Wind Turbines

We are the Borg.
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 10470
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

But hey, there actually is an entire set of deniers who claim stratospheric water vapor also has zero effect on climate, so it’s all good
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23129
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

robinson wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:45 pm Contrails are not the same as humidity

Even so the conclusion of the paper states contrails should be considered for both weather and climatology
what part of 'didn't' didn't you get? It didn't convince me.

I submit (and I think the math would support me) that the energy budget of the entire aviation world running on hydrogen and making water vapor would not move the needle one iota compared to evaporation of water caused by the sun (at 1,368 watts per square meter).

Not even times a million.

It's like saying a windmill would measurably slow down the wind on a global scale.

But I have an open mind.
Last edited by Rob Lister on Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 10470
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

Like I said, if they still fly high it changes the natural balance of water vapor near the tropopause, which does effect climate

Flying over the poles jets dump a lot of WV into the stratosphere, which normally is very dry

No doubt it alters the energy balance there
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 10470
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

In the mid latitudes the stratosphere is around 32,000 feet, but at the poles it is 23,000

Sometimes lower

Dumping tons ( many many tons) of WV from burning fossil fuels seriously alters the chemistry in the polar regions

Burning hydrogen would increase the amount, while reducing CO2

Adding a fuckton of water vapor to an extremely dry stratosphere alters things

There are few natural ways for water vapor to get into the stratosphere, no matter how much is below in the troposphere
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 10470
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

Contrails are a different story
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23129
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

I don't doubt there is an effect. I submit that the effect is comparatively so small as to not be measurable.

In that paper, what value did they give?
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 10470
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

I am speaking to water vapor added to the very dry stratosphere

Not the same thing as mid latitude contrails
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 10470
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

Try to follow along
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23129
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

robinson wrote: Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:17 pm I am speaking to water vapor added to the very dry stratosphere
You say it is significant. Give me a metric and number.

Here's one for you. At any moment, the atmosphere contains an astounding 37.5 million billion gallons of water.<google>

Here's another: At any given time there are ~6000 jets in the air. <google>

How many gallons of water vapor would hydrogen powered aviation add to that if all of them burned hydrogen?

I'll try to follow.
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 10470
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

Studies have shown even small changes in stratospheric humidity may have significant climate impacts
https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featu ... phere.html
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23129
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

Give me the number.
User avatar
robinson
Posts: 10470
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
Title: Pretty much dead already
Location: USA

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by robinson »

Nonsense question

Try harder
still working on Sophrosyne, but I will no doubt end up with Hubris
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 31022
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Solar meets 100 per cent of South Australia demand for first time

The combination of rooftop and utility scale solar met 100 per cent of demand in South Australia for the first time on Sunday, reaching a milestone that will surely be repeated many times over – and for longer periods – in the future.

The milestone was reached at 12.05pm grid time (Australian eastern standard time), with rooftop solar providing 992MW, or 76.3 per cent of state demand, and utility scale solar providing a further 315MW – meaning all three of the state’s big solar farms, Bungala 1m Bungala 2 and Tailem Bend were operating at full capacity.

The new record came just weeks after solar set a previous milestone of 94 per cent of state demand and rooftop solar output reached 900MW for the first time. On Sunday, that level (94 per cent) was beaten for more than two and a half hours. The combination of sunny weather, mild temperatures and relatively low weekend demand is sure to see more records fall.

The state’s generators were producing more than they needed and exporting most of the surplus to Victoria with some going into the state’s big batteries.

South Australia is currently required to run a minimum amount of gas-fired generation to provide grid services such as inertia and system strength, but the need for this will be reduced when four new synchronous condensers are switched on over the next 12 month, and as battery storage begins to provide “synthetic” inertia services.

The expanded Hornsdale big battery is trialling those inertia services, and has the capacity to meet half the state’s inertia requirements. The construction of a new link to NSW will also further reduce the need for local gas fired generators, and will accelerate the shift towards the state Liberal government’s target of net 100 per cent renewables (averaged over a year).

The continued surged in rooftop solar installations means that South Australia is also likely to reach a new milestone of having rooftop solar alone meet 100 per cent of its demand needs.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-meets ... ime-78279/
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23129
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

Witness wrote: Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:18 pm
Solar meets 100 per cent of South Australia demand for first time
...
ten for more than two and a half hours. The combination of sunny weather, mild temperatures and relatively low weekend demand is sure to see more records fall.

The state’s generators were producing more than they needed and exporting most of the surplus to Victoria with some going into the state’s big batteries.
What is the $/kwh of that battery?
South Australia is currently required to run a minimum amount of gas-fired generation to provide grid services such as inertia and system strength, but the need for this will be reduced when four new synchronous condensers are switched on over the next 12 month, and as battery storage begins to provide “synthetic” inertia services.
I guess I could google 'synchronous condensers' and "synthetic inertia services" but it sounds like battery.
The expanded Hornsdale big battery is trialing those inertia services,
I envision a day when a battery technology exists that can compete. I know it is out there.

