|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Math, an inconvenient truth. /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1508677168 Message started by WebsterMark on 10/22/17 at 05:59:27 |
|
Title: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by WebsterMark on 10/22/17 at 05:59:27 The Quality Of Thinking About Climate And Economics At Pravda October 18, 2017/ Francis Menton On Monday the New York Times gave over its full unsigned editorial space to a single item, titled "5 Climate Truths Mr. Trump Doesn't Get." In the full-page-length piece dripping with scorn, Pravda informs us how our ignoramus President just "doesn't get it" when it comes to energy policy. It's not only that he's destroying the planet, but he also doesn't understand anything about basic economics: Donald Trump promised he would be “an unbelievable positive” for the [coal] miners. Now he’s trying to deliver by repealing the Obama-era Clean Power Plan and proposing to subsidize coal-fired power plants. These moves are, in fact, unbelievable: Not only are they a setback in the fight against climate change, but they also make no economic sense, since the cost of renewable energy is falling sharply. So let's check out a few of their arguments. Do they make any good points? I'll start with their fifth point, which deals with advances in batteries that supposedly are going to make "renewables" like wind and solar power more "productive and reliable": Wind turbines and solar panels cannot produce electricity at all times in all weather conditions. But there have been great technical strides that have improved their performance. . . . What’s more, batteries have become much cheaper, making it less expensive to store electricity when it’s windy or sunny for times when it is not. The average cost of lithium-ion batteries fell 73 percent, to $273 per kilowatt-hour, between 2010 and 2016. . . . They then provide a chart showing costs of lithium-ion batteries per kilowatt hour dropping from close to $1000 in 2010 to only $273 today. Wow! That's cheap! Or, at least, that is clearly the impression that you are intended to come away with. So then, New York Times, can you kindly give us a calculation of how much it would cost for some random place -- say, New York City -- to buy enough batteries to cover a worst-case period of cloudy-and-calm-for-days-on-end-in-the-winter when we have an electric system that consists of nothing but wind, solar and batteries? Of course not. As always, you have to ask whether the failure to provide this information means that they have done the calculation and are concealing it as part of an intentional deception, or whether the basic arithmetic of the calculation is beyond their abilities. Whichever it is, it's not good for them. But fear not, the Manhattan Contrarian specializes in basic arithmetic. So let's do the calculation. From the New York ISO (Independent System Operator) we get load data for recent days for New York City. The load varies over the course of a day, but averages about 5000 MW. (This is actually a low time of year, due to mild temperatures. Loads are higher in the summer, due to air conditioning, and in the winter, due to heat.) Multiply by 24 to get the number of MWH used in a day: about 120,000. Multiply by another thousand to get the number of KWH used in a day: about 120,000,000. Multiply by $273 to get the cost of enough batteries to store the 120,000,000 KWH to cover one calm and dark day: $32.76 billion. (Whoa!) Now, how many dark/calm days could you get in a row? Five? Now we're talking $163.8 billion, just for batteries for New York City. (That's about double the total annual budget for the NYC government, which is about $80 billion.) Reader Dennis Rushworth reported last week in a comment that on an island called El Hierro -- one of the Canary Islands that are part of Spain -- they are trying to establish an electrical system using only wind and storage -- and they just had a calm period of 11 days! Rushworth provides this link to the actual data from El Hierro, but it's in Spanish so I can't read it. Anyway, at these "greatly reduced" prices for batteries that the Times is crowing about, eleven day's storage for New York City would go for something like $370 billion! And New York City is only about one-fortieth of the U.S. by population. Multiply by 40 to get the price for the whole U.S.: around $15 trillion. Hey, it's less than annual GDP (although not by much -- U.S. annual GDP is running around $18.5 trillion.) No problem! So what if we have to give up literally everything else in our lives from housing to food to clothing in order to buy nothing but zillions of batteries stacked higher than the Empire State Building? We're saving the planet! Anyway, once you start doing these calculations, you quickly realize that this couldn't possibly make sense until the cost of the batteries falls by at least another order of magnitude (factor of ten) or, more likely, two orders of magnitude. Good luck trying, but I think the chance of that happening any time soon is about zero. And then, of course, plenty of other questions occur to me (although they never seem to occur to anyone at Pravda), such as: Does the capacity remotely exist to produce batteries in the kinds of quantities that could power entire cities and states for a week? If you tried to buy so many batteries, would supply shortages of raw materials cause prices to soar? Does the engineering knowledge exist to turn all these batteries into a functional system? And so forth. Dare we now consider another of the points made by the Times in this editorial? How about point 4: "Wind and solar are becoming cheaper every year": In some countries like India, the United Arab Emirates, Mexico and Chile, auction prices for renewable energy have fallen so much that they are “comparable or lower than generation cost of newly built gas and coal power plants,” according to the agency, which researches the energy sector for 29 member countries, including the United States. Based on current trends, the agency forecasts that the cost of land-based wind turbines and utility-size solar projects will fall an additional 15 percent and 25 percent, respectively, in the next five years. That's interesting. So then kindly explain why you are so upset by the Trump administration revoking the Clean Power Plan. The point of the CPP is to force utilities to close plants burning coal and other fossil fuels. If wind and solar are cheaper (without subsidies), then there would be no need for force, because the utilities will obviously turn to those sources and close the more expensive plants without any need for coercion. What are we missing? The answer is, we are missing that nobody will build wind and solar facilities without subsidies because they are known to be far more expensive despite what you are saying; and on top of that, wind and solar can't work on their own without either massive backup from fossil fuel plants and/or hundreds of billions of dollars worth of batteries, which costs are just being omitted when Pravda tells us that wind and solar costs are "comparable" to those of fossil fuel plants. Where are those things mentioned in this editorial? Nowhere. The other points in the Pravda editorial are of comparable quality and deceptiveness. So, maybe President Trump hasn't ever thought about this and just has decent instincts, or maybe he is a lot more intelligent than Pravda is giving him credit for. That's not necessarily saying all that much. You don't really have to be particularly intelligent to be a lot more intelligent than the New York Times on these subjects. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/22/17 at 06:15:23 32 billion for a little juice seems reasonable to me. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by WebsterMark on 10/23/17 at 05:11:30 But we know facts don't matter when it comes to climate change. I guarantee you'd be able to find a statement or quoted comment in a published article from a New York State or federal government agency this week saying how renewable cost is coming down to comparable levels and energy storage technologies are making great strides etc... Wind and solar are hyper expensive methods to produce a fraction of the required energy. We are wasting time and resources fooling the masses into believing they'll have anything other than a bit role to play in the immediate future of energy. Certainly, keep researching techniques to improve output and storage, but don't tell me with a straight face that California is going to be fossil fuel free in 25 years. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by Franklin2135 on 11/16/17 at 06:33:57 Assuming that there is enough solar-exposed area and wind in NYC to charge up these batteries as quickly as they discharge, there are some other inconvenient truths that bring the whole idea into question. Let us not forget the petroleum-based plastic casings for the batteries and plastic coatings for the wires. Consider the energy cost of mining, refining and forming the metals used. I don't know of too many industrial metals mills that generate the enormous amounts of heat they need using batteries - they use oil and coal. Not to mention transportation of millions of tons of batteries and solar panels and windmills - by what, a fleet of Teslas, or the more likely bunch of diesel-guzzling, emissions-producing trains and trucks? And repeat the process periodically as these batteries wear out and need to be replaced, because nothing - repeat, nothing - lasts forever. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by WebsterMark on 11/16/17 at 06:53:20 Exactly right Franklin. I was fortunate enough to be in the manufacturing facility of a major energy storage company. It's dirty, dangerous, highly energy intensive. And that was just one plant in an emerging technology; not multiple plants scaled up for global production. I also sold products necessary for all fuel cells to function. The energy cost to carbonize this product is astounding. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to heat a furnace to 3000F. While I've never personally been in a solar panel plant, I've heard they are likewise energy hogs. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/16/17 at 08:09:45 the process periodically as these batteries wear out and need to be replaced, because nothing - repeat, nothing - lasts forever. Well, now, the ever plodding downhill genius of the left may just last long enough to sink us. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by T And T Garage on 11/16/17 at 08:10:56 Hey there geniuses... how do you think they extract coal and oil, magic wand?? Any idea how much energy it takes to refine oil into gas??? Are you all really that ignorant? (that's a rhetorical question). ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by T And T Garage on 11/16/17 at 08:12:17 Oh, and web - nice cut and paste job! Bravo! |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by WebsterMark on 11/16/17 at 08:19:46 Franklin, you'll have to forgive our friend TT. He's our resident leftist socialist. The answer of course is those are fixed process' that have been developed over decads if not centuries. Major transitions of industrial infrastructure like that would similarly take decades to accomplish. We've been at this renewable energy push for what; 20 or 30 years now and have accomplished basically nothing. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/16/17 at 08:48:14 Yawn.. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by T And T Garage on 11/16/17 at 08:56:36 102225343322350A26352C470 wrote:
Why do you think that is web? It couldn't be because this country's largest corporations are oil companies, it is? Face it, we've become an oil company that owns an army. At any rate web... it's so gracious of you to introduce me.... But you might want to look at the processes you say have been developed over decades (they suck)..... With oil, to produce one gallon of gas, it takes roughly 4KWh of electricity. With that same amount, you can power a Tesla for 20 miles. Those 4KWh is only to produce. That does not include transport, delivery or waste/evaporation. Oh, and that's only to get it into your tank - then you have to burn it, finally releasing the potential that you could have just gotten "straight from the tap" on an electric vehicle. For coal, (I'm not even going to count transport costs) to produce 2TWh per year, it takes up roughly roughly 800 acres of land. With a solar farm, it's much more - 7000 acres. However - that's it for solar. Year after year the size doesn't change. In less than 10 years the area needed for coal would far surpass that of solar. What's more, in that 10 years, that same solar farm would produce much more power given the natural progression of technology. Tell me again how fossil fuels are better? :-? |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/16/17 at 09:02:31 produce one gallon of gas, it takes roughly 4KWh of electricity. With that s Citation? |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by verslagen1 on 11/16/17 at 12:43:01 594748494459425F2D0 wrote:
You're willing to add in the costs for producing gas but not willing to account the costs for producing a solar cell? |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by raydawg on 11/16/17 at 13:31:35 392A3D3C232E282A217E4F0 wrote:
You're willing to add in the costs for producing gas but not willing to account the costs for producing a solar cell?[/quote] Ouch..... my head hurts ;D |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by T And T Garage on 11/16/17 at 13:53:33 5C4F5859464B4D4F441B2A0 wrote:
You're willing to add in the costs for producing gas but not willing to account the costs for producing a solar cell?[/quote] Of course - but the costs keep going DOWN every day - it's tough to keep up! Oil on the other hand.... Further, it's a FIXED cost once they are operational. Oil on the other hand... Get my drift? |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by verslagen1 on 11/16/17 at 14:11:26 You're so myopic. Maybe if you could see out of the other eye... |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by WebsterMark on 11/16/17 at 14:21:55 He's a child. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by T And T Garage on 11/16/17 at 14:26:36 140710110E0305070C53620 wrote:
LOL - myopic? Really? You think that the oil companies DON'T wield more power than anyone in this country? Yeah, look in the mirror. In fact, just look around you and see how much they are into every single aspect of our lives. From the plastic frame that's around your mirror, to the flooring in your house, to the shingles on your roof. You may want to rethink who's getting fooled here. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by T And T Garage on 11/16/17 at 14:27:27 536166777061764965766F040 wrote:
Yet another epic retort. I'm sure your clients pay top dollar for that kind of critical thinking, huh? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by verslagen1 on 11/16/17 at 14:38:43 4B555A5B564B504D3F0 wrote:
LOL - myopic? Really? You think that the oil companies DON'T wield more power than anyone in this country? Yeah, look in the mirror. In fact, just look around you and see how much they are into every single aspect of our lives. From the plastic frame that's around your mirror, to the flooring in your house, to the shingles on your roof. You may want to rethink who's getting fooled here. [/quote] Can you keep on topic? We're talking about about a gallon of oil vs a solar panel. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by T And T Garage on 11/16/17 at 14:50:04 52415657484543414A15240 wrote:
Actually, the original post is about the "terrible math" as it relates to clean energy. I'm just going with the flow. My first comment was to web and Franklin about the costs of producing energy. I know, slightly off topic, but again, I was just answering them. You want to talk about math and the common sense it makes to back renewable energy? I'm your huckleberry. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by T And T Garage on 11/16/17 at 15:23:46 Before I sign off and go drink some beers with my buddy in the garage, I'll leave this little post. In 2016, countries from Chile to the United Arab Emirates broke records with deals to generate electricity from sunshine for less than 3 cents a kilowatt-hour, half the average global cost of coal power. Since 2009, solar prices are down 62 percent, with every part of the supply chain trimming costs. - GTM Research expects some parts of the U.S. Southwest approaching $1 a watt today, and may drop as low as 75 cents in 2021, according to its analyst MJ Shiao. - The U.S. Energy Department’s National Renewable Energy Lab expects costs of about $1.20 a watt now declining to $1 by 2020. By 2030, current technology will squeeze out most potential savings, said Donald Chung, a senior project leader. - The International Energy Agency expects utility-scale generation costs to fall by another 25 percent on average in the next five years. - The International Renewable Energy Agency anticipates a further drop of 43 percent to 65 percent for solar costs by 2025. That would bring to 84 percent the cumulative decline since 2009. Read more here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-03/for-cheapest-power-on-earth-look-skyward-as-coal-falls-to-solar So you see, our "wonderful" president is in fact, putting us behind the rest of the world. He (and it seems his followers) are so stupid that they don't realize what a giant part solar power will play in the global market in less than a decade. Short-sighted and ruled by big oil, the conservatives are being led around by their biggest donors. Don't say you weren't warned.... |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by WebsterMark on 11/16/17 at 15:30:22 don't realize what a giant part solar power will play in the global market in less than a decade I heard that a decade ago....and a decade from now, I'll hear it again. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/16/17 at 16:49:58 776966676A776C71030 wrote:
Actually, the original post is about the "terrible math" as it relates to clean energy. I'm just going with the flow. My first comment was to web and Franklin about the costs of producing energy. I know, slightly off topic, but again, I was just answering them. You want to talk about math and the common sense it makes to back renewable energy? I'm your huckleberry.[/quote] Here's the Troll Dodge. Drag it off topic, an argument ensues, run to the Original Topic for cover. He can't back up his Bullshit. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by thumperclone on 11/16/17 at 16:52:30 at least he didn't mention lybia |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/16/17 at 16:55:48 Which you can't defend. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by thumperclone on 11/16/17 at 16:59:03 let it go genius nobody cares........... |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/16/17 at 17:07:36 How lefty of you. You can't argue your own points, so you pretend it doesn't matter. Was Iraq wrong? |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by MnSpring on 11/16/17 at 17:15:33 362532332C2127252E71400 wrote:
Wait, did you not know, the ’solar’ panels, just fell out of the air.? Like the, ’meat’, in a Supermarket, is just, ’their’, and no Animals were Harmed ? |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by T And T Garage on 11/17/17 at 06:22:07 4F7D7A6B6C7D6A55796A73180 wrote:
Try thinking, just once as to WHY it's never gotten any traction until now. Go rent the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car". Seriously web - are you that naive that you don't think that big oil runs this country? (that's a rhetorical question). |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by T And T Garage on 11/17/17 at 06:22:53 4C504D55485D4A5B5457565D380 wrote:
Bazinga! Nice one! +100 |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by verslagen1 on 11/17/17 at 07:40:57 667877767B667D60120 wrote:
Bazinga! Nice one! +100[/quote] You gotta mouse... I mean mice in your pocket? |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by T And T Garage on 11/17/17 at 08:35:35 213225243B3630323966570 wrote:
Bazinga! Nice one! +100[/quote] You gotta mouse... I mean mice in your pocket? [/quote] Huh? No, there are no mice in my pocket. Why do you ask? |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by verslagen1 on 11/17/17 at 09:15:06 7D636C6D607D667B090 wrote:
Bazinga! Nice one! +100[/quote] You gotta mouse... I mean mice in your pocket? [/quote] Huh? No, there are no mice in my pocket. Why do you ask?[/quote] Do you know what +1 means? Oh, I forgot, you speak for antifa. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by T And T Garage on 11/17/17 at 09:31:08 23302726393432303B64550 wrote:
Bazinga! Nice one! +100[/quote] You gotta mouse... I mean mice in your pocket? [/quote] Huh? No, there are no mice in my pocket. Why do you ask?[/quote] Do you know what +1 means? Oh, I forgot, you speak for antifa.[/quote] Well, in the normal world, +1 means "I agree/Yes/Positive". When I put +100, I'm saying that x 100. Now... what does it mean in your world? And WTF does any of this have to do with antifa??? (I seriously can't believe you're a mod...) |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by verslagen1 on 11/17/17 at 10:13:29 3E202F2E233E25384A0 wrote:
Oh, I see, if I don't agree with you I shouldn't have an opinion. And since 'bot agrees with you, he can have an opinion and be a moderator. Normal world / Your world... pull your head out once in a while and visit. |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by raydawg on 11/17/17 at 10:20:51 53405756494442404B14250 wrote:
Oh, I see, if I don't agree with you I shouldn't have an opinion. And since 'bot agrees with you, he can have an opinion and be a moderator. Normal world / Your world... pull your head out once in a while and visit. [/quote] ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by raydawg on 11/17/17 at 10:22:10 53405756494442404B14250 wrote:
Oh, I see, if I don't agree with you I shouldn't have an opinion. And since 'bot agrees with you, he can have an opinion and be a moderator. Normal world / Your world... pull your head out once in a while and visit. [/quote] ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Math, an inconvenient truth. Post by T And T Garage on 11/17/17 at 12:00:06 2E3D2A2B34393F3D3669580 wrote:
Oh, I see, if I don't agree with you I shouldn't have an opinion. And since 'bot agrees with you, he can have an opinion and be a moderator. Normal world / Your world... pull your head out once in a while and visit. [/quote] Whatever vers... unbunch your panties, huh? Go ahead and post whatever you want. I could care less. Opinions are like a$$holes - everyone's got one. But you asked me about what +1 means. I have to assume that it pertains to "mice in my pockets". So?..... are you not going to finish your thought? |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |