Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
113 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
strativarius
June 16, 2024 2:19 am
The latest in stupid…
Electric car owners can swap batteries in five minutes as major brands support revolutionary technologyElectric vehicle owners may soon be able to swap their car batteries in as little as five minutes with new groundbreaking technology set to hit the UK soon.
Nio, a premium Chinese car manufacturer, has launched the third generation of its Power Swap Stations, which allow motorists to replace their batteries in under five minutes. https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/electric-car-battery-swap-technology
I can see a hundred different ways that idea can fail to deliver, not least because they’d need a massive inventory and stupendous charging facilities. But it’s not obvious to me that it’s stupid in principle—I mean, assuming one already thinks EVs are an urgent necessity…
I don’t. But they are fun. I’m all in favour of fun. And I can imagine an electric 4×4, without the constraint of prop shafts, could do astonishing things though it won’t save the planet. The planet seems to be doing OK.
quelgeek,
In our mineral exploration work in central Australia west of Tennant Creek NT, we lost long wheel base Toyota 4WD diesel vehicles because of heat, sand, inflammable spionnifex grass packing umnder exhaust pipes with some plastic tubes, plus a few hundred litres of long range fuel on the tray. It is not a pleasant sight, so we insisted on no lone vehivle work, always a pair of $WD in the big bad areas.
Trying to envision an all-electric WD in this tough country, Tmax often over 45 deg C for days on end.
Conclusion: Nope. Far from ready yet,
(How do you charge it when the next nearest person of any type is 100+ km away?).
Geoff S
One must pick the right vehicle for the job; no question. There are plenty of ICE 4x4s you wouldn’t bet your life on, as your anecdote hints. And Toyotas are some of the better ones!
I have two diesel 4x4s. I don’t bet my life on either of them; they are just very useful where I happen to live. Some of my neighbours make do with quad bikes. I think an EV 4×4 could make a manufacturer a lot of money if they built it to do things conventional ones can’t. I am making no claims about saving the planet. I’m talking about exploiting an an unfilled niche. That’s how innovation has worked till now and probably always will.
Then when you’re forced to go EV, you’ll just have to give up ALL such exploration work- after all, it’s for a good cause, to save the planet from burning up and the oceans from boiling! /s
One time back in the ’70s, the remnants of a typhoon from Baja hit the White Mountains in California on our way home from mineral collecting in the Darwin district. It washed out the paved highway for about 100 yards (among other things). I usually drove my 4WD with the hubs locked in when in problematic conditions, assuming that if I got stuck in 2WD, I could engage the transfer case and get out of trouble. Before I attempted to cross the washout, I engaged the hubs, as a precaution. About 20 yards in, I could sense the engine starting to lug. In the time it took to reach over and pull the transfer case lever, I was stuck solidly up to my frame in what was essentially quicksand. I couldn’t even trench the wheels because the mud would just re-fill the hole. I did eventually get out after everything de-watered some. However, the fine sand and silt got into everything!. Once I got back onto pavement, I found I couldn’t go over about 50 MPH because of the sand packed in the wheels, unbalancing them. I had to find a stick to scrape out all the cement-like sand. The carburetor accelerator linkage jammed and broke the cable, which necessitated taking the choke butterfly valve out of the carburetor so I could use the hand choke as an accelerator ‘pedal.’ By the time I got home about 4 hours later, the sand had completely destroyed my brake linings, which had made for some interesting driving in the mountains, especially! As bad as it was, I’m sure that an EV would have experienced more damage with the wheel motors in the quicksand and the battery exposed to boulders and alkaline water.
Clyde,
Driving vehicles in water and sludge esp. in remote dangerous places gives EVs one possibleadvantage, the ability to vary engine speed without change to external gear like cooling fans. Many times with ICE I needed auto transmission not manual. With manual in deep water, often best to remove fan belt, because the faster you move the vehicle forward faster you spray water and risk electricity shorts. With EVs, you might not have this problem. But you probably know all this. Geoff S
Actually, I had a flex-fan replacing the factory fixed-pitch fan. The faster the fan turned, the flatter the blades got. My Corvette has a fixed-pitch fan, but with a viscous liquid coupling that limits the rotation speed. So, there are ways to customize ICE vehicles.
It is stupid in principle. One of the primary virtues of private property, aside from being the liberty-minded thing to do, is that it encourages maintenance of that property by its owner so he can get a high resale value and high productivity.
This is worse than rental cars, which are notorious for people not caring for them because they are just rentals. Battery swappers will have zero incentive to keep the charge between 20-80% for long life or keeping them garaged in cold weather or doing anything else annoying which takes care of them.
This is a good point. I would not want pay to rent the battery. I would pay for the energy it delivered, and I would need my—MY—car to measure it. I would want to buy N joules of energy and expect the battery supplier to replace the batteries until I got my N joules. There would be a strong incentive for them to give me durable batteries.
I have no desire to make anyone have an EV who doesn’t want one. But I see no harm in making EVs work well for people who want what they can do. Built-in batteries are a mis-feature. I will never choose to buy/lease an EV with built-in batteries.
In fact I will probably never buy an EV, period. But it is interesting to think how they could be made more practical and affordable. If in the end we decide the problems are intractable we can stop assuming they’re the future.
One may not have any prop shafts to deal with, but how will the battery and wheel motors handle immersion while fording streams? Currently, and probably always to keep a low center of gravity, the batteries will be at risk of puncture going over rocky terrain. Also, off-road vehicles are typically subject to transient forces that are likely to pop spot welds on battery wires and the case. Personally, I would be reluctant to buy an EV for off-road use based on my experiences.
They have been running such a scheme in China for some time and about 18 months ago began one in Norway ( The EV capital of Europe). You lease the battery and get a six free swaps before starting to pay for them. However, they ended the free swaps in China in June 2023 for new buyers. The lease cost in Norway was up to £200 per month.
If batteries can be swapped then they can also be stolen. Much more valuable than stealing an ICE catalytic converter … or stealing the copper cables from an outdoor EV charging station.
This whole EV business tends to ignore Latin America. Living in Colombia and having lived a number of years in Costa Rica. I can attest to the reality that copper, and even iron, are prime targets for thieves.
Seems that the original idea at Tesla was to do this.
Two problems: if the battery was in a vehicle that was exposed to flooding or has minor damage, it is a firebomb. We are trusting the replacement station to test and inspect every battery? Also, how do we know the replacement battery is new or almost worn out? You may get decent range, or it may die before you leave the station.
I always thought the replacement idea was better than the permanently installed battery, but to really work well all manufacturers would have to agree on the form factor, chemistry and charger details. Never going to happen. Auto manufacturers cannot even agree on standard windshield wipers.
Go hang out at your local convenience store with say 12 fuel pumps and count the number of vehicles that fill up in an hour. Now imagine that these are all EVs stopping by for a 5 minute battery swap. How many fully charged batteries would have to be available? Assuming a fast charger could recharge exchanged batteries in an hour at say 100 kw how big would the substation connected to the service station need to be? Bonus question – what would insurance cost for such a business?
Ho hum . . . “in June 2013, Tesla announced its plan to offer battery swapping. Tesla showed that a battery swap with the Model S took just over 90 seconds. Elon Musk said the service would be offered at around US$60 to US$80 at June 2013 prices. The vehicle purchase included one battery pack. After a swap, the owner could later return and receive their battery pack fully charged. A second option would be to keep the swapped battery and receive/pay the difference in value between the original and the replacement. Pricing was not announced. In 2015 the company abandoned its sole swapping station, built at Harris Ranch, for lack of customer interest.”
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_swapping
(my bold emphasis added)
“Electric car owners can swap batteries in five minutes as major brands support revolutionary technology”
I’ve something like that talked about. What would a “fill up” cost? As I understand it, EV battery packs are rather large. Lot’s of space/volume needed to store them. (A gas stations fuel tanks can refill multiple gas tanks using relatively little storage space/volume.) If they are recharged on site and you get a defective replacement, can the the “battery” station be sued if shorts out and the fire guts the car (or kills the driver and passengers)?
Actually the concept works just fine in a proper application of electric vehicles. Namely electric fork lift trucks in a large warehouse. In the late 1970’s I worked as a fork lift mechanic in a large hardware store warehouse. We had 35 electric fork lift trucks of various sizes and designs. Each had a 2,000 lb lead acid battery that would power the truck for an 8 hour shift. Each truck had 3 batteries, one in the truck, one on charge and one cooling. The warehouse operated 24 hours a day with 3 shifts. At the end of your shift as an operator, you pulled into the battery area, next to the empty slot for your machine, disconnected the battery and rolled it out onto the charge rack, and rolled the charged battery from the cooling slot into your machine for the next guy. This battery change took less than 5 minutes.
Now there are a number of issues doing this for cars, but in principle the concept works just fine and has done so for decades in the material handling world. (the batteries had a capacity of 72 kWhrs, and their 2,000 lb weight acted as the counter balance for the forklift, most of which were narrow aisle reach trucks as in the following)
Not that I am advocating for electric cars, they are stupid and a gross mis-application of technology for foolish purposes. But swappable battery concept has worked very well for a long time in one proper application of electric vehicles.
Mr. Boss: An excellent point, battery switching is elementary and has been done. When EVs did NOT develop switching, it made me wonder why not? The fact that EV are trying to develop fast charging instead of switching, and building the battery into the car frame, is another sign that EVs are not fit for purpose. Maybe if they never leave the warehouse.
MrGrimNasty
June 16, 2024 2:34 am
‘Green’ renewable fuel plants are releasing MORE pollution than oil refineries, report claims.
Actually I object to being considered a “climate denier”. I cannot think of one person who denies climate or that it’s changing. If someone says that something is proven then they don’t understand science, it’s only proven until it’s not, and that only takes one observation that doesn’t match the hypothesis/theory/assumption.
I say this to all the reactors: IGNORE. I know people get triggered and want to have their say but..just..don’t. Because the result is more attention that it deserves. Otherwise you are part of the problem. And on and on it goes..
A better argument would be: point to a case, a country or region, where its working. A pilot. Or point to a proper business case, fully costed, for net zero in electricity generation. I know of none.
In the end this is a business and an engineering feasibility proposition. Current experience doesn’t suggest that its either possible or affordable (if you take all the costs into account) to replace conventional generation with wind and solar.
Still less if at the same time you try to move from gasoline and oil or gas heating to all electric.
The only really effective argument would be a successful pilot. Are there any? You tell me.
If you “go wind and solar”, you have to have BIG STORAGE, for
1) counteracting ups and downs of w/s outputs
2) wind/solar lulls occur.
Here are the 2023 prices/kWh for Tesla storage.
EXCERPT https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
. Example of Turnkey Cost of Large-Scale, Megapack Battery System, 2023 pricing
The system consists of 50 Megapack 2, rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, 4-h energy delivery
Power = 50 Megapacks x 0.979 MW x 0.926, Tesla design factor = 45.3 MW
Energy = 50 Megapacks x 3.916 MWh x 0.929, Tesla design factor = 181.9 MWh
Estimate of supply by Tesla, $90 million, or $495/kWh. See URL
Estimate of supply by Others, $14.5 million, or $80/kWh All-in, turnkey cost about $575/kWh; 2023 pricing https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design ?itok=lxTa2SlF https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/tesla-hikes-megapack-prices-commodity-inflation-soars
. Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh At 10% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh At 40% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
. Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. The excluded costs add at least 15 c/kWh
. COMMENTS ON CALCULATION
Almost all existing battery systems operate at less than 10%, per EIA annual reports i.e., new systems would operate at about 92.4 + 15 = 107.4 c/kWh. They are used to stabilize the grid, i.e., frequency control and counteracting up/down w/s outputs. If 40% throughput, 23.1 + 15 = 38.1 c/kWh.
A 4-h battery system costs 38.1 c/kWh of throughput, if operated at a duty factor of 40%.That is on top of the cost/kWh of the electricity taken from the HV grid to feed the batteries
.
Up to 40% could occur by absorbing midday solar peaks and discharging during late-afternoon/early-evening, which occur every day in California and other sunny states. The more solar systems, the greater the peaks.
See URL for Megapacks required for a one-day wind lull in New England
40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging.
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system. http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia .
Regarding any project, the bank and Owner have to be paid, no matter what. I amortized the bank loan and Owner’s investment
Divide total payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get c/kWh, as shown.
There is about a 20% round-trip loss, from HV grid to 1) step-down transformer, 2) front-end power electronics, 3) into battery, 4) out of battery, 5) back-end power electronics, 6) step-up transformer, to HV grid, i.e., you draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, battery Nirvana is just around the corner.
Not exactly a successful example story but back in the mid 80’s I was
traveling to a trade show in Billings MT with a group of ag producers in mid March from w central MT. As we crossed the Bozeman Pass and were passing thru Livingstone I saw my first wind towers ever. That area
is a notorious high wind area and the blades on these units were a blur that
day ..I had never seen anything like that other than old propeller
aircraft revving up
This led to a discussion between some of the guys on the subject of powering their irrigation systems, Some were of the mind to build reservoirs near their water source and pipe the water down and use the energy/water of that to power their systems. There were a few that were intrigued by the towers and might consider them. None that I know have as yet.
Now some 40yrs later there are a number of producers that I know that went the hydro way and it has proven successful. One operation runs 40 some center pivots off of a set of pipes from 3 reservoirs. They drive 100+ miles
a day just monitoring everything. They have split off and subdivided
a bunch of their land over the years which says a lot regarding the financial
side of things.
I also know some who ended up with some huge wind
towers set on or near their place that are owned by the large tower
companies. These guys or their successors have a sort of maintenance
deal and maintain and plow roads and such. They now hate the towers and regret their existence. These are the ones with blades 100++ft long.
The wind towers that we saw that morning self destructed not too long afterwards, they literally exploded.
The only successful ag alt energy projects I know of are remote livestock watering systems using solar panes. There is a newish 30+ acre solar
panel near here that got a $138K tax break from the county, probably
wouldn’t work without the tax break.
probably- it may have happened in my town of Orange, Wokeachusetts- when a solar “farm” was proposed- some town officials sang the glory of it- it seemed a bit too much
The local government is totally woke over in Helena.
One of the commissioners said—- “Lewis and Clark County, in my opinion, welcomes economic development, especially an energy project like this that is very clean.”
I love that first image of a hillside COVERED with solar panels. I bet you love it too. Just don’t consider the loss of ecosystem values or that might effect your love. I’ve seen several images like that in China, covering entire mountains and deserts.
And once the forests are cut down, and the available land is bought, one can expect the bottom to fall out of the growth curve. Then we will see how disruptive it is.
The link he has provided doesn’t claim wind and solar are delivering more total energy than gas, coal etc. It claims that the net return on whatever is installed is greater. So your chart, though interesting, doesn’t meet his point head on.
That is, the linked piece claims that to get a given mount of energy out of wind and solar requires you to use less energy than to get the same amount out of gas, coal etc.
The link doesn’t give any quantitative arguments for this view. It does in turn link to a paper, which I didn’t bother following up on.
Is it plausible and is it relevant? Neither, really. If it were true it should show up in lower costs for wind and solar generation compared to conventional. We know that they in fact cost several times as much if the comparison is done on a fully costed basis, and the recent failure of the UK auctions is an indicator – and those auctions did not reflect the full costs of using the power which the operators were bidding to supply.
The chart does have a bearing on the question, it shows that wind and solar are not displacing conventional energy sources and are still after many years trying only a tiny proportion of world energy sources. If it were really true that wind and solar are such great alternatives they would have made far more headway by now.
Well, because energy transitions are rare, take a long time and do not illiminate previous sources unless done out of political reasons. And, high density wins every time. From wood to charcoal to coal to oil to gas to nuclear. And now the green neo marxist intend is to kill people, sorry, correction, end population growth by going back to the bottom and re-distribute wealth by suicide while at the same time controlling the way the poor countries produce energy. Green neo colonialism based on neo marxist doctrines. Through uber environmentalism. It was already there in the 19th century under Marx and Engels, a weapon in the hands of the elites and propaganda channels..
The whole reason they made ANY HEADWAY, is the 50% subsides.
Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine
.
Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and “academia/think tanks”, in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!
.
Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.
Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for: 1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and 2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.
. Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)
.
Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds.
.
About 500 Maine people would have jobs during the erection phase
The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships
About 200 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase. https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through
.
The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government
The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024
The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.
The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment . Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.
Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh
Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 17.913 c/kWh
. NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 – 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:
.
Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh
Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh . Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore: A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system
There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit
And we’re already going broke paying for “green” energy. Imagine how broke we’ll all be at net zero! Not Asia of course, which will rule the world. They’ll visit us as tourists- and take photos of us sitting on the stoops of our shacks – looking like The Beverly Hillbillies.
NSW… 88% Coal and gas
Qld… 92% Coal and gas
Vic… 68% coal and gas.. and someone’s been eating a few beans
SA… 71% GAS and 4% diesel
And of course, if we turn to total energy use.. Wind and solar are basically a non-entity.
You are one GULLBILE LITTLE IDIOT, Luser !!
Lets’ look at China and India energy use… again solar and wind are barely visible.
Those great images hopefully will shut him up for good.
India, China, Russia, etc., do not give a damn about CO2 because it is a less than 0.5% actor in the big picture
Europe has been the big pusher of wind. solar and batteries, because it has no other resources.
Ukraine has about $8 TRILLION of UNTAPPED resources, plus major agricultural lands.
Now you see why the big US and EU conglomerates want to get a hold of that, plus get a hold of the resources of Russia, as they did under naive/drunk Yeltsin.
They want to keep those resources out of the hands of China.
That is how the big-picture-power politics works.
The West’s rules-based order, spreading Democracy and civil society is all bull manure, mierda de toro.
