talks about the futility of doing things like planting a trillion trees, as, under conditions of heat stress, the plant respirates CO2 back into the air.
Science article finding that the fertilizing effect of CO2 insofar as 'greening' has been in steady decline for the past 40 years.
https://phys.org/news/2020-12-greening-earth-approaching-limit.html
Crop yields are up radically in the last 100 years, about 8x in the
case of corn, for example. Wheat yield per acre has about doubled
since 1950. A greatly increased human population is in relatively less hunger than ever.
Look it up.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:04:45?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:and low life hack under orders from the Trump administration, did not anticipate the evolving climate change processes and their deleterious effects of plant life. The big ones are droughts, excessive heat, and fires. In case you haven't noticed, plants
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 00:30:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:29:47?PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:Argue that with NASA.
Earth is greening and getting better for plants and people.
That word 'greening' is too vague.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
Another aged source with speculative findings, as admitted by the study authors themselves, and largely obsolete and outright wrong as determined by more recent studies. For one thing, the NASA article, written by a PR/Communications office journalist
'decline', and that could take years. All the boreal forests are in rapid and widespread decline.
A broad perspective by a plant specialist on the ultimate effects of excessive CO2:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/dont-plants-do-better-environments-very-high-co2
In addition to dispelling the myth of CO2 improvement, he also talks about the futility of doing things like planting a trillion trees, as, under conditions of heat stress, the plant respirates CO2 back into the air.
Science article finding that the fertilizing effect of CO2 insofar as 'greening' has been in steady decline for the past 40 years.
https://phys.org/news/2020-12-greening-earth-approaching-limit.html
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 10:23:26?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:journalist and low life hack under orders from the Trump administration, did not anticipate the evolving climate change processes and their deleterious effects of plant life. The big ones are droughts, excessive heat, and fires. In case you haven't
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 06:56:06 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:04:45?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 00:30:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:29:47?PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:Argue that with NASA.
Earth is greening and getting better for plants and people.
That word 'greening' is too vague.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
Another aged source with speculative findings, as admitted by the study authors themselves, and largely obsolete and outright wrong as determined by more recent studies. For one thing, the NASA article, written by a PR/Communications office
'decline', and that could take years. All the boreal forests are in rapid and widespread decline.Crop yields are up radically in the last 100 years, about 8x in the
A broad perspective by a plant specialist on the ultimate effects of excessive CO2:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/dont-plants-do-better-environments-very-high-co2
In addition to dispelling the myth of CO2 improvement, he also talks about the futility of doing things like planting a trillion trees, as, under conditions of heat stress, the plant respirates CO2 back into the air.
Science article finding that the fertilizing effect of CO2 insofar as 'greening' has been in steady decline for the past 40 years.
https://phys.org/news/2020-12-greening-earth-approaching-limit.html
case of corn, for example. Wheat yield per acre has about doubled
since 1950. A greatly increased human population is in relatively less
hunger than ever.
Look it up.
And you think that is a result of atmospheric CO2???
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 07:31:57 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:journalist and low life hack under orders from the Trump administration, did not anticipate the evolving climate change processes and their deleterious effects of plant life. The big ones are droughts, excessive heat, and fires. In case you haven't
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 10:23:26?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 06:56:06 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:04:45?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 00:30:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:29:47?PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote: >> >> >Argue that with NASA.
Earth is greening and getting better for plants and people.
That word 'greening' is too vague.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
Another aged source with speculative findings, as admitted by the study authors themselves, and largely obsolete and outright wrong as determined by more recent studies. For one thing, the NASA article, written by a PR/Communications office
'decline', and that could take years. All the boreal forests are in rapid and widespread decline.Crop yields are up radically in the last 100 years, about 8x in the
A broad perspective by a plant specialist on the ultimate effects of excessive CO2:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/dont-plants-do-better-environments-very-high-co2
In addition to dispelling the myth of CO2 improvement, he also talks about the futility of doing things like planting a trillion trees, as, under conditions of heat stress, the plant respirates CO2 back into the air.
Science article finding that the fertilizing effect of CO2 insofar as 'greening' has been in steady decline for the past 40 years.
https://phys.org/news/2020-12-greening-earth-approaching-limit.html
case of corn, for example. Wheat yield per acre has about doubled
since 1950. A greatly increased human population is in relatively less
hunger than ever.
Look it up.
And you think that is a result of atmospheric CO2???Partially. What it's really a result of is oil.
Fertilizers
Tractors
Electricity
Water pumps
Trucks to get stuff to market before the rats eat it
Insecticides
The virtous cycle is that burning all that oil, and making all that fertilizer, makes more CO2 also.
Win-win.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:22:45?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:journalist and low life hack under orders from the Trump administration, did not anticipate the evolving climate change processes and their deleterious effects of plant life. The big ones are droughts, excessive heat, and fires. In case you haven't
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 07:31:57 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 10:23:26?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 06:56:06 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:04:45?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 00:30:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:29:47?PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote: >> >> >> >Argue that with NASA.
Earth is greening and getting better for plants and people.
