@glenndoty.bsky.social
I'm pretty dubious of $20/t claims. Every semi-viable CC technology I'm aware of captures from point source emissions.
February 15, 2025 at 5:33 PM
I'm pretty dubious of $20/t claims. Every semi-viable CC technology I'm aware of captures from point source emissions.
Do you have a link? 430 ppm might be sufficient to cause rather extreme climate change, but it's still only 0.043% of the atmosphere. You have to move a LOT of atmosphere in order to get a ton (Straight math, you'd need roughly 1.88 million m3 of atmosphere in order to have a ton of CO2).
February 15, 2025 at 5:32 PM
Do you have a link? 430 ppm might be sufficient to cause rather extreme climate change, but it's still only 0.043% of the atmosphere. You have to move a LOT of atmosphere in order to get a ton (Straight math, you'd need roughly 1.88 million m3 of atmosphere in order to have a ton of CO2).
But what we're talking about is seasonal energy storage, not daily/nightly.
The OP has too much solar energy in the summer, and has need in the winter. The thermal battery you linked to is efficient in short-term, but lousy for long-term energy storage.
The OP has too much solar energy in the summer, and has need in the winter. The thermal battery you linked to is efficient in short-term, but lousy for long-term energy storage.
February 15, 2025 at 4:10 PM
But what we're talking about is seasonal energy storage, not daily/nightly.
The OP has too much solar energy in the summer, and has need in the winter. The thermal battery you linked to is efficient in short-term, but lousy for long-term energy storage.
The OP has too much solar energy in the summer, and has need in the winter. The thermal battery you linked to is efficient in short-term, but lousy for long-term energy storage.
Using carbon isn't the inefficient part, removing the carbon from the air is.
A plant has a large area of reactive sites (leaves) continuously exchanging with the air to extract CO2. For a mechanical plant, they have to use large fan banks to push air into an MEA bubbler to separate out CO2.
A plant has a large area of reactive sites (leaves) continuously exchanging with the air to extract CO2. For a mechanical plant, they have to use large fan banks to push air into an MEA bubbler to separate out CO2.
February 15, 2025 at 4:01 PM
Using carbon isn't the inefficient part, removing the carbon from the air is.
A plant has a large area of reactive sites (leaves) continuously exchanging with the air to extract CO2. For a mechanical plant, they have to use large fan banks to push air into an MEA bubbler to separate out CO2.
A plant has a large area of reactive sites (leaves) continuously exchanging with the air to extract CO2. For a mechanical plant, they have to use large fan banks to push air into an MEA bubbler to separate out CO2.
CAES is extremely inefficient and quite expensive. Certainly not as good as $0.07/kWh. (Probably not as good as $0.01/kWh).
Pumped hydro is good for cycling storage, but upstate MI is pancake flat.
Even in good terrain, pumped hydro is poor for seasonal storage. They need more summer demand.
Pumped hydro is good for cycling storage, but upstate MI is pancake flat.
Even in good terrain, pumped hydro is poor for seasonal storage. They need more summer demand.
February 14, 2025 at 6:19 PM
CAES is extremely inefficient and quite expensive. Certainly not as good as $0.07/kWh. (Probably not as good as $0.01/kWh).
Pumped hydro is good for cycling storage, but upstate MI is pancake flat.
Even in good terrain, pumped hydro is poor for seasonal storage. They need more summer demand.
Pumped hydro is good for cycling storage, but upstate MI is pancake flat.
Even in good terrain, pumped hydro is poor for seasonal storage. They need more summer demand.
Serious question: why would that be better than a simple geothermal heat pump?
If they had a geothermal heat pump, they could always over-cool in the summer and use ventilation to help with climate-control (literally "cooling the outside"). That would accomplish the same thing.
If they had a geothermal heat pump, they could always over-cool in the summer and use ventilation to help with climate-control (literally "cooling the outside"). That would accomplish the same thing.
February 14, 2025 at 6:15 PM
Serious question: why would that be better than a simple geothermal heat pump?
If they had a geothermal heat pump, they could always over-cool in the summer and use ventilation to help with climate-control (literally "cooling the outside"). That would accomplish the same thing.
If they had a geothermal heat pump, they could always over-cool in the summer and use ventilation to help with climate-control (literally "cooling the outside"). That would accomplish the same thing.
They wouldn't be curtailing, they'd be selling excess. But certainly the summer months would be the lowest energy demand in that region.