COMMAND/CONTROL OF RESOURCES IS WHAT COUNTS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming . Retained Energy (Enthalpy) in Atmosphere Equals Global Warming
About 5.5 million EJ/y from the sun enters the top of atmosphere, and almost as much leaves,
Some energy is retained in the atmosphere on a continuing basis
Retained energy, RE, is a net effect of the interplay of the sun, atmosphere, earth surface (land and water), and flora and fauna, i.e., all effects are accounted for, including radiation, evaporation, condensation, precipitation
WV in the TS, up to about 1.5 km, is nearly constant at 9 g/kg of dry air
WV decreases from about 2.5 g to less than 0.5 g, from 2 km to 6 km, per balloon measurements
WV percent above 2 km is small compared to total WV
Assume:
For 2023, WV near the surface is 9 g/kg dry air (14,500 ppm) @ur momisugly TS = 16 C
For 1900, WV is 8.244 g/kg dry air (13,282 ppm) @ur momisugly TS = 14.8 C
This method is suitable to objectively approximate the RE role of CO2
As temperatures, pressures and WV vary with elevation, specific heat contents vary, and RE calculations are needed at each elevation, for more accurate RE values. That complex method was avoided for simplicity. . NOTE: This short video shows, CO2 plays no detectable RE role in the world’s driest places, with 421 ppm CO2 and minimal WV ppm https://youtu.be/QCO7x6W61wc
. Specific enthalpy of Dry Air and Water Vapor
ha = Cpa x T = 1006 kJ/kg.C x T, where Cpa is specific heat dry air
hg = (2501 kJ/kg, specific enthalpy WV at 0 C) + (Cpwv x T = 1.84 kJ/kg x T), where Cpwv is specific heat WV at constant pressure
.
1a) In 2023, world enthalpy moist air, at T = 16 C and H = 0.009 kg WV/kg dry air (14,500 ppm)
h = ha + H.hg = 1.006T + H(2501 + 1.84T) = 1.006 (16) + 0.009 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 38.870 kJ/kg dry air
RE dry air is 16.096 kJ/kg; RE WV is 22.774 kJ/kg
.
1b) In 1900, world enthalpy moist air, at T = 14.8 C and H = 0.008244 kg WV/kg dry air (13,282 ppm)
h = 1.006 (14.8) + 0.008244 {2501 + 1.84 (14.8)} = 35.732 kJ/kg dry air
RE dry air is 14.889 kJ/kg; RE WV is 20.843 kJ/kg https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text=The%20equation%20for%20enthalpy%20is,specific%20enthalpy%20of%20water%20vapor. . Specific enthalpy CO2, in 2023
h = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241.2 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat
World enthalpy CO2 = {(421 x 44)/(1000000 x 29) = 0.000639 kg CO2/kg dry air} x 241.2 kJ/kg CO2 @ur momisugly 289 K = 0.154 kJ/kg dry air Specific enthalpy CO2, in 1900
h = Cp CO2 x K = 0.833 x (14.8 + 273) = 239.8 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat
World enthalpy CO2 = {(296 x 44)/(1000000 x 29) = 0.000449 kg CO2/kg dry air} x 239.8 kJ/kg CO2 @ur momisugly 287.8 K = 0.108 kJ/kg dry air . World RE in 2023: (16.096 + 22.774 + 0.154) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 200,896 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 41.25%, 58.36% and 0.39% RE roles.
RE ratio WV/CO2 = 147.8; RE ratio dry air/CO2 = 104.5
. World RE in 1900: (14.889 + 20.843 + 0.108) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 184,500 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 41.54%, 58.16% and 0.30% RE roles.
RE ratio WV/CO2 = 193.5; RE ratio dry air/CO2 = 138.2 . CO2 RE role was 0.30% in 1900; was 0.39% in 2023, a 31% increase
2023/1900 RE ratio was 1.089, a 16,396 EJ increase
In 1900, CO2 RE was (0.108/35,839) x 184,500 EJ = 554 EJ
In 2023, CO2 RE was (0.154/39.024) x 200,896 EJ = 793 EJ, a 239 EJ increase
CO2 ppm increase was 421/296 = 42%, and CO2 RE increase was 793/554 = 43%
Wilpost
Really liked your Megapak numbers, and your offshore numbers, but in this comment….enthapy of CO2 has virtually nothing to do with Heating of the surface by sunlight. IR absorption properties do…
Enthalpy is the energy content of a system.
In this case, the system is the atmosphere, not the earth, not outer space
The atmosphere can only be warmer, if, on average, all molecules are warmer.
How these molecules became warmer is an elusive/hazy/bowl-of-spaghetti subject, because there are so many interacting variables, i.e., it is very complicated.
Even the best minds only partially explain it, and what they do explain is understood by just a few people.
My calculations are based on specific heat capacities in 1900 and 2023
In 2023, major components of the atmosphere were:
dry air, 99.9+%; WV and clouds, 1.45% up to about 2 km; and CO2 0.0421%.
The “WV and clouds” quantity varies a few percent up/down, such as due to stronger El Ninos (see image in my article), but on a world average basis, stays near constant
There are other, much smaller actors, but they were omitted for simplicity
From those, we can obtain enthalpies of each major component and of the whole atmosphere.
Several retired professors, one in Canada, and one in the Netherlands, have reviewed my calculations and find them to be correct
The CO2 RE role is less than 0.5%, which is in the same ballpark as other non-IPCC analysts
Revision (please show this below my comment, instead of elsewhere)
The revised section better shows the increased EJ due to WV compared to CO2.
CO2 RE role was 0.30% in 1900; was 0.39% in 2023, a 31% increase
In 1900, CO2 RE was (0.108/35,839) x 184,500 EJ = 554 EJ
In 2023, CO2 RE was (0.154/39.024) x 200,896 EJ = 793 EJ, a 239 EJ increase
RE increase, 1900 to 2023, was 16,396 EJ, of which WV 16,157 EJ
In 1900, CO2 RE was (0.108/35,839) x 184,500 EJ = 554 EJ; CO2 role 0.30%
In 2023, CO2 RE was (0.154/39.024) x 200,896 EJ = 793 EJ; CO2 role 0.39%
RE increase, 1900 to 2023, was 16,396 EJ, of which WV 9,942 EJ, dry air 6215 EJ, CO2 239 EJ
… and EVs will be even more meaningless than they are now.
Fossil fuels power EVERYTHING in your juvenile and worthless existence.
And there is nothing you can do about it.
Did you even read the second link…
“A ramping up of world oil production capacity, led by the United States and other producers in the Americas, is expected to outstrip demand growth over the 2023-2030 forecast period,””
See the words, muppet.. demand growth … for oil !!
Germany is considered to be the world leader in renewables
Primary Energy Consumption in Germany
2023 data:
Energy in Germany is from fossil sources, accounting for 77.6% of total energy consumption in 2023, followed by renewables/wood at 19.6%, and 0.7% nuclear power.
You’re repeating yourself- without having enough intelligence to read the comments that disagree with your comments. You’d have something above zero credibility here if you tell us your education and profession. Not much maybe, but some tiny amount.
MU thinks negative votes are positive so you might consider not voting.
But if you want to debate comment trolls come over to CFACT where we have a whole cadre of full timers. The discussion is almost never about the article rather an endless open thread on the issues of the day. Kind of interesting debate in that regard but I do not participate as I am focused on my research. https://www.cfact.org/
Summer is coming. Did you know you can watch a heat wave from space using visualized images of the “CO2 Longwave IR” band 16 radiances? This short time-lapse video captures 15 days of hourly images of the CONUS region (US 48 states) ending 8-27-23.
Key point: this demonstrates what NASA wrote in 2009. Runaway heating due to incremental CO2? No way.
“The amount of heat a surface radiates is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. If temperature doubles, radiated energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to the 4th power). If the temperature of the Earth rises, the planet rapidly emits an increasing amount of heat to space. This large increase in heat loss in response to a relatively smaller increase in temperature—referred to as radiative cooling—is the primary mechanism that prevents runaway heating on Earth.”
Living here in Vermont, we are readying for a 50 deg F swing in temperatures. 42 deg last night in mid June with a 98 deg high for Wednesday…
I think the hype over the world burning up is apparent… + 1.5 deg C seems pretty nice.
As to VT’s crazy S259 legislation – It will be impossible for Vermont, or any other location on Earth, to scientifically validate damages as being a direct result of “climate change” driven by increased CO2 directly caused by oil companies!
All this bill will do is create a fertile ground for lawsuits by anyone wanting to tap into “free” money. The oil companies will keep this in court until someone can produce the former data….which will be forever.
”Vermont’s new law ought to be viewed for what it is: a shakedown to benefit the state’s favored constituents at the expense of the public.”
Each year has peak temperatures during the summer months June, July, August. The below graph shows those peak temperatures in Vermont, for about 40 years.
Those temperatures were measured by the weather stations in Vermont of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA
Vermont has four weather stations; Burlington, St Johnsbury, Castleton and Windsor.
New Hampshire also has four stations
The peak temperatures increased by 1.5 F over 40 years, or 0.0375 F per year.
Almost all people cannot sense the difference of 77 F and 78.5 F
.
.
A similar graph shows the minimum temperatures during the months of December, January, February
The minimum temperatures increased by 4.2 F over 40 years, or 0.1 F per year.
Most older Vermonters agree, winters in Vermont have been getting warmer.
Heating demand is driven by temperature difference, which was about 65 F, indoor – 9.8 F, outdoor = 55.2 F in 1980, and became 65 F, indoor – 14 F outdoor = 51 F in 2020
At present, it takes 7.6% less Btu for space heating a house than 40 years ago.
Already-struggling, over-taxed, over-regulated Vermonters, in a low/near-zero, real-growth Vermont economy, would be required to spend at least $1.5 billion per year (during high inflation and high interest times), starting in January 2023, for the next 27 years, to maybe reduce Vermont CO2 emissions to the 2050 target of the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.
That extreme hardship spending would have ZERO impact on temperatures in Vermont, which is a near-invisible pinprick on a world map.
Vermont’s best approach is to be as energy efficient as economically feasible regarding:
1) Highly sealed/insulated housing
2) High-mileage gasoline vehicles
3) Closing down the less-than-25%-efficient, tree-burning power plants (the energy equivalent of 3 out 4 trees is wasted), such as McNeil and Ryegate.
Tree-burning power plants and heating plants/stoves are major contributors to Vermont’s CO2 and ground level air pollution from sub-micron particles, which are as toxic as those of coal burning, and most harmful to people, especially pregnant women, children, elderly, and those with cardio/vascular ailments.
The UK Connected with Europe
About 8100 years ago, the UK was connected to Europe with a narrow land bridge
There was a land slide off the Norwegian coast, which created a Tsunami, and the land bridge was gone
The image shows no North Sea and no Channel about 30,000 years ago, before the ice started melting doggerland_530.jpg
The Rhine River ran through it
The Thames was a tributary
The Isle of Wight is a left-over part of that narrow land bridge
Last night it was 50 F outside and almost as cold in the bedroom, because we had left open the sliding door. Yikes
Right now, 70 F, and everything is green, because of 6 molecules of CO2 and 6 molecules of water, with sunshine, is producing glucose and 6 molecules of oxygen
Reducing CO2 is a suicide pact
I have lived here since 1990, and the summers are not any warmer, as shown by the NOAA 40-y graphs in my article.
The winters have become warmer, but that is good, because it reduces heating bills, and snow shoveling.
The only thing keeping Net Zero hoax going is the subsidies
But now it turns out the level of subsidies is not enough, which caused the VT largest solar installer to declare bankruptcy.
Vermont has always had highly variable weather. The Winter of 1966 it didn’t snow in Woodstock until Christmas Eve — we got 18″ overnight. In 1967, it snowed in October at the beginning of deer hunting season. I mustered out of the Army on January 18th, 1968. It had been below zero night and day for 10 days, as I recollect, and it was probably at least -30 in Woodstock that night. The two years I lived there I never had a problem with my 4-year-old Chevy V8 pickup. However, that night, after leaving Fort Devens (MA) it started running rougher the closer I got to Woodstock to pick up my wife. I told her that we weren’t going to stop for the night until it was running smoothly again. We made it to Rochester (NY) before stopping for the night.
“What’s the objective of that video? Your time at the beach or fishing?” Nice ideas! Seriously, the point is to show one major aspect of the error of the heat trapping” narrative about the radiative effect of non-condensing GHGs.
Ron Long
June 16, 2024 3:27 am
On Monday, June 11, SCOTUS asked the Biden Administration (through the Solicitor General) their opinion of the two cases of States trying to punish corporations involved in the fossil fuel business. The latest effort, by Hawaii, is straight out extortion. When SCOTUS asks for an opinion it almost always is a signal that they will accept the two cases as an actual review. Not exactly a Scopes Monkey trial, but could be an opportunity to see science against political science in a court setting.
Interesting! We’ll see what happens. These state laws like VT just passed are inherently unjust, blaming fossil fuels for what can never be reliably attributed to begin with.
Danish researchers in Nature: ’85 years of glacier growth and stability in East Antarctica’ Guess what: the more scientists look, the more grounds for the questioning of ‘the Science™’, their (sic) ‘models™’, and the ‘Climate Crisis™’ is warranted Please accuse me of spreading whatever kind of ‘information’, widely understood, but do take note that there is a world of difference between that which is is believed or inferred as opposed to that which is (empirically) observed. That is, between a (more or less coherent) set of beliefs as opposed to what, from the seventeenth century onwards, became known as scientific enquiry
The lack of ice melting in Antartica supports the AGW greenhouse theory
Most of Antarctica has a permanent temperature inversion that leads to a negative greenhouse effect over most of the continent (it gets colder, not warmer, from more greenhouse gases in the troposphere)
The only exceptions are the small peninsula and two ice shelves, that all have a small amount of melting.
This BBC article is nearly a week old. The June weather hasn’t improved at all since then here in the UK. No global warming in sight. Quite the opposite.
The BBC occasionally let’s slip these kind of headlines to a story. They may be factually correct, going against the regular normal global-warming mantra, but they fail to recognise the irony: Most people in the UK still think generalised warming would be a good thing.
Heavily government subsidised Chinese EVs appear to be a “give-away” to Western consumers in order to boost China’s domination of the overall global manufacturing industry.
I recently learned that you can post images by clicking an icon at the bottom right of the text box. I don’t have that icon. Is it something that is reserved only for certain people?
The latest in stupid…
Electric car owners can swap batteries in five minutes as major brands support revolutionary technologyElectric vehicle owners may soon be able to swap their car batteries in as little as five minutes with new groundbreaking technology set to hit the UK soon.
Nio, a premium Chinese car manufacturer, has launched the third generation of its Power Swap Stations, which allow motorists to replace their batteries in under five minutes.
https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/electric-car-battery-swap-technology
Subject to availability of course.
Why not change tyres at the same time?
I can see a hundred different ways that idea can fail to deliver, not least because they’d need a massive inventory and stupendous charging facilities. But it’s not obvious to me that it’s stupid in principle—I mean, assuming one already thinks EVs are an urgent necessity…
I don’t. But they are fun. I’m all in favour of fun. And I can imagine an electric 4×4, without the constraint of prop shafts, could do astonishing things though it won’t save the planet. The planet seems to be doing OK.
quelgeek,
In our mineral exploration work in central Australia west of Tennant Creek NT, we lost long wheel base Toyota 4WD diesel vehicles because of heat, sand, inflammable spionnifex grass packing umnder exhaust pipes with some plastic tubes, plus a few hundred litres of long range fuel on the tray. It is not a pleasant sight, so we insisted on no lone vehivle work, always a pair of $WD in the big bad areas.
Trying to envision an all-electric WD in this tough country, Tmax often over 45 deg C for days on end.
Conclusion: Nope. Far from ready yet,
(How do you charge it when the next nearest person of any type is 100+ km away?).
Geoff S
One must pick the right vehicle for the job; no question. There are plenty of ICE 4x4s you wouldn’t bet your life on, as your anecdote hints. And Toyotas are some of the better ones!
I have two diesel 4x4s. I don’t bet my life on either of them; they are just very useful where I happen to live. Some of my neighbours make do with quad bikes. I think an EV 4×4 could make a manufacturer a lot of money if they built it to do things conventional ones can’t. I am making no claims about saving the planet. I’m talking about exploiting an an unfilled niche. That’s how innovation has worked till now and probably always will.
Then when you’re forced to go EV, you’ll just have to give up ALL such exploration work- after all, it’s for a good cause, to save the planet from burning up and the oceans from boiling! /s
The electric 4×4 — get people into astonishing trouble.
One time back in the ’70s, the remnants of a typhoon from Baja hit the White Mountains in California on our way home from mineral collecting in the Darwin district. It washed out the paved highway for about 100 yards (among other things). I usually drove my 4WD with the hubs locked in when in problematic conditions, assuming that if I got stuck in 2WD, I could engage the transfer case and get out of trouble. Before I attempted to cross the washout, I engaged the hubs, as a precaution. About 20 yards in, I could sense the engine starting to lug. In the time it took to reach over and pull the transfer case lever, I was stuck solidly up to my frame in what was essentially quicksand. I couldn’t even trench the wheels because the mud would just re-fill the hole. I did eventually get out after everything de-watered some. However, the fine sand and silt got into everything!. Once I got back onto pavement, I found I couldn’t go over about 50 MPH because of the sand packed in the wheels, unbalancing them. I had to find a stick to scrape out all the cement-like sand. The carburetor accelerator linkage jammed and broke the cable, which necessitated taking the choke butterfly valve out of the carburetor so I could use the hand choke as an accelerator ‘pedal.’ By the time I got home about 4 hours later, the sand had completely destroyed my brake linings, which had made for some interesting driving in the mountains, especially! As bad as it was, I’m sure that an EV would have experienced more damage with the wheel motors in the quicksand and the battery exposed to boulders and alkaline water.
Clyde,
Driving vehicles in water and sludge esp. in remote dangerous places gives EVs one possibleadvantage, the ability to vary engine speed without change to external gear like cooling fans. Many times with ICE I needed auto transmission not manual. With manual in deep water, often best to remove fan belt, because the faster you move the vehicle forward faster you spray water and risk electricity shorts. With EVs, you might not have this problem. But you probably know all this. Geoff S
Actually, I had a flex-fan replacing the factory fixed-pitch fan. The faster the fan turned, the flatter the blades got. My Corvette has a fixed-pitch fan, but with a viscous liquid coupling that limits the rotation speed. So, there are ways to customize ICE vehicles.
First precaution when off-roading is make sure you’re not driving a Jeep 🙂
I was driving a 1970 IH Scout Aristocrat, which only lasted 45 years before selling it. 🙂
It is stupid in principle. One of the primary virtues of private property, aside from being the liberty-minded thing to do, is that it encourages maintenance of that property by its owner so he can get a high resale value and high productivity.
This is worse than rental cars, which are notorious for people not caring for them because they are just rentals. Battery swappers will have zero incentive to keep the charge between 20-80% for long life or keeping them garaged in cold weather or doing anything else annoying which takes care of them.
This is a good point. I would not want pay to rent the battery. I would pay for the energy it delivered, and I would need my—MY—car to measure it. I would want to buy N joules of energy and expect the battery supplier to replace the batteries until I got my N joules. There would be a strong incentive for them to give me durable batteries.
I have no desire to make anyone have an EV who doesn’t want one. But I see no harm in making EVs work well for people who want what they can do. Built-in batteries are a mis-feature. I will never choose to buy/lease an EV with built-in batteries.
In fact I will probably never buy an EV, period. But it is interesting to think how they could be made more practical and affordable. If in the end we decide the problems are intractable we can stop assuming they’re the future.
One may not have any prop shafts to deal with, but how will the battery and wheel motors handle immersion while fording streams? Currently, and probably always to keep a low center of gravity, the batteries will be at risk of puncture going over rocky terrain. Also, off-road vehicles are typically subject to transient forces that are likely to pop spot welds on battery wires and the case. Personally, I would be reluctant to buy an EV for off-road use based on my experiences.
They won’t. The batteries aren’t waterproof, get one wet and the car is essentially totaled.
Then that means they probably won’t last long in the Midwest ‘Rust Belt’ with lots of brine on the roads in the Winter.
They have been running such a scheme in China for some time and about 18 months ago began one in Norway ( The EV capital of Europe). You lease the battery and get a six free swaps before starting to pay for them. However, they ended the free swaps in China in June 2023 for new buyers. The lease cost in Norway was up to £200 per month.
If batteries can be swapped then they can also be stolen. Much more valuable than stealing an ICE catalytic converter … or stealing the copper cables from an outdoor EV charging station.
Two men, one with a light strapped to his head, got out. A security camera recorded them pulling out bolt cutters. One man snipped several charging cables; the other loaded them into the truck. In under 2½ minutes, they were gone.
https://apnews.com/article/electric-vehicles-charging-cables-stolen-copper-tesla-5f003686cade63fade2e8d7dd3402f3a
This whole EV business tends to ignore Latin America. Living in Colombia and having lived a number of years in Costa Rica. I can attest to the reality that copper, and even iron, are prime targets for thieves.
Wait until the copper prices go up because of shortages.
Even if possible- at what cost? Who or what does the change? Automated? It’s going to be expensive.
It’s entirely loony
When I was a kid I always enjoyed the original Loony Tunes cartoons.
(But I did learn not to buy anything from ACME.) 😎
Seems that the original idea at Tesla was to do this.
Two problems: if the battery was in a vehicle that was exposed to flooding or has minor damage, it is a firebomb. We are trusting the replacement station to test and inspect every battery? Also, how do we know the replacement battery is new or almost worn out? You may get decent range, or it may die before you leave the station.
I always thought the replacement idea was better than the permanently installed battery, but to really work well all manufacturers would have to agree on the form factor, chemistry and charger details. Never going to happen. Auto manufacturers cannot even agree on standard windshield wipers.
The only way is…
…changing vehicles. Much like coaches would change horses along the way
Better yet, a fuel tank and diesel genny in the trunk – oh wait – they call that a hybrid.
There were electric cars before the gas cars came out. 1820s. Somehow, they never took off.
You mean the 4-legged engines?
Nio is in financial trouble having lost $2.9 Billion last year. This is going to get interesting.
Why not go all the way?
Change the EV for a gasoline vehicle.
The EV was not, and will never be, up to par, in the first place
Can you swap batteries without unloading the car?
Go hang out at your local convenience store with say 12 fuel pumps and count the number of vehicles that fill up in an hour. Now imagine that these are all EVs stopping by for a 5 minute battery swap. How many fully charged batteries would have to be available? Assuming a fast charger could recharge exchanged batteries in an hour at say 100 kw how big would the substation connected to the service station need to be? Bonus question – what would insurance cost for such a business?
Ho hum . . . “in June 2013, Tesla announced its plan to offer battery swapping. Tesla showed that a battery swap with the Model S took just over 90 seconds. Elon Musk said the service would be offered at around US$60 to US$80 at June 2013 prices. The vehicle purchase included one battery pack. After a swap, the owner could later return and receive their battery pack fully charged. A second option would be to keep the swapped battery and receive/pay the difference in value between the original and the replacement. Pricing was not announced. In 2015 the company abandoned its sole swapping station, built at Harris Ranch, for lack of customer interest.”
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_swapping
(my bold emphasis added)
“Electric car owners can swap batteries in five minutes as major brands support revolutionary technology”
I’ve something like that talked about.
What would a “fill up” cost?
As I understand it, EV battery packs are rather large. Lot’s of space/volume needed to store them.
(A gas stations fuel tanks can refill multiple gas tanks using relatively little storage space/volume.)
If they are recharged on site and you get a defective replacement, can the the “battery” station be sued if shorts out and the fire guts the car (or kills the driver and passengers)?
A garage full of charging lithium car batteries.
What could possibly go wrong.. !!!
Actually the concept works just fine in a proper application of electric vehicles. Namely electric fork lift trucks in a large warehouse. In the late 1970’s I worked as a fork lift mechanic in a large hardware store warehouse. We had 35 electric fork lift trucks of various sizes and designs. Each had a 2,000 lb lead acid battery that would power the truck for an 8 hour shift. Each truck had 3 batteries, one in the truck, one on charge and one cooling. The warehouse operated 24 hours a day with 3 shifts. At the end of your shift as an operator, you pulled into the battery area, next to the empty slot for your machine, disconnected the battery and rolled it out onto the charge rack, and rolled the charged battery from the cooling slot into your machine for the next guy. This battery change took less than 5 minutes.
Now there are a number of issues doing this for cars, but in principle the concept works just fine and has done so for decades in the material handling world. (the batteries had a capacity of 72 kWhrs, and their 2,000 lb weight acted as the counter balance for the forklift, most of which were narrow aisle reach trucks as in the following)
https://www.raymondcorp.com/forklifts/reach-fork-trucks/7000-deep-reach
Not that I am advocating for electric cars, they are stupid and a gross mis-application of technology for foolish purposes. But swappable battery concept has worked very well for a long time in one proper application of electric vehicles.
Mr. Boss: An excellent point, battery switching is elementary and has been done. When EVs did NOT develop switching, it made me wonder why not? The fact that EV are trying to develop fast charging instead of switching, and building the battery into the car frame, is another sign that EVs are not fit for purpose. Maybe if they never leave the warehouse.
‘Green’ renewable fuel plants are releasing MORE pollution than oil refineries, report claims.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13526811/Green-renewable-fuel-toxic-pollutants-air.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c133r4gyx1no
Scientists have proven that the Earth is heating up because of greenhouse gases that are emitted into the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels
See the bolleaux we have to put up with
A first grader must have written that.
I don’t think so. I thought this was written by a very sinister, calculating group of propagandists. Then I saw it was the BBC and knew it was.
Isnt it the standard phrasing by the UN?
Probably. It looked similar to the useless outdated garbage on the Royal Society website that Simon referred me to a couple of weeks ago.
Actually I object to being considered a “climate denier”. I cannot think of one person who denies climate or that it’s changing. If someone says that something is proven then they don’t understand science, it’s only proven until it’s not, and that only takes one observation that doesn’t match the hypothesis/theory/assumption.
I deny! I deny that climate stasis is even possible, which seems to be the position of the Alarmists.
JohnC:
You made an interesting point.
Here is one observation that doesn’t match the hypothesis/theory/assumption.
“Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
Progressives like to play word games that appeal to people’s emotions, short-circuiting their logic.
Looks like an oily Sunday
Solar and Wind Power Now Deliver ‘More than Double’ the Net Energy Produced by Oil, New Study Finds
https://bylinetimes.com/2022/08/31/solar-and-wind-power-now-deliver-more-than-double-the-energy-produced-by-oil-new-study-finds/
World faces ‘staggering’ excess of oil by end of decade, warns IEA
https://www.yahoo.com/news/world-faces-staggering-excess-oil-134925881.html?guccounter=1
Get lost, troll.
What a liar he is.
I say this to all the reactors: IGNORE. I know people get triggered and want to have their say but..just..don’t. Because the result is more attention that it deserves. Otherwise you are part of the problem. And on and on it goes..
Which is of course TOTAL BS.
Wind and solar barely register in world energy supplies.
The Cleantech Revolution
It’s exponential, disruptive, and
now
https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2024/06/RMI-Cleantech-Revolution-pdf.pdf
In case you haven’t read it last time.
A better argument would be: point to a case, a country or region, where its working. A pilot. Or point to a proper business case, fully costed, for net zero in electricity generation. I know of none.
In the end this is a business and an engineering feasibility proposition. Current experience doesn’t suggest that its either possible or affordable (if you take all the costs into account) to replace conventional generation with wind and solar.
Still less if at the same time you try to move from gasoline and oil or gas heating to all electric.
The only really effective argument would be a successful pilot. Are there any? You tell me.
like a lot of people, I’m waiting for DuhUserName to answer your questions
He don’ do questions.
If you “go wind and solar”, you have to have BIG STORAGE, for
1) counteracting ups and downs of w/s outputs
2) wind/solar lulls occur.
Here are the 2023 prices/kWh for Tesla storage.
EXCERPT
?itok=lxTa2SlF
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
.
Example of Turnkey Cost of Large-Scale, Megapack Battery System, 2023 pricing
The system consists of 50 Megapack 2, rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, 4-h energy delivery
Power = 50 Megapacks x 0.979 MW x 0.926, Tesla design factor = 45.3 MW
Energy = 50 Megapacks x 3.916 MWh x 0.929, Tesla design factor = 181.9 MWh
Estimate of supply by Tesla, $90 million, or $495/kWh. See URL
Estimate of supply by Others, $14.5 million, or $80/kWh
All-in, turnkey cost about $575/kWh; 2023 pricing
https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/tesla-hikes-megapack-prices-commodity-inflation-soars
.
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh
At 10% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh
At 40% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
.
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. The excluded costs add at least 15 c/kWh
.
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION
Almost all existing battery systems operate at less than 10%, per EIA annual reports i.e., new systems would operate at about 92.4 + 15 = 107.4 c/kWh. They are used to stabilize the grid, i.e., frequency control and counteracting up/down w/s outputs. If 40% throughput, 23.1 + 15 = 38.1 c/kWh.
A 4-h battery system costs 38.1 c/kWh of throughput, if operated at a duty factor of 40%.That is on top of the cost/kWh of the electricity taken from the HV grid to feed the batteries
.
Up to 40% could occur by absorbing midday solar peaks and discharging during late-afternoon/early-evening, which occur every day in California and other sunny states. The more solar systems, the greater the peaks.
See URL for Megapacks required for a one-day wind lull in New England
40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging.
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia
.
Regarding any project, the bank and Owner have to be paid, no matter what. I amortized the bank loan and Owner’s investment
Divide total payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get c/kWh, as shown.
There is about a 20% round-trip loss, from HV grid to 1) step-down transformer, 2) front-end power electronics, 3) into battery, 4) out of battery, 5) back-end power electronics, 6) step-up transformer, to HV grid, i.e., you draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid, because of A-to-Z system losses. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, battery Nirvana is just around the corner.
Well you’re canceled.
You just used the ‘N’ word –
“NUMBERS”.
You should know by now that that word is like kryptonite to wind & solar acolytes.
“Numbers, there’s so many of them”. Was that Bevis, or Butthead?
Not exactly a successful example story but back in the mid 80’s I was
traveling to a trade show in Billings MT with a group of ag producers in mid March from w central MT. As we crossed the Bozeman Pass and were passing thru Livingstone I saw my first wind towers ever. That area
is a notorious high wind area and the blades on these units were a blur that
day ..I had never seen anything like that other than old propeller
aircraft revving up
This led to a discussion between some of the guys on the subject of powering their irrigation systems, Some were of the mind to build reservoirs near their water source and pipe the water down and use the energy/water of that to power their systems. There were a few that were intrigued by the towers and might consider them. None that I know have as yet.
Now some 40yrs later there are a number of producers that I know that went the hydro way and it has proven successful. One operation runs 40 some center pivots off of a set of pipes from 3 reservoirs. They drive 100+ miles
a day just monitoring everything. They have split off and subdivided
a bunch of their land over the years which says a lot regarding the financial
side of things.
I also know some who ended up with some huge wind
towers set on or near their place that are owned by the large tower
companies. These guys or their successors have a sort of maintenance
deal and maintain and plow roads and such. They now hate the towers and regret their existence. These are the ones with blades 100++ft long.
The wind towers that we saw that morning self destructed not too long afterwards, they literally exploded.
The only successful ag alt energy projects I know of are remote livestock watering systems using solar panes. There is a newish 30+ acre solar
panel near here that got a $138K tax break from the county, probably
wouldn’t work without the tax break.
Why would the county offer a tax break?
kickbacks?
probably- it may have happened in my town of Orange, Wokeachusetts- when a solar “farm” was proposed- some town officials sang the glory of it- it seemed a bit too much
The local government is totally woke over in Helena.
One of the commissioners said—-
“Lewis and Clark County, in my opinion, welcomes economic development, especially an energy project like this that is very clean.”
https://helenair.com/news/local/county-grants-138k-tax-break-for-proposed-solar-farm/article_d17b0302-7142-5eb1-9611-c08c81aa75a6.html
I hate it when people refer to wind and solar projects as “clean”.
A better argument would be: point to a case, a country or region, where its working.
I’ve been asking that for awhile now. Still waiting for an answer, as is the case for all the other questions I’ve asked.
I love that first image of a hillside COVERED with solar panels. I bet you love it too. Just don’t consider the loss of ecosystem values or that might effect your love. I’ve seen several images like that in China, covering entire mountains and deserts.
I love that first image of a hillside COVERED with solar panels.
So much prettier than a hillside covered in trees, right?
smh
I read it last time, It is low-grade propaganda.
Fit only for the twisted minds of low-IQ AGW-zealots.
I don’t open your stupid links as a matter of policy, Lusername.
And once the forests are cut down, and the available land is bought, one can expect the bottom to fall out of the growth curve. Then we will see how disruptive it is.
About the authors –
Geez, 1.5 C is brass monkeys weather if ever there was.
And if these jokers get their agenda up, we’re all going to need shltloads of Carbon supplements since we’re going to have zero left in our carcasses.
The link he has provided doesn’t claim wind and solar are delivering more total energy than gas, coal etc. It claims that the net return on whatever is installed is greater. So your chart, though interesting, doesn’t meet his point head on.
That is, the linked piece claims that to get a given mount of energy out of wind and solar requires you to use less energy than to get the same amount out of gas, coal etc.
The link doesn’t give any quantitative arguments for this view. It does in turn link to a paper, which I didn’t bother following up on.
Is it plausible and is it relevant? Neither, really. If it were true it should show up in lower costs for wind and solar generation compared to conventional. We know that they in fact cost several times as much if the comparison is done on a fully costed basis, and the recent failure of the UK auctions is an indicator – and those auctions did not reflect the full costs of using the power which the operators were bidding to supply.
The chart does have a bearing on the question, it shows that wind and solar are not displacing conventional energy sources and are still after many years trying only a tiny proportion of world energy sources. If it were really true that wind and solar are such great alternatives they would have made far more headway by now.
“the net return on whatever is installed is greater”
fine if you really count everything- especially subsidies, how long they’ll last, the lost of ecosystem values, etc., etc., etc.
Well, because energy transitions are rare, take a long time and do not illiminate previous sources unless done out of political reasons. And, high density wins every time. From wood to charcoal to coal to oil to gas to nuclear. And now the green neo marxist intend is to kill people, sorry, correction, end population growth by going back to the bottom and re-distribute wealth by suicide while at the same time controlling the way the poor countries produce energy. Green neo colonialism based on neo marxist doctrines. Through uber environmentalism. It was already there in the 19th century under Marx and Engels, a weapon in the hands of the elites and propaganda channels..
Solar panels and be used for cattle pens, oil not so much.
https://x.com/JohnLeePettim13/status/1802135495398371334
The whole reason they made ANY HEADWAY, is the 50% subsides.
Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine
.
Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and “academia/think tanks”, in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!
.
Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.
Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for: 1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and 2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.
.
Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)
.
Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds.
.
About 500 Maine people would have jobs during the erection phase
The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships
About 200 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.
https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through
.
The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government
The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024
The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.
The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment
.
Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.
Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh
Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 17.913 c/kWh
.
NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 – 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:
.
Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh
Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh
.
Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore: A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system
There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit
And we’re already going broke paying for “green” energy. Imagine how broke we’ll all be at net zero! Not Asia of course, which will rule the world. They’ll visit us as tourists- and take photos of us sitting on the stoops of our shacks – looking like The Beverly Hillbillies.
Lets’ look at Australia, just for electricity
NSW… 88% Coal and gas
Qld… 92% Coal and gas
Vic… 68% coal and gas.. and someone’s been eating a few beans
SA… 71% GAS and 4% diesel
And of course, if we turn to total energy use.. Wind and solar are basically a non-entity.
You are one GULLBILE LITTLE IDIOT, Luser !!
Lets’ look at China and India energy use… again solar and wind are barely visible.
Those great images hopefully will shut him up for good.
India, China, Russia, etc., do not give a damn about CO2 because it is a less than 0.5% actor in the big picture
Europe has been the big pusher of wind. solar and batteries, because it has no other resources.
Ukraine has about $8 TRILLION of UNTAPPED resources, plus major agricultural lands.
Now you see why the big US and EU conglomerates want to get a hold of that, plus get a hold of the resources of Russia, as they did under naive/drunk Yeltsin.
They want to keep those resources out of the hands of China.
That is how the big-picture-power politics works.
The West’s rules-based order, spreading Democracy and civil society is all bull manure, mierda de toro.
COMMAND/CONTROL OF RESOURCES IS WHAT COUNTS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
.
Retained Energy (Enthalpy) in Atmosphere Equals Global Warming
About 5.5 million EJ/y from the sun enters the top of atmosphere, and almost as much leaves,
Some energy is retained in the atmosphere on a continuing basis
Retained energy, RE, is a net effect of the interplay of the sun, atmosphere, earth surface (land and water), and flora and fauna, i.e., all effects are accounted for, including radiation, evaporation, condensation, precipitation
WV in the TS, up to about 1.5 km, is nearly constant at 9 g/kg of dry air
WV decreases from about 2.5 g to less than 0.5 g, from 2 km to 6 km, per balloon measurements
WV percent above 2 km is small compared to total WV
Assume:
For 2023, WV near the surface is 9 g/kg dry air (14,500 ppm) @ur momisugly TS = 16 C
For 1900, WV is 8.244 g/kg dry air (13,282 ppm) @ur momisugly TS = 14.8 C
This method is suitable to objectively approximate the RE role of CO2
As temperatures, pressures and WV vary with elevation, specific heat contents vary, and RE calculations are needed at each elevation, for more accurate RE values. That complex method was avoided for simplicity.
.
NOTE: This short video shows, CO2 plays no detectable RE role in the world’s driest places, with 421 ppm CO2 and minimal WV ppm
https://youtu.be/QCO7x6W61wc
.
Specific enthalpy of Dry Air and Water Vapor
ha = Cpa x T = 1006 kJ/kg.C x T, where Cpa is specific heat dry air
hg = (2501 kJ/kg, specific enthalpy WV at 0 C) + (Cpwv x T = 1.84 kJ/kg x T), where Cpwv is specific heat WV at constant pressure
.
1a) In 2023, world enthalpy moist air, at T = 16 C and H = 0.009 kg WV/kg dry air (14,500 ppm)
h = ha + H.hg = 1.006T + H(2501 + 1.84T) = 1.006 (16) + 0.009 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 38.870 kJ/kg dry air
RE dry air is 16.096 kJ/kg; RE WV is 22.774 kJ/kg
.
1b) In 1900, world enthalpy moist air, at T = 14.8 C and H = 0.008244 kg WV/kg dry air (13,282 ppm)
h = 1.006 (14.8) + 0.008244 {2501 + 1.84 (14.8)} = 35.732 kJ/kg dry air
RE dry air is 14.889 kJ/kg; RE WV is 20.843 kJ/kg
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text=The%20equation%20for%20enthalpy%20is,specific%20enthalpy%20of%20water%20vapor.
.
Specific enthalpy CO2, in 2023
h = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241.2 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat
World enthalpy CO2 = {(421 x 44)/(1000000 x 29) = 0.000639 kg CO2/kg dry air} x 241.2 kJ/kg CO2 @ur momisugly 289 K = 0.154 kJ/kg dry air
Specific enthalpy CO2, in 1900
h = Cp CO2 x K = 0.833 x (14.8 + 273) = 239.8 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat
World enthalpy CO2 = {(296 x 44)/(1000000 x 29) = 0.000449 kg CO2/kg dry air} x 239.8 kJ/kg CO2 @ur momisugly 287.8 K = 0.108 kJ/kg dry air
.
World RE in 2023: (16.096 + 22.774 + 0.154) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 200,896 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 41.25%, 58.36% and 0.39% RE roles.
RE ratio WV/CO2 = 147.8; RE ratio dry air/CO2 = 104.5
.
World RE in 1900: (14.889 + 20.843 + 0.108) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 184,500 EJ
Dry air, WV and CO2 played 41.54%, 58.16% and 0.30% RE roles.
RE ratio WV/CO2 = 193.5; RE ratio dry air/CO2 = 138.2
.
CO2 RE role was 0.30% in 1900; was 0.39% in 2023, a 31% increase
2023/1900 RE ratio was 1.089, a 16,396 EJ increase
In 1900, CO2 RE was (0.108/35,839) x 184,500 EJ = 554 EJ
In 2023, CO2 RE was (0.154/39.024) x 200,896 EJ = 793 EJ, a 239 EJ increase
CO2 ppm increase was 421/296 = 42%, and CO2 RE increase was 793/554 = 43%
Wilpost
Really liked your Megapak numbers, and your offshore numbers, but in this comment….enthapy of CO2 has virtually nothing to do with Heating of the surface by sunlight. IR absorption properties do…
DMacKenzie,
Enthalpy is the energy content of a system.
In this case, the system is the atmosphere, not the earth, not outer space
The atmosphere can only be warmer, if, on average, all molecules are warmer.
How these molecules became warmer is an elusive/hazy/bowl-of-spaghetti subject, because there are so many interacting variables, i.e., it is very complicated.
Even the best minds only partially explain it, and what they do explain is understood by just a few people.
My calculations are based on specific heat capacities in 1900 and 2023
In 2023, major components of the atmosphere were:
dry air, 99.9+%; WV and clouds, 1.45% up to about 2 km; and CO2 0.0421%.
The “WV and clouds” quantity varies a few percent up/down, such as due to stronger El Ninos (see image in my article), but on a world average basis, stays near constant
There are other, much smaller actors, but they were omitted for simplicity
From those, we can obtain enthalpies of each major component and of the whole atmosphere.
Several retired professors, one in Canada, and one in the Netherlands, have reviewed my calculations and find them to be correct
The CO2 RE role is less than 0.5%, which is in the same ballpark as other non-IPCC analysts
Revision (please show this below my comment, instead of elsewhere)
The revised section better shows the increased EJ due to WV compared to CO2.
CO2 RE role was 0.30% in 1900; was 0.39% in 2023, a 31% increase
In 1900, CO2 RE was (0.108/35,839) x 184,500 EJ = 554 EJ
In 2023, CO2 RE was (0.154/39.024) x 200,896 EJ = 793 EJ, a 239 EJ increase
RE increase, 1900 to 2023, was 16,396 EJ, of which WV 16,157 EJ
Disregard the above
In 1900, CO2 RE was (0.108/35,839) x 184,500 EJ = 554 EJ; CO2 role 0.30%
In 2023, CO2 RE was (0.154/39.024) x 200,896 EJ = 793 EJ; CO2 role 0.39%
RE increase, 1900 to 2023, was 16,396 EJ, of which WV 9,942 EJ, dry air 6215 EJ, CO2 239 EJ
If there is an excess of oil. fuel prices drop..
… and EVs will be even more meaningless than they are now.
Fossil fuels power EVERYTHING in your juvenile and worthless existence.
And there is nothing you can do about it.
Did you even read the second link…
See the words, muppet.. demand growth … for oil !!
Now find a towel and wipe the BS off your face. !
Germany is considered to be the world leader in renewables
Primary Energy Consumption in Germany
2023 data:
Energy in Germany is from fossil sources, accounting for 77.6% of total energy consumption in 2023, followed by renewables/wood at 19.6%, and 0.7% nuclear power.
2022 data:
Coal · 20.5%
Oil · 33.4%
Natural gas · 24.1%
Nuclear · 3.3%
Hydro · 0.6%
(Net energy imports
72.4%)
Additional Reading:
Catching Up To Germany, The “Climate Leader” — Manhattan Contrarian
You do know Einstein’s definition of madness?
Keep banging that head.
Or..responding to the author again and again and again, hugging the site and annoying people. Correction..ME!
JUST IGNORE.
You’re repeating yourself- without having enough intelligence to read the comments that disagree with your comments. You’d have something above zero credibility here if you tell us your education and profession. Not much maybe, but some tiny amount.
RMI and IEA seem to think that electric cars and newables don’t require any commodities while ff production does. Both are mistaken.
MU thinks negative votes are positive so you might consider not voting.
But if you want to debate comment trolls come over to CFACT where we have a whole cadre of full timers. The discussion is almost never about the article rather an endless open thread on the issues of the day. Kind of interesting debate in that regard but I do not participate as I am focused on my research.
https://www.cfact.org/
It is a trick conclusion based on the total energy needed to produce the energy so it includes mining, refining, etc.
Summer is coming. Did you know you can watch a heat wave from space using visualized images of the “CO2 Longwave IR” band 16 radiances? This short time-lapse video captures 15 days of hourly images of the CONUS region (US 48 states) ending 8-27-23.
https://youtu.be/I0OCzxUyMqQ
For interpretation – plot of radiance to “brightness temperature”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qy4QnSkaJZeLIeC4R7-600ZuctPEUwaz/view?usp=drive_link
The significance of Band 16 on the infrared spectrum.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/175qnVngPPfZJKUPUH13u6t5wolTBl0qi/view?usp=drive_link
Key point: this demonstrates what NASA wrote in 2009. Runaway heating due to incremental CO2? No way.
“The amount of heat a surface radiates is proportional to the fourth power of its temperature. If temperature doubles, radiated energy increases by a factor of 16 (2 to the 4th power). If the temperature of the Earth rises, the planet rapidly emits an increasing amount of heat to space. This large increase in heat loss in response to a relatively smaller increase in temperature—referred to as radiative cooling—is the primary mechanism that prevents runaway heating on Earth.”
Source of that quote:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/EnergyBalance
The forecast here in the Northeast US is for hot weather this week. I plan to capture it for a new video.
Living here in Vermont, we are readying for a 50 deg F swing in temperatures. 42 deg last night in mid June with a 98 deg high for Wednesday…
I think the hype over the world burning up is apparent… + 1.5 deg C seems pretty nice.
As to VT’s crazy S259 legislation – It will be impossible for Vermont, or any other location on Earth, to scientifically validate damages as being a direct result of “climate change” driven by increased CO2 directly caused by oil companies!
All this bill will do is create a fertile ground for lawsuits by anyone wanting to tap into “free” money. The oil companies will keep this in court until someone can produce the former data….which will be forever.
”Vermont’s new law ought to be viewed for what it is: a shakedown to benefit the state’s favored constituents at the expense of the public.”
GLOBAL WARMING IN VERMONT
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/global-warming-in-vermont
Each year has peak temperatures during the summer months June, July, August. The below graph shows those peak temperatures in Vermont, for about 40 years.
Those temperatures were measured by the weather stations in Vermont of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA
Vermont has four weather stations; Burlington, St Johnsbury, Castleton and Windsor.
New Hampshire also has four stations
The peak temperatures increased by 1.5 F over 40 years, or 0.0375 F per year.
Almost all people cannot sense the difference of 77 F and 78.5 F
.
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/cb04ee15-0de4-4448-87ef-5cf39e97f515
.
A similar graph shows the minimum temperatures during the months of December, January, February
The minimum temperatures increased by 4.2 F over 40 years, or 0.1 F per year.
Most older Vermonters agree, winters in Vermont have been getting warmer.
Heating demand is driven by temperature difference, which was about 65 F, indoor – 9.8 F, outdoor = 55.2 F in 1980, and became 65 F, indoor – 14 F outdoor = 51 F in 2020
At present, it takes 7.6% less Btu for space heating a house than 40 years ago.
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/5a18947a-3099-49f2-a901-292d7243d349
Already-struggling, over-taxed, over-regulated Vermonters, in a low/near-zero, real-growth Vermont economy, would be required to spend at least $1.5 billion per year (during high inflation and high interest times), starting in January 2023, for the next 27 years, to maybe reduce Vermont CO2 emissions to the 2050 target of the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan.
That extreme hardship spending would have ZERO impact on temperatures in Vermont, which is a near-invisible pinprick on a world map.
Vermont’s best approach is to be as energy efficient as economically feasible regarding:
1) Highly sealed/insulated housing
2) High-mileage gasoline vehicles
3) Closing down the less-than-25%-efficient, tree-burning power plants (the energy equivalent of 3 out 4 trees is wasted), such as McNeil and Ryegate.
Tree-burning power plants and heating plants/stoves are major contributors to Vermont’s CO2 and ground level air pollution from sub-micron particles, which are as toxic as those of coal burning, and most harmful to people, especially pregnant women, children, elderly, and those with cardio/vascular ailments.
The UK Connected with Europe
About 8100 years ago, the UK was connected to Europe with a narrow land bridge
There was a land slide off the Norwegian coast, which created a Tsunami, and the land bridge was gone
The image shows no North Sea and no Channel about 30,000 years ago, before the ice started melting
doggerland_530.jpg
The Rhine River ran through it
The Thames was a tributary
The Isle of Wight is a left-over part of that narrow land bridge
When I lived in Woodstock 57 years ago I was told by the locals that Summer came on July 4th — and left on July 5th.
Clyde,
We are on our porch having a cup of tea.
Last night it was 50 F outside and almost as cold in the bedroom, because we had left open the sliding door. Yikes
Right now, 70 F, and everything is green, because of 6 molecules of CO2 and 6 molecules of water, with sunshine, is producing glucose and 6 molecules of oxygen
Reducing CO2 is a suicide pact
I have lived here since 1990, and the summers are not any warmer, as shown by the NOAA 40-y graphs in my article.
The winters have become warmer, but that is good, because it reduces heating bills, and snow shoveling.
The only thing keeping Net Zero hoax going is the subsidies
But now it turns out the level of subsidies is not enough, which caused the VT largest solar installer to declare bankruptcy.
This is a trend on both sides of the Atlantic.
No one can afford to be woke anymore!!
Vermont has always had highly variable weather. The Winter of 1966 it didn’t snow in Woodstock until Christmas Eve — we got 18″ overnight. In 1967, it snowed in October at the beginning of deer hunting season. I mustered out of the Army on January 18th, 1968. It had been below zero night and day for 10 days, as I recollect, and it was probably at least -30 in Woodstock that night. The two years I lived there I never had a problem with my 4-year-old Chevy V8 pickup. However, that night, after leaving Fort Devens (MA) it started running rougher the closer I got to Woodstock to pick up my wife. I told her that we weren’t going to stop for the night until it was running smoothly again. We made it to Rochester (NY) before stopping for the night.
Here’s the reason why. You have a high pressure system over the Gret Lakes that is going to cause the Northeast to warm up.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-105.60,33.59,325/loc=-83.645,47.234
“I plan to capture it for a new video.” What’s the objective of that video? Your time at the beach or fishing?
“What’s the objective of that video? Your time at the beach or fishing?” Nice ideas! Seriously, the point is to show one major aspect of the error of the heat trapping” narrative about the radiative effect of non-condensing GHGs.
On Monday, June 11, SCOTUS asked the Biden Administration (through the Solicitor General) their opinion of the two cases of States trying to punish corporations involved in the fossil fuel business. The latest effort, by Hawaii, is straight out extortion. When SCOTUS asks for an opinion it almost always is a signal that they will accept the two cases as an actual review. Not exactly a Scopes Monkey trial, but could be an opportunity to see science against political science in a court setting.
Interesting! We’ll see what happens. These state laws like VT just passed are inherently unjust, blaming fossil fuels for what can never be reliably attributed to begin with.
Happy Father’s Day!
It’s becoming obvious, the price of playing politics is the loss of critical thinking.
Cancel culture at work from the usual suspects and note the use of free ratepayer funds to target free speech and put a hefty price on exercising it-
‘Communist totalitarianism’: Sky News host reacts to suspension of Latrobe City Councilor (msn.com)
The process is the punishment initiated free by any gang member.
Danish researchers in Nature: ’85 years of glacier growth and stability in East Antarctica’
Guess what: the more scientists look, the more grounds for the questioning of ‘the Science™’, their (sic) ‘models™’, and the ‘Climate Crisis™’ is warranted
Please accuse me of spreading whatever kind of ‘information’, widely understood, but do take note that there is a world of difference between that which is is believed or inferred as opposed to that which is (empirically) observed. That is, between a (more or less coherent) set of beliefs as opposed to what, from the seventeenth century onwards, became known as scientific enquiry
The lack of ice melting in Antartica supports the AGW greenhouse theory
Most of Antarctica has a permanent temperature inversion that leads to a negative greenhouse effect over most of the continent (it gets colder, not warmer, from more greenhouse gases in the troposphere)
The only exceptions are the small peninsula and two ice shelves, that all have a small amount of melting.
And as we all know, the complete CO2 is accumulated in Antarctica. 😀
“UK weather: when is it going to improve?”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/c044x1xz42go
This BBC article is nearly a week old. The June weather hasn’t improved at all since then here in the UK. No global warming in sight. Quite the opposite.
The BBC occasionally let’s slip these kind of headlines to a story. They may be factually correct, going against the regular normal global-warming mantra, but they fail to recognise the irony: Most people in the UK still think generalised warming would be a good thing.
Story Tip.
Heavily government subsidised Chinese EVs appear to be a “give-away” to Western consumers in order to boost China’s domination of the overall global manufacturing industry.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/on-the-road/potential-risks-concerns-as-chinese-evs-flood-australia/news-story/5c8f1fb18d8550a62a3137328468a456
What next – a set of steak knives with every Chinese EV purchased?
I recently learned that you can post images by clicking an icon at the bottom right of the text box. I don’t have that icon. Is it something that is reserved only for certain people?