|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 29, 2015 16:10:59 GMT
Teslas charging off a diesel generator
|
|
excoriator
Madrigal Member 
nearly a genius
Posts: 37,165
|
Post by excoriator on May 29, 2015 17:03:29 GMT
No one interested in the renewable energy would own an electric car made by anyone. They are ludicrous vehicles intended for posers with money.
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on May 30, 2015 8:23:07 GMT
Come on, Marchesa - is that the best you can do? Please, have some respect, it not for us then for yourself. You don't want people to start new threads for every Trashing of the Environment carried out by users or producers of fossil fuel, do you? It would harder than creating a definitive list of Jess Franco's films (see the What's Pleasing You? thread), that is: impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 30, 2015 10:29:36 GMT
Aubrey, electric cars are supposed to be GREEN! They are marketed on the premise that their owners are doing something to "save the environment" . All they do is transfer the exhaust pollution and CO2 emissions from city streets to nearby (probably) fossil fuelled power stations!
The ones in the video are discharging pollution directly into the air courtesy of a mobile diesel generator. Why don't they just tow it behind them? Why don't they somehow incorporate this kind of liquid power generation into the vehicle itself? Oh, yeah! That's already been tried, hasn't i?
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on May 30, 2015 10:45:12 GMT
|
|
excoriator
Madrigal Member
nearly a genius
Posts: 37,165
|
Post by excoriator on May 30, 2015 11:54:32 GMT
Aubrey, electric cars are supposed to be GREEN!
Of course they are not! That's just advertising bollocks. Trust March to believe it though!
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 30, 2015 13:07:07 GMT
Well spotted, that man! This is the whole point of the thread. You are soooo perceptive, exco!
Explain to us now how the "advertising bollocks" of Green cars differs from the advertising bollocks of renewable energy, please?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 30, 2015 13:18:12 GMT
Aubrey, it's OK to display your boundless compassion for dying sea birds. We all appreciate that it makes you feel good and morally superior. Good for you, pal!.
Trouble is you never seem able to balance the harm of environmental accidents and spills against the billion-fold benefits we enjoy courtesy of fossil fuels. In fact modern society is not possible without fossil fuels. You only ever give us the costs and never the benefits. Your comments are therefore irrelevant because totally unbalanced. Only if nuclear power stations could take over the job of providing reliable base load electricity world wide could fossil fuel burning be dispensed with. However, since it is highly unlikely that CO2 from fossil fuel burning will prove to be the menace that alarmists predict, we need not extend our capacity for "environmental anxiety" re. CO2 any further.
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on May 30, 2015 15:25:57 GMT
Yes, yes and yes. You're talking about pollution from what is sold as green energy, so I showed you some from the regular type (those accidents are pretty much all preventable, by the way; they occur because of not taking enough care. There has recently been a bit spill in Texas I think it was, and the company involved had been given notice of 170-odd safety regulation violations in the past few years. It is a decision: take the risk and hope to get away with it: and even if you don't the costs are worth it. At the time of the Gulf spill, BP were lobbying for safety regulations to be reduced. These are the people who pay people like the Heartland Institute - where you get most of your stuff from, however indirectly - to say that there is no warming and even if there is it's nothing to do with CO2. Look at this poor fellow:  |
|
jean
Madrigal Member
Posts: 8,546
|
Post by jean on May 30, 2015 17:11:20 GMT
Explain to us now how the "advertising bollocks" of Green cars differs from the advertising bollocks of renewable energy, please? Renewable energy really is Green, but electric cars are Green only to the extent that they do not produce significant amounts of pollution while they are in use. This is not a negligible benefit, despite what exco says; but since these cars create pollution further up the line, they are not the answer to the problem of too-great reliance on the private car. I don't know any Green person who thinks they are. |
|
excoriator
Madrigal Member
nearly a genius
Posts: 37,165
|
Post by excoriator on May 30, 2015 18:25:28 GMT
Apart from the batteries being an environmental disaster in their own right, electric cars are using mains electricity which is largely produced by coal or gas, both of which are grossly inefficient, producing vast amounts of pollution. Coal stations waste about 70% the thermal energy and gas about half. When you factor this into the energy budget, electric cars are LESS efficient than a petrol hybrid or even some diesels.
The yanks have a snappy title for this, bless them. They call it the 'Long tailpipe'!
How does the mendacious advertising of these things differ from that of advertising for renewable energy energy. Mainly because renewables can honestly claim the following
1. Non polluting.
2. Inexpensive. They receive far less in subsidies and tax breaks than fossil fuel extimated at $10,000,000 a minute world wide
3. Reliable and predictable (different from intermittent)
4. No waste products like radioactive materials or fly-ash etc.
I can't think of any claim made for electric cars that bear even superficial scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 31, 2015 8:52:28 GMT
And what about the battery storage repeatedly touted as being the solution to renewables intermittency?
There is no "battery storage" available for wind or solar farms. None has been developed. Yet the Greens repeatedly refer to this as if it were up and running. They are lying. Why should anyone trust proven liars?
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on May 31, 2015 9:06:45 GMT
Wait. And don't go about imagining that traditional methods of power are not subject to indeterminacy either. I am amazed that no one seems to have spotted my cheat from a few posts ago. Maybe you did and didn't know where it was from: or maybe you didn't care. But anyway, does anyone know the title of the film?  |
|
loop
Madrigal Member
bozo hypocritical prat
Posts: 2,218
|
Post by loop on May 31, 2015 9:58:53 GMT
Dinorwig Power Station is the best, green battery one can have.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 31, 2015 10:15:19 GMT
How many Dinorwigs (1.72 gigawatts) are necessary to balance the wind generated electricity produced today (5 gigawatts) never mind the *hoped for* future situation when 25 gigawatts of UK electricity comes from windmills? As a matter of fact here is an article that covers precisely this unsolvable problem. Estimating Storage Requirements At High Levels of Wind PenetrationPosted on May 28, 2015 on Energy Matters by Roger Andrews euanmearns.com/estimating-storage-requirements-at-high-levels-of-wind-penetration/In recent posts and comments there have been a number of back-of-the-envelope estimates – including some from yours truly – of how much pumped hydro storage would be needed to bridge some of the low-wind periods that have been registered in the UK. Here I take a closer look at the question of how much wind power storage would be needed at the high-penetration grid scale.
And I find that estimating how much storage is needed is not a trivial exercise. It is in fact a very complicated one, and we get quite different results depending on what it is we want to achieve and how we go about achieving it. Within limits (usually high ones) we can make the storage requirement pretty much what we want it to be. For any given scenario there is in fact no correct answer.
Here I consider the following scenario. There are many others:
By February 2020 the UK is generating enough wind power to supply an average of 25GW to the grid. The goal is to use pumped hydro storage to convert all of this wind power into dispatchable baseload generation, whereupon wind will supply almost 60% of UK electricity consumption for the month.
The pumped hydro system consists of a lower and upper reservoir of the same size. It loses and gains no water, has no charge/discharge limitations and is 100% efficient (the results can be factored to allow for lower efficiencies).
Demand in February 2020 is the same as in February 2013. Wind generation in February 2020 is increased by a factor of twelve relative to 2013 values (25GW divided by the 2.08GW average generation in February 2013) so that it averages 25GW in 2020, which works out to 100GW of installed wind capacity at a 25% overall load factor. (I chose February 2013 partly because I’ve used it as an example before, partly because it’s a fairly typical winter month and partly because analyzing the data for all of 2013 was too burdensome. Other months will, however, give different results, and the numbers provided here should be considered in that light.)
Economic considerations are ignored.
more........
Time to sum up. We have identified five different options for storing wind power that give pumped hydro storage requirements of anywhere between 700GWh and 5,000GWh. Which is the best?
There isn’t one. In all probability none of them is even feasible, if only because it’s highly unlikely that the UK will have access to this much pumped hydro storage at any time in the foreseeable future, if ever. And even if it did all of the options would be to a greater or lesser extent hostage to the UK weather, which as residents will tell you is not to be trusted.
What if the only "solution" is to flood Wales with reservoirs? This will be very picturesque and enhance boating opportunities and tourism no end. There is no point flooding Scotland - it is far too far from the uk major population centres, whereas Wales is just right! (Is this "racist"?) |
|