That word 'greening' is too vague.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
Another aged source with speculative findings, as admitted by the study authors themselves, and largely obsolete and outright wrong as determined by more recent studies. For one thing, the NASA article, written by a PR/Communications office
of
Partially. What it's really a result of is oil.'decline', and that could take years. All the boreal forests are in rapid and widespread decline.Crop yields are up radically in the last 100 years, about 8x in the
A broad perspective by a plant specialist on the ultimate effects of excessive CO2:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/dont-plants-do-better-environments-very-high-co2
In addition to dispelling the myth of CO2 improvement, he also talks about the futility of doing things like planting a trillion trees, as, under conditions of heat stress, the plant respirates CO2 back into the air.
Science article finding that the fertilizing effect of CO2 insofar as 'greening' has been in steady decline for the past 40 years.
https://phys.org/news/2020-12-greening-earth-approaching-limit.html
case of corn, for example. Wheat yield per acre has about doubled
since 1950. A greatly increased human population is in relatively less
hunger than ever.
Look it up.
And you think that is a result of atmospheric CO2???
Fertilizers
Tractors
Electricity
Water pumps
Trucks to get stuff to market before the rats eat it
Insecticides
All those things can be and are being made green.The discovery of the Haber-Bosch process allowed for the widespread fertilization of crops, and together with other agricultural technology advancements, helped revolutionize food production for a growing world population. This article explores the
https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2021/02/synthetic-nitrogen-fertilizer-in-the-us.html
This looks pretty good- can't beat extracting fertilizer from air :"One of the most important scientific discoveries of the 20th century is the Haber-Bosch process, which transforms atmospheric nitrogen into synthetic nitrogen for crop fertilization.
But it does look like it requires relatively energy intensive ingredients.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
The virtous cycle is that burning all that oil, and making all that
fertilizer, makes more CO2 also.
That was working well in its day, back when CO2 was under 300ppm, but that day has come and gone.
If the activity requires too much manmade intervention, it's not sustainable.
Win-win.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 00:30:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:29:47?PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
Earth is greening and getting better for plants and people.
That word 'greening' is too vague.
Argue that with NASA.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
Coloration isn't the issue. There's not enough green growth to sequester the
added carbon (we aren't seeing lots of old-growth millennium-old timber under the
thin green seasonal canopy).
Better for plants, I dunno; do you mean better for vegetable reproductive success, or what?
As for people, we're suffering climate change.
750 PPM of CO2 or so would be great.
It'd be near twice the present pollution. That's still only a couple of percent, though, ofPollution? CO2 feeds all life on earth.
toxic atmospheric levels.
The deadly effect is in the food/water/housing detriments. Those, we need more than
seasonal green coloration.
What we need more of, besides CO2, is common sense.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 10:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:22:45?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 07:31:57 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 10:23:26?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 06:56:06 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:04:45?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 00:30:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:29:47?PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
What's sustainable is a planet with a few hundred million malnourished people with 32-year average life spans.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 10:03:34 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:journalist and low life hack under orders from the Trump administration, did not anticipate the evolving climate change processes and their deleterious effects of plant life. The big ones are droughts, excessive heat, and fires. In case you haven't
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 12:22:45?PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 07:31:57 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 10:23:26?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 06:56:06 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 7:04:45?AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 00:30:26 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:29:47?PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:Argue that with NASA.
Earth is greening and getting better for plants and people.
That word 'greening' is too vague.
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
Another aged source with speculative findings, as admitted by the study authors themselves, and largely obsolete and outright wrong as determined by more recent studies. For one thing, the NASA article, written by a PR/Communications office
of
Partially. What it's really a result of is oil.'decline', and that could take years. All the boreal forests are in rapid and widespread decline.Crop yields are up radically in the last 100 years, about 8x in the
A broad perspective by a plant specialist on the ultimate effects of excessive CO2:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/dont-plants-do-better-environments-very-high-co2
In addition to dispelling the myth of CO2 improvement, he also talks about the futility of doing things like planting a trillion trees, as, under conditions of heat stress, the plant respirates CO2 back into the air.
Science article finding that the fertilizing effect of CO2 insofar as 'greening' has been in steady decline for the past 40 years.
https://phys.org/news/2020-12-greening-earth-approaching-limit.html >> >> >
case of corn, for example. Wheat yield per acre has about doubled
since 1950. A greatly increased human population is in relatively less >> >> hunger than ever.
Look it up.
And you think that is a result of atmospheric CO2???
Fertilizers
Tractors
Electricity
Water pumps
Trucks to get stuff to market before the rats eat it
Insecticides
The discovery of the Haber-Bosch process allowed for the widespread fertilization of crops, and together with other agricultural technology advancements, helped revolutionize food production for a growing world population. This article explores theAll those things can be and are being made green.
https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2021/02/synthetic-nitrogen-fertilizer-in-the-us.html
This looks pretty good- can't beat extracting fertilizer from air :"One of the most important scientific discoveries of the 20th century is the Haber-Bosch process, which transforms atmospheric nitrogen into synthetic nitrogen for crop fertilization.
But it does look like it requires relatively energy intensive ingredients.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
The virtous cycle is that burning all that oil, and making all that
fertilizer, makes more CO2 also.
That was working well in its day, back when CO2 was under 300ppm, but that day has come and gone.
If the activity requires too much manmade intervention, it's not sustainable.
What's sustainable is a planet with a few hundred million malnourished people with 32-year average life spans.
Win-win.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 83:35:52 |
| Calls: | 6,716 |
| Files: | 12,247 |
| Messages: | 5,358,200 |