I'm so tired. I try to always respond to BS solar news. I never get debate. I should stop. I don't think I excelled in this debunking but nobody is likely to respond.

I am bullish on batteries. The $/kwh will someday make sense. I don't see that happening in my very short life.
User avatar
sparks
Posts: 16939
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by sparks »

Batteries are essentially chemical in nature. No Rob. They will never compete. It's better nukes or nothing.
You can lead them to knowledge, but you can't make them think.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23129
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

sparks wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:12 pm Batteries are essentially chemical in nature. No Rob. They will never compete. It's better nukes or nothing.
I'm not going to be it's bitch, but I think it will compete in certain markets.
The car market is certainly one that competes, thus far, when few have it. When more millions have it, the true cost will emerge.

The home market eludes, even with huge subsidies and buzzwords like inertia.
User avatar
Witness
Posts: 31022
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Witness »

Rob Lister wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:53 pm I'm so tired. I try to always respond to BS solar news. I never get debate. I should stop. I don't think I excelled in this debunking but nobody is likely to respond.
Rest assured I always appreciate your comments/criticisms.

Rest also assured that just being read is already high praise in this epoch of immediate/visual content, even if the praise isn't explicit.

As for the debate you crave, (sadly?) I don't necessarily endorse the stuff I post – being aware it's somewhere between wishful thinking/vaporware and early results – and so have little motivation to fight your criticism. But I think these are interesting data points, even when stripped of excessive optimism, seeing it as a movement in a direction I approve.


Specifically for Australia, they seem to believe in Photo Voltaic:

Image

But the batteries you despise are only a small part of it (yet there is a market for home installations, at 10,000 - 20,000 Au$), e. g. Tesla's Hornsdale Power Reserve now upgraded to 150 MW.

All BS?
User avatar
ceptimus
Posts: 1361
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:04 pm
Location: UK

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by ceptimus »

I still find it difficult to imagine having enough battery storage to cope with a few weeks of dark, cold, windless, winter weather.

Presumably, a country will still need to maintain lots of conventional generating capacity, even though those generators may then sit idle for much of the time?

But capitalism won't want to do that - so there will be power shortages during periods of bad weather.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23129
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

Witness wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 3:22 am
But the batteries you despise are only a small part of it (yet there is a market for home installations, at 10,000 - 20,000 Au$), e. g. Tesla's Hornsdale Power Reserve now upgraded to 150 MW.

All BS?
Lister loves batteries, does not despise. It's BS because it leaves out the costs.

Even though the price of the solar kWh is practically free, the storage is stupid expensive. And solar without storage is worthless for 16 hours in 24.
South Australia tops the list with just under A$0.50 per kWh, with New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria also represented in the world’s top 10 highest electricity prices. As a comparison point, the European Union average is just over A$0.30 per kWh, while US consumers, benefiting from a glut of cheap gas, pay between A$0.10 and A$0.20. A report published in June by the Grattan Institute found that wholesale electricity prices increased by 130% in the NEM between 2015 and 2017.
https://www.power-technology.com/featur ... gy-prices/

I bitch about my peak summer electric bill of $100 (.11/kWh)1. They pay four times that for the same kWh. I'm guessing swamp coolers are popular there.

On the bright side, there's a lot of theoretical room for improvement in battery technology; 5 times li-ion is doable.


1. We really need to move. I'm heating and cooling 3200 square feet of house and we use maybe, maybe 1000 square feet of that; den, kitchen, mast bed and bath. The wife won't even entertain the notion. "What if the kids need to move back in!?" I say, move and don't tell them the new address!
Last edited by Rob Lister on Wed Oct 14, 2020 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 23129
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Re: Wind Turbines

Post by Rob Lister »

ceptimus wrote: Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:12 am I still find it difficult to imagine having enough battery storage to cope with a few weeks of dark, cold, windless, winter weather.

Presumably, a country will still need to maintain lots of conventional generating capacity, even though those generators may then sit idle for much of the time?

But capitalism won't want to do that - so there will be power shortages during periods of bad weather.
I agree with everything but the last sentence. Capitalism demands the meter never stops turning. That's what lobbyists are for, I suppose. Brownouts will not be tolerated long, for real.

Nuclear as a base load and
natural gas for peaks and
wind to make environmentalists feel better
is the way to go right now.

I hate coal. I hate coal with all my manly firmness. I couldn't give less of a shit about global warming, but coal is dirty, nasty and stinky.

But damn, where would we be without it! Abject poverty. It fueled our first-world wealth. I don't think a sane man would disagree.

It's good to be in a situation where we can move away from it. But solar isn't the answer. Solar isn't a panel, it's a system. The most expensive system that exists.

:!: :!: :!: :!: :!: