Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[polarbear]

And fossil fuel plants are built for free, right? And so they require no financing. And nothing ever breaks or wears out. They have no moving parts. And they use no fuel.

Right?

Right?

Right?

And you know how to eliminate all the above?
Please do tell me how.
So far none of your kindred spirit in this forum did.
Here is the problem:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8314775-post1795.html

You're trying to deflect the argument. The point is that solar and wind, when compared to fossil fuel use, do NOT present any additional problems and eliminate several. If you want to continue to try to make engineering arguments against alternative energy technologies, you need to start comparing them to the technologies they would replace, not pretending they've appeared in a vacuum or in some utopia where energy falls freely from the sky. Oh, wait... it does.

Alright, at least you did respond, but instead of giving it a try to address the how (to do it)you are arguing that the how is not an issue.

The argument is not if we should RESEARCH alternate energy, but rather how to implement the alternate energy sources we got so far !

And that`s an engineering problem!
You have to distinguish between the 2 and that is not a deflection as you accuse me.

I would be the last one to make "engineering arguments against alternative energy technologies" if there were a solution that could eliminate the "spinning reserves" it takes to grid-tie wind or solar.


Unless we address the how to engineering problem we`ll never get away from using fossil fuel consuming power plants as "spinning reserves".

That`s the billion $ question !
If you don`t want to take my word for it then please do read up on it what environmentalists that are able to understand the ENGINEERING aspect have to say about it. I already posted that as well:

WORLD OF PURE ENERGY: Energy Storage and Solar Power *

Current energy storage status

Until recently, the ramping up and down of natural gas units, some of which are only turned on when needed, has been used in many places to meet variations in demand. Many of these reserve units are kept operational, as “spinning reserves”. As a result, many nations, including the United States, have not invested heavily in energy storage.

If I were against alternate energy then why would I even bother to worry about how we should (or could) eliminate the back-up power sources it takes to compensate the shortcomings of wind and solar when the demand surges to a level above what a wind mill (or solar) park can handle.

I did more than just blabber about this problem on the internet, I made a living working on this problem and did find a solution which cut the fuel consumption of several large Diesel power plants by almost 2/3rds !!!

Actually it amounted to more than that considering it takes 14 gallons of jet fuel to get 1 gallon of fuel to the power plants in the arctic.

I`ll upload the documentation and the how I did it if you think that`s a bunch of bs and show it to you.
The how to turned out to be rather obvious & simple. Why it wasn`t done right from the start is still a mystery to me.
Aside from the military nobody else implemented it but should.
There are a lot of communities in the Canadian arctic that could, but don`t.

So like I said, I`m the last one who would make "engineering arguments against alternative energy technologies"

My last job was to find one,..but now I`m retired.


Other than repeating over and over again what we should do tell the world how it could be done.
Germany opted to put a huge amount of (tax payers money) into this system:

But realized it`s not feasible and now they are going back to coal fired back-up power plants as a "spinning reserve".

That`s running the full circle while not going anywhere !...and wasted a huge amount of money in the process.

Your turn!

 

[PMZ]

And you know how to eliminate all the above?
Please do tell me how.
So far none of your kindred spirit in this forum did.
Here is the problem:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8314775-post1795.html

The problem is that you can't imagine anything but the past and that's over.

You must have glossed over Polarbear's last sentence when he stated, "the only thing that you guys can do and always have done so far, is responding with the usual evasive troll crap remarks."

You sure highlighted that with your post.

So, in your world, "the only thing that you guys can do and always have done so far, is responding with the usual evasive troll crap remarks." is reasoned debate?

 

[PMZ]

And you know how to eliminate all the above?
Please do tell me how.
So far none of your kindred spirit in this forum did.
Here is the problem:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8314775-post1795.html

Try this one then.

You're trying to deflect the argument. The point is that solar and wind, when compared to fossil fuel use, do NOT present any additional problems and eliminate several. If you want to continue to try to make engineering arguments against alternative energy technologies, you need to start comparing them to the technologies they would replace, not pretending they've appeared in a vacuum or in some utopia where energy falls freely from the sky. Oh, wait... it does.