February 14, 2025 at 6:12 PM
They wouldn't be curtailing, they'd be selling excess. But certainly the summer months would be the lowest energy demand in that region.
How much land do you have?
There is no cost effective way of capturing carbon from the dilute atmosphere outside of *plants*. But you can use excess power to run a small greenhouse that will dramatically out-perform outdoor gardening/growth. That would help.
There is no cost effective way of capturing carbon from the dilute atmosphere outside of *plants*. But you can use excess power to run a small greenhouse that will dramatically out-perform outdoor gardening/growth. That would help.
February 14, 2025 at 6:10 PM
How much land do you have?
There is no cost effective way of capturing carbon from the dilute atmosphere outside of *plants*. But you can use excess power to run a small greenhouse that will dramatically out-perform outdoor gardening/growth. That would help.
There is no cost effective way of capturing carbon from the dilute atmosphere outside of *plants*. But you can use excess power to run a small greenhouse that will dramatically out-perform outdoor gardening/growth. That would help.
Fair enough.
I conceded at the start that the link, and other links, STATED that. It's false, because they magically double-counts clean energy generation in the comparison... but hey, it fits your preconceived bias.
If that's all you need, then this is a waste of time.
Good luck.
I conceded at the start that the link, and other links, STATED that. It's false, because they magically double-counts clean energy generation in the comparison... but hey, it fits your preconceived bias.
If that's all you need, then this is a waste of time.
Good luck.
February 13, 2025 at 1:49 PM
Fair enough.
I conceded at the start that the link, and other links, STATED that. It's false, because they magically double-counts clean energy generation in the comparison... but hey, it fits your preconceived bias.
If that's all you need, then this is a waste of time.
Good luck.
I conceded at the start that the link, and other links, STATED that. It's false, because they magically double-counts clean energy generation in the comparison... but hey, it fits your preconceived bias.
If that's all you need, then this is a waste of time.
Good luck.
If you have a study that uses realistic grid utilization rather than the Utopian nonsense metric of "grid mix"... I would love to read it.
If it's just another propaganda piece where clean sources are magically double-counted? I'm not interested.
If it's just another propaganda piece where clean sources are magically double-counted? I'm not interested.
February 12, 2025 at 8:11 PM
If you have a study that uses realistic grid utilization rather than the Utopian nonsense metric of "grid mix"... I would love to read it.
If it's just another propaganda piece where clean sources are magically double-counted? I'm not interested.
If it's just another propaganda piece where clean sources are magically double-counted? I'm not interested.
Rest assured: Every single person who does not understand the difference between correlation and causation WILL die!!!
;)
;)
February 12, 2025 at 8:08 PM
Rest assured: Every single person who does not understand the difference between correlation and causation WILL die!!!
;)
;)
In the future - when there is plenty of spare clean sources and the ready ability to utilize them, EV's will be cleaner than efficient ICEV's. That is not true today.
None of this is even controversial. It's just a simple statement of fact.
None of this is even controversial. It's just a simple statement of fact.
February 12, 2025 at 8:07 PM
In the future - when there is plenty of spare clean sources and the ready ability to utilize them, EV's will be cleaner than efficient ICEV's. That is not true today.
None of this is even controversial. It's just a simple statement of fact.
None of this is even controversial. It's just a simple statement of fact.
It was a simple statement of fact. The OP was worried that the loss of sales from Tesla might be switching to fossil powered vehicles. In today's grid, a switch from EV to efficient ICEV (or vice versa) is environmentally neutral.
In a generation that will not be true. It is true today.
In a generation that will not be true. It is true today.
February 12, 2025 at 8:06 PM
It was a simple statement of fact. The OP was worried that the loss of sales from Tesla might be switching to fossil powered vehicles. In today's grid, a switch from EV to efficient ICEV (or vice versa) is environmentally neutral.
In a generation that will not be true. It is true today.
In a generation that will not be true. It is true today.
That link is to a comparison between various passenger vehicle technologies running exclusively on renewable energy. I have no problem agreeing that in a future society in which all electricity is clean-sourced, EV's would have lower emissions than fuel cell vehicles (which cost 10+X more).
February 10, 2025 at 8:37 PM
That link is to a comparison between various passenger vehicle technologies running exclusively on renewable energy. I have no problem agreeing that in a future society in which all electricity is clean-sourced, EV's would have lower emissions than fuel cell vehicles (which cost 10+X more).
I think I have a pretty good handle on econ 101. What do you believe that I don't understand?
In other words, how do you believe that a ramp-up in EV adoption will affect change in the grid emissions long term?
EV charging is not inherently load following.
In other words, how do you believe that a ramp-up in EV adoption will affect change in the grid emissions long term?
EV charging is not inherently load following.
February 10, 2025 at 8:07 PM
I think I have a pretty good handle on econ 101. What do you believe that I don't understand?
In other words, how do you believe that a ramp-up in EV adoption will affect change in the grid emissions long term?
EV charging is not inherently load following.
In other words, how do you believe that a ramp-up in EV adoption will affect change in the grid emissions long term?
EV charging is not inherently load following.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...
Growth in wind energy has vastly outpaced adoption of EV's. VASTLY.
The growth in wind is serving to lower NG demand at a faster rate than EV adoption is increasing NG demand.
That's just math.
Growth in wind energy has vastly outpaced adoption of EV's. VASTLY.
The growth in wind is serving to lower NG demand at a faster rate than EV adoption is increasing NG demand.
That's just math.
Energy in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
February 10, 2025 at 7:58 PM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...
Growth in wind energy has vastly outpaced adoption of EV's. VASTLY.
The growth in wind is serving to lower NG demand at a faster rate than EV adoption is increasing NG demand.
That's just math.
Growth in wind energy has vastly outpaced adoption of EV's. VASTLY.
The growth in wind is serving to lower NG demand at a faster rate than EV adoption is increasing NG demand.
That's just math.
Let's do a different thought experiment. Let's say a hacker breaks into Tesla's system and causes an "update" that bricks a half-million of those EV's in the UK.
Do you believe that the amount of clean energy generated will go down?
No. NG-produced generation will drop.
What does that tell you?
Do you believe that the amount of clean energy generated will go down?
No. NG-produced generation will drop.
What does that tell you?
February 10, 2025 at 7:51 PM
Let's do a different thought experiment. Let's say a hacker breaks into Tesla's system and causes an "update" that bricks a half-million of those EV's in the UK.
Do you believe that the amount of clean energy generated will go down?
No. NG-produced generation will drop.
What does that tell you?
Do you believe that the amount of clean energy generated will go down?
No. NG-produced generation will drop.
What does that tell you?
I apologize. The rain dance and spellcasting comment was out of line.
The point remains, and you refuse to address or accept: at any point when new demand enters a grid, it must be met by a matched utilization of SPARE capacity.
Anything else is just fantasy. You are lying to yourself.
The point remains, and you refuse to address or accept: at any point when new demand enters a grid, it must be met by a matched utilization of SPARE capacity.
Anything else is just fantasy. You are lying to yourself.
February 7, 2025 at 2:52 PM
I apologize. The rain dance and spellcasting comment was out of line.
The point remains, and you refuse to address or accept: at any point when new demand enters a grid, it must be met by a matched utilization of SPARE capacity.
Anything else is just fantasy. You are lying to yourself.
The point remains, and you refuse to address or accept: at any point when new demand enters a grid, it must be met by a matched utilization of SPARE capacity.
Anything else is just fantasy. You are lying to yourself.
LOL,
I'm acknowledging an irrefutable fact, that you are desperate to ignore.
That isn't "justifying" fossil fuels, it's addressing the issue rather than burying your head in the sand and grasping for a promised panacea.
;)
One of us is serious about solving this issue.
I'm acknowledging an irrefutable fact, that you are desperate to ignore.
That isn't "justifying" fossil fuels, it's addressing the issue rather than burying your head in the sand and grasping for a promised panacea.
;)
One of us is serious about solving this issue.
February 7, 2025 at 2:49 PM
LOL,
I'm acknowledging an irrefutable fact, that you are desperate to ignore.
That isn't "justifying" fossil fuels, it's addressing the issue rather than burying your head in the sand and grasping for a promised panacea.
;)
One of us is serious about solving this issue.
I'm acknowledging an irrefutable fact, that you are desperate to ignore.
That isn't "justifying" fossil fuels, it's addressing the issue rather than burying your head in the sand and grasping for a promised panacea.
;)
One of us is serious about solving this issue.
The atmosphere doesn't care about borders.
New demand can only be satisfied by tapping spare generation capacity, and there is almost zero spare clean energy capacity outside of the American Great Plains (Specifically ERCOT and MISO). So to meet new energy demand you tap old fossil generation.
New demand can only be satisfied by tapping spare generation capacity, and there is almost zero spare clean energy capacity outside of the American Great Plains (Specifically ERCOT and MISO). So to meet new energy demand you tap old fossil generation.
February 6, 2025 at 10:39 PM
The atmosphere doesn't care about borders.
New demand can only be satisfied by tapping spare generation capacity, and there is almost zero spare clean energy capacity outside of the American Great Plains (Specifically ERCOT and MISO). So to meet new energy demand you tap old fossil generation.
New demand can only be satisfied by tapping spare generation capacity, and there is almost zero spare clean energy capacity outside of the American Great Plains (Specifically ERCOT and MISO). So to meet new energy demand you tap old fossil generation.
Keir,
France's grid doesn't end at France's border. The energy that France exports reduces coal generation in Germany and NG generation in the rest of its neighbors. If you increase demand load in France, you decrease export, and fossil spare capacity is tapped elsewhere to compensate.
France's grid doesn't end at France's border. The energy that France exports reduces coal generation in Germany and NG generation in the rest of its neighbors. If you increase demand load in France, you decrease export, and fossil spare capacity is tapped elsewhere to compensate.
February 6, 2025 at 10:35 PM
Keir,
France's grid doesn't end at France's border. The energy that France exports reduces coal generation in Germany and NG generation in the rest of its neighbors. If you increase demand load in France, you decrease export, and fossil spare capacity is tapped elsewhere to compensate.
France's grid doesn't end at France's border. The energy that France exports reduces coal generation in Germany and NG generation in the rest of its neighbors. If you increase demand load in France, you decrease export, and fossil spare capacity is tapped elsewhere to compensate.
"He's right...", though he has not said one accurate thing about the power grid that refutes my point...
You have not convinced me. But of course this is why the conversation is going nowhere. No-one wants to actually discover something, they want to back their side - no matter how farcical.
You have not convinced me. But of course this is why the conversation is going nowhere. No-one wants to actually discover something, they want to back their side - no matter how farcical.
February 6, 2025 at 10:31 PM
"He's right...", though he has not said one accurate thing about the power grid that refutes my point...
You have not convinced me. But of course this is why the conversation is going nowhere. No-one wants to actually discover something, they want to back their side - no matter how farcical.
You have not convinced me. But of course this is why the conversation is going nowhere. No-one wants to actually discover something, they want to back their side - no matter how farcical.
Here in the US, in ERCOT and MISO (two exchange hubs that have serious wind curtailment issues), they encourage customers to hook their appliances (including EV chargers) to controllers that will switch them on and off based on grid load. THAT helps wind, without that, EV's won't affect curtailment
February 6, 2025 at 10:09 PM
Here in the US, in ERCOT and MISO (two exchange hubs that have serious wind curtailment issues), they encourage customers to hook their appliances (including EV chargers) to controllers that will switch them on and off based on grid load. THAT helps wind, without that, EV's won't affect curtailment
First of all, the UK's wind curtailment is laughably small.
Still, during times when the wind is curtailed, fossil power plants are still online and still producing. Do you understand why? (I'm honestly asking, not mocking). Only load-following demand can help with wind variability.
Still, during times when the wind is curtailed, fossil power plants are still online and still producing. Do you understand why? (I'm honestly asking, not mocking). Only load-following demand can help with wind variability.
February 6, 2025 at 10:06 PM
First of all, the UK's wind curtailment is laughably small.
Still, during times when the wind is curtailed, fossil power plants are still online and still producing. Do you understand why? (I'm honestly asking, not mocking). Only load-following demand can help with wind variability.
Still, during times when the wind is curtailed, fossil power plants are still online and still producing. Do you understand why? (I'm honestly asking, not mocking). Only load-following demand can help with wind variability.
When you are in a conversation with someone who seems to be well informed, it might behoove you to actually look up concepts that you don't understand rather than attempt to mock the person on the other end in order to drag the conversation into the mud so you can try to gain some "upper hand".
February 6, 2025 at 10:03 PM
When you are in a conversation with someone who seems to be well informed, it might behoove you to actually look up concepts that you don't understand rather than attempt to mock the person on the other end in order to drag the conversation into the mud so you can try to gain some "upper hand".