TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote: Based on your previous comments it seems like your experience with renewables is at the home or business small scale distribution level? From what you've said that does not translate to the grid level. For instance, large wind generators are not "wild" nor do they require any kind of storage for operation. They have very sophisticated control systems and are well controlled. Unfortunately, our political system and money considerations greatly influence how they are actually operated so that they tend to be less "reliable" than they could be and are in Europe, where grid operators are apparently allowed to make decisions for the system rather than maximizing generator revenues.

Definitely small scale. Non-industrial. Basically the optimum target is to cover 100% of your energy use based on weather averages and approximate usage data. Treat the grid like a battery and target a yearly bill that comes out to $0 after factoring in debits and credits for use.

The small (residential) wind generator that I was certified to install was wild AC. No clutch, no regulation. It would feather to prevent over speed. As such you feed a battery to store it an then regulate it out to regulated (household) AC via a converter. Non-ideal.

One of the other posters is right though. There's a limit to how much "renewable" you can throw into the mix before unpredictable demand starts to destabilize things. Europe is way out in front.. And right now it's prime time in the USA due to subsidies and the fact that the vast majority of energy is from conventional means, so you can product your own power and net meter from the grid largely because none of your neighbors are doing it.

Some of the issues are due to the nature of for-profit power producers and the lack of a "socialistic" (my words). We've got discreet players that all want to make money, and an entire real-time market designed for brokering those deals. It's not optimized to work well. You point out that these are the limits that we have now and they're not changing. I point out that we're just so barely scratching the surface that renewables aren't really a technical problem in the USA.. Yet...

TVegas wrote:They are clinging to cherry-picked data that supports their beliefs ("No warming in 20 years!!!", "We're actually in a cooling phase!!"), but when you look at the evidence on long scale periods (the time periods that matter) it is obvious that the planet has warmed to a significant degree. The exact amount is entirely debatable, but the fact that it is a significant amount of warming is not.

Personally, I wouldn't ever argue that the planet isn't getting warmer, but (for me) the point of argument is about how much of that is impacted humans. And I admit that the human factor isn't a factual issue yet. However, if you can't get to the point of recognition that the climate is changing, that sort of kills any further debate and discussion.

I see some hope. BaldEagle doesn't buy the whole thing and points to some grand conspiracy (my words, not his). I love a good conspiracy, but need to understand how that works out of for the puppet masters. What I do appreciate