Do YOU have a meaningful response?

My bad, I would have thought with your intellect that you would have at least read the post he wanted you to read....I should have known better. {mental not to self}

Apparently you don't have a meaningful response either. Unseemly for a CDZ thug.

 

[PMZ]

And you know how to eliminate all the above?
Please do tell me how.
So far none of your kindred spirit in this forum did.
Here is the problem:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8314775-post1795.html

You're trying to deflect the argument. The point is that solar and wind, when compared to fossil fuel use, do NOT present any additional problems and eliminate several. If you want to continue to try to make engineering arguments against alternative energy technologies, you need to start comparing them to the technologies they would replace, not pretending they've appeared in a vacuum or in some utopia where energy falls freely from the sky. Oh, wait... it does.

Alright, at least you did respond, but instead of giving it a try to address the how (to do it)you are arguing that the how is not an issue.

The argument is not if we should RESEARCH alternate energy, but rather how to implement the alternate energy sources we got so far !

And that`s an engineering problem!
You have to distinguish between the 2 and that is not a deflection as you accuse me.

I would be the last one to make "engineering arguments against alternative energy technologies" if there were a solution that could eliminate the "spinning reserves" it takes to grid-tie wind or solar.


Unless we address the how to engineering problem we`ll never get away from using fossil fuel consuming power plants as "spinning reserves".

That`s the billion $ question !
If you don`t want to take my word for it then please do read up on it what environmentalists that are able to understand the ENGINEERING aspect have to say about it. I already posted that as well:

WORLD OF PURE ENERGY: Energy Storage and Solar Power *

Current energy storage status

Until recently, the ramping up and down of natural gas units, some of which are only turned on when needed, has been used in many places to meet variations in demand. Many of these reserve units are kept operational, as “spinning reserves”. As a result, many nations, including the United States, have not invested heavily in energy storage.

If I were against alternate energy then why would I even bother to worry about how we should (or could) eliminate the back-up power sources it takes to compensate the shortcomings of wind and solar when the demand surges to a level above what a wind mill (or solar) park can handle.

I did more than just blabber about this problem on the internet, I made a living working on this problem and did find a solution which cut the fuel consumption of several large Diesel power plants by almost 2/3rds !!!

Actually it amounted to more than that considering it takes 14 gallons of jet fuel to get 1 gallon of fuel to the power plants in the arctic.

I`ll upload the documentation and the how I did it if you think that`s a bunch of bs and show it to you.
The how to turned out to be rather obvious & simple. Why it wasn`t done right from the start is still a mystery to me.
Aside from the military nobody else implemented it but should.
There are a lot of communities in the Canadian arctic that could, but don`t.

So like I said, I`m the last one who would make "engineering arguments against alternative energy technologies"

My last job was to find one,..but now I`m retired.


Other than repeating over and over again what we should do tell the world how it could be done.
Germany opted to put a huge amount of (tax payers money) into this system:

But realized it`s not feasible and now they are going back to coal fired back-up power plants as a "spinning reserve".

That`s running the full circle while not going anywhere !...and wasted a huge amount of money in the process.

Your turn!

I agree that at this point energy (but not AGW) is an engineering problem.

Let's see what of the background science we agree on.

Fossil fuels are a temporary gift from past suns of cheap energy.

They will run out. Oil first, natural gas next, coal last.

A consequence of their use is putting the carbon that they contain into our atmosphere from its below ground sequestration since the Carboniferous Era.

That carbon dioxide is a long lived greenhouse gas and it's concentration in our atmosphere is a function of the rate at which we burn fossil fuels.

The concentration of atmospheric GHGs effectively restricts the return to space of outgoing long wave radiation created by the absolute temperature of earths surface systems.

Let me know what you agree/disagree with so far, and if you disagree, why.

 

[PMZ]

Next chapter.

Given all in the previous chapter, the best engineered energy solution would be the least total cost path to satisfy real global energy demand forever.

 

[Meister]

Try this one then.



Do YOU have a meaningful response?

My bad, I would have thought with your intellect that you would have at least read the post he wanted you to read....I should have known better. {mental not to self}

Apparently you don't have a meaningful response either. Unseemly for a CDZ thug.

If this was a cdz thread, I would have tempered my words.

 

[PMZ]

My bad, I would have thought with your intellect that you would have at least read the post he wanted you to read....I should have known better. {mental not to self}

Apparently you don't have a meaningful response either. Unseemly for a CDZ thug.

If this was a cdz thread, I would have tempered my words.

Which is the real you?

 

[polarbear]

You're trying to deflect the argument. The point is that solar and wind, when compared to fossil fuel use, do NOT present any additional problems and eliminate several. If you want to continue to try to make engineering arguments against alternative energy technologies, you need to start comparing them to the technologies they would replace, not pretending they've appeared in a vacuum or in some utopia where energy falls freely from the sky. Oh, wait... it does.

Alright, at least you did respond, but instead of giving it a try to address the how (to do it)you are arguing that the how is not an issue.

The argument is not if we should RESEARCH alternate energy, but rather how to implement the alternate energy sources we got so far !

And that`s an engineering problem!
You have to distinguish between the 2 and that is not a deflection as you accuse me.

I would be the last one to make "engineering arguments against alternative energy technologies" if there were a solution that could eliminate the "spinning reserves" it takes to grid-tie wind or solar.


Unless we address the how to engineering problem we`ll never get away from using fossil fuel consuming power plants as "spinning reserves".

That`s the billion $ question !
If you don`t want to take my word for it then please do read up on it what environmentalists that are able to understand the ENGINEERING aspect have to say about it. I already posted that as well:

WORLD OF PURE ENERGY: Energy Storage and Solar Power *

Current energy storage status

Until recently, the ramping up and down of natural gas units, some of which are only turned on when needed, has been used in many places to meet variations in demand. Many of these reserve units are kept operational, as “spinning reserves”. As a result, many nations, including the United States, have not invested heavily in energy storage.

If I were against alternate energy then why would I even bother to worry about how we should (or could) eliminate the back-up power sources it takes to compensate the shortcomings of wind and solar when the demand surges to a level above what a wind mill (or solar) park can handle.

I did more than just blabber about this problem on the internet, I made a living working on this problem and did find a solution which cut the fuel consumption of several large Diesel power plants by almost 2/3rds !!!

Actually it amounted to more than that considering it takes 14 gallons of jet fuel to get 1 gallon of fuel to the power plants in the arctic.

I`ll upload the documentation and the how I did it if you think that`s a bunch of bs and show it to you.
The how to turned out to be rather obvious & simple. Why it wasn`t done right from the start is still a mystery to me.
Aside from the military nobody else implemented it but should.
There are a lot of communities in the Canadian arctic that could, but don`t.

So like I said, I`m the last one who would make "engineering arguments against alternative energy technologies"

My last job was to find one,..but now I`m retired.


Other than repeating over and over again what we should do tell the world how it could be done.
Germany opted to put a huge amount of (tax payers money) into this system:

But realized it`s not feasible and now they are going back to coal fired back-up power plants as a "spinning reserve".

That`s running the full circle while not going anywhere !...and wasted a huge amount of money in the process.

Your turn!

I agree that at this point energy (but not AGW) is an engineering problem.

Let's see what of the background science we agree on.

Fossil fuels are a temporary gift from past suns of cheap energy.

They will run out. Oil first, natural gas next, coal last.

A consequence of their use is putting the carbon that they contain into our atmosphere from its below ground sequestration since the Carboniferous Era.

That carbon dioxide is a long lived greenhouse gas and it's concentration in our atmosphere is a function of the rate at which we burn fossil fuels.

The concentration of atmospheric GHGs effectively restricts the return to space of outgoing long wave radiation created by the absolute temperature of earths surface systems.

Let me know what you agree/disagree with so far, and if you disagree, why.

I called up this page without logging in first and your response showed up.
I had you already on my ignore list, but I guess I`ll take you off again, as long as you keep it reasonable like you did just now.

We all know that oil & gas won`t last forever, but we also know that we wont run out in the next 200 years.
The technology to replace fossil fuel already exists, but there is no way Chemical Engineers can justify the cost to do the switch-over until then.
If you work in that field you don`t just have to deal with the nuts and bolts, it`s also up to you to exercise due diligence when it comes to the financial aspect of any project you slated.
And that`s where the problem is when you have to design a "spinning resource" system to implement wind & solar.
In countries that have still untapped rivers like Canada or China that`s not a problem. We are doing just that in Canada and are using more hydro electric and to some degree more nuclear instead of fossil fired for back-up.
If you have a good enough internet connection it will be well worth your time to watch this video to get a handle of the scale of the energy problem the Chinese have to solve:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8cCsUBYSkw"]The Largest Dam in The World - YouTube[/ame]

It is massive...in fact so massive that when the reservoir filled it slowed down the earth`s rotation.


Europe is up against the wall as far as more hydro-electric and that includes these elevated pumped basins. They can`t increase with more enviro-friendly natural gas, because they don`t have any of their own and depend on the gas that`s pipe- lined to them from the Russian Arctic.
And Russia has been using that dependency as a political weapon not just agains ex-satellite states that joined the EU but recently against the EU itself. So now it`s back to the coal for Germany, it`s one resource they don`t have to import.
In the US it`s a different situation yet again.
Where else could you build more hydro electric dams for demand surge back-up. So it`s either elevated pump storage basins pumped by wind & solar and then generating hydro power with these or increasing nuclear.
Both are way more expensive than gas fired power plants and there is a lot of gas inside US territory.
Any engineer, no matter in which country is also responsible to furnish a cost & feasibility estimate along with the technical plan he proposes.
If it turns out that you were way off in the latter your career with that corporation is finished, no matter how good the technical plan was.
And right now you would be way way off using anything else than coal and natural gas in the US.
Okay then
"lead or get out of the way" as you said.
Go and get an engineering diploma...they don`t come easy & cheap either, then risk it all and present your how to plan in a board room and then to the shareholders and the investors, if you can make it past the financial analysts and the CEO.
Their career is as much on the line as your`s is after they approved it to be implemented.
So good luck to you if you want to give it a try.
The only way to find a bunch of people that could implement it at no risk to themselves are Government bureaucrats or Government officials in a country that does not hold them responsible for major fuck-ups.

 

[PMZ]

A starting point to discuss remaining fossil fuels. Seems to be a sticking point.

http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/the-end-of-fossil-fuels

The End Of Fossil Fuels

Fossil fuels, as the name suggests, are very old. North Sea oil deposits are around 150 million years old, whilst much of Britain’s coal began to form over 300 million years ago. Although humans probably used fossil fuels in ancient times, as far back as the Iron Age1, it was the Industrial Revolution that led to their wide-scale extraction.

And in the very short period of time since then – just over 200 years – we’ve consumed an incredible amount of them, leaving fossil fuels all but gone and the climate seriously impacted.

Fossil fuels are an incredibly dense form of energy, and they took millions of years to become so. And when they’re gone, they’re gone pretty much forever.

It’s only a matter of time

Clearly fossil fuel reserves are finite - it's only a matter of when they run out - not if. Globally - every year we currently consume the equivalent of over 11 billion tonnes of oil in fossil fuels. Crude oil reserves are vanishing at the rate of 4 billion tonnes a year1 – if we carry on at this rate without any increase for our growing population or aspirations, our known oil deposits will be gone by 2052.

We’ll still have gas left, and coal too. But if we increase gas production to fill the energy gap left by oil, then those reserves will only give us an additional eight years, taking us to 2060. But the rate at which the world consumes fossil fuels is not standing still, it is increasing as the world's population increases and as living standards rise in parts of the world that until recently had consumed very little energy. Fossil Fuels will therefore run out earlier.

It’s often claimed that we have enough coal to last hundreds of years. But if we step up production to fill the gap left through depleting our oil and gas reserves, the coal deposits we know about will only give us enough energy to take us as far as 2088. And let’s not even think of the carbon dioxide emissions from burning all that coal.


So does 2088 mark the point that we run out of fossil fuels? The simple answer is no. Some new reserves will be found which will help extend this deadline slightly, but these can’t last forever. New reserves of fossil fuels are becoming harder to find, and those that are being discovered are significantly smaller than the ones that have been found in the past.

Take oil, for example, we’re probably already on a downward slope. Sixteen of the world’s twenty largest oil fields have already reached their peak level of production (the point at which they are producing their largest annual oil yield), whilst the golden age of oil field discovery was nearly 50 years ago.

Renewables offer us another way, a way to avoid this (fossil fuelled) energy time bomb, but we must we start now. As the Saudi Oil Minister said in the 1970s, “The Stone Age didn’t end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil.”

---

References

1 All fossil fuel reserve and consumption data from CIA World Factbook.

Go to the website. There's a good graph there.

 

[polarbear]

There is an interesting issue concerning heat radiation at 9:42 and how the Chinese engineers dealt with it in this video:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8cCsUBYSkw]The Largest Dam in The World - YouTube[/ame]

The fog blanket over the massive concrete structure blocked by far more solar heat than CO2, but nevertheless if back-radiation would act on the magnitude as some claim then the fog blanket would have been counter productive.
Don`t try & claim the concrete did not crack because the spray droplets cooled it.
A concrete pour on this massive scale gets warm enough to evaporate the water adding even more "green house gas" above it.
"Greenhouse gasses" are not a one way ticket, they act in both direction and the solar they block is way more than the out-going radiation,...and that`s so not just in China over top of poured concrete !

 

[PMZ]

There is an interesting issue concerning heat radiation at 9:42 and how the Chinese engineers dealt with it in this video:
The Largest Dam in The World - YouTube

The fog blanket over the massive concrete structure blocked by far more solar heat than CO2, but nevertheless if back-radiation would act on the magnitude as some claim then the fog blanket would have been counter productive.
Don`t try & claim the concrete did not crack because the spray droplets cooled it.
A concrete pour on this massive scale gets warm enough to evaporate the water adding even more "green house gas" above it.
"Greenhouse gasses" are not a one way ticket, they act in both direction and the solar they block is way more than the out-going radiation,...and that`s so not just in China over top of poured concrete !

I can't tell if you agree or disagree with my previous points.

 

[PMZ]

There is an interesting issue concerning heat radiation at 9:42 and how the Chinese engineers dealt with it in this video:
The Largest Dam in The World - YouTube

The fog blanket over the massive concrete structure blocked by far more solar heat than CO2, but nevertheless if back-radiation would act on the magnitude as some claim then the fog blanket would have been counter productive.
Don`t try & claim the concrete did not crack because the spray droplets cooled it.
A concrete pour on this massive scale gets warm enough to evaporate the water adding even more "green house gas" above it.
"Greenhouse gasses" are not a one way ticket, they act in both direction and the solar they block is way more than the out-going radiation,...and that`s so not just in China over top of poured concrete !

Great video. There's no problem too big for engineers.

 

[IanC]

A much underdiscussed point. Solar IR is blocked by the atmoshere.

 

[PMZ]

More info on oil that's left.

From http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-much-is-left

2014 >> The Peak of Oil
The most common answer to “how much oil is left” is “depends on how hard you want to look.” As easy-to-reach fields run dry, new technologies allow oil companies to tap harder-to-reach places (such as 5,500 meters under the Gulf of Mexico). Traditional statistical models of oil supply do not account for these advances, but a new approach to production forecasting explicitly incorporates multiple waves of technological improvement. Though still controversial, this multi*cyclic approach predicts that global oil production is set to peak in four years and that by the 2050s we will have pulled all but 10 percent of the world's oil from the ground.

 

[PMZ]

Still more on how many years of fossil fuels we have left.

From http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/24/peak-oil-production-business-energy-nelder.html

The End of Fossil Fuel
Source: Forbes, Chris Nelder (7/24/09)
"By the end of this century, nearly all of the economically recoverable fossil fuels will be gone."

You will never see cheap gasoline again. You will probably never see cheap energy again. Oil, natural gas and coal are set to peak and go into decline within the next decade, and no technology can change that.

Peak oil is not about "running out of oil"—it's about reaching the peak rate of oil production.

We are now at the peak rate of oil production. After over a century of continual growth, global conventional crude oil production topped out in 2005 at just over 74 mbpd and has remained at that level ever since.

Oil production is expected to go into terminal decline around 2012. The largest and most-productive fields are becoming depleted while new discoveries have been progressively smaller and of lesser quality. Discovery of new oil peaked over 40 years ago and has been declining ever since despite furious drilling and unprecedentedly high prices.

The IEA estimates the world would need to add the equivalent of six new Saudi Arabias by 2030 in order to meet declining production and growing demand.

Natural gas is likewise expected to peak sometime around 2010-2020, and coal around 2020-2030. Oil, natural gas and coal together provide 86% of the world's primary energy.

By the end of this century, nearly all of the economically recoverable fossil fuels will be gone.

The coming energy shortage is the most serious crisis the world has ever faced, but it could have a positive outcome. In theory, wind, solar, geothermal and marine resources could each provide more than the total energy the world consumes every day.

As fossil fuel prices rise, renewably generated electricity prices will continue to fall. If we are wise and lucky, we will rapidly improve the efficiency of our built environment, deploy renewable capacity and convert to an all-electric infrastructure that runs on it.

If we move fast to re-localize production and proceed with the renewable revolution, we could end the 21st century with a largely carbon-free economy, putting an end to climate change and averting resource wars.

 

[PMZ]

From http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=38&t=6

Do we have enough oil worldwide to meet our future needs?

Yes. As shown in EIA's International Energy Outlook 2013, the global supply of crude oil, other liquid hydrocarbons, and biofuels is expected to be adequate to meet the world's demand for liquid fuels for at least the next 25 years. There is, of course, substantial uncertainty about the levels of future oil supply and demand, and EIA reflects some of this uncertainty by developing low and high oil price cases, in addition to a reference case. The oil resources currently remaining in the Earth's crust, in combination with expected volumes of other liquid fuels, are estimated to be sufficient to meet total demand for liquid fuels in all three price cases of the International Energy Outlook 2013.

An often cited, although misleading, measurement of future resource availability is the reserves-to-production ratio, which given the current rate of consumption and total proved reserves is about 50 years. However, proved reserves are an accounting concept that is based on known projects and is not an appropriate measure for judging total resource availability in the long-term. Over time, numerous additional projects will be developed, which will add to global reserves. Furthermore, reserve estimates at known projects are likely to increase as new technologies are developed.

Learn more:

 

[IanC]

Fossil fuel reserves expand dramatically depending on how much we are willing to pay to get them out of the ground. At 200$ per barrel equivalent we have much greater reserves.

 

[orogenicman]

Fossil fuel reserves expand dramatically depending on how much we are willing to pay to get them out of the ground. At 200$ per barrel equivalent we have much greater reserves.

At $220/barrel, alternative energy becomes a bargain.

 

[flacaltenn]

Fossil fuel reserves expand dramatically depending on how much we are willing to pay to get them out of the ground. At 200$ per barrel equivalent we have much greater reserves.

At $220/barrel, alternative energy becomes a bargain.

At $ 220/barrel , iit makes NO DIFF to electrical generation. Since almost no petroleum is used. And even if shifts were made to EVehicles, neither solar or wind is capable of ADDING to capacity.

 

[orogenicman]

Fossil fuel reserves expand dramatically depending on how much we are willing to pay to get them out of the ground. At 200$ per barrel equivalent we have much greater reserves.

At $220/barrel, alternative energy becomes a bargain.

At $ 220/barrel , iit makes NO DIFF to electrical generation. Since almost no petroleum is used. And even if shifts were made to EVehicles, neither solar or wind is capable of ADDING to capacity.

No, but hydrogen -based fuel cells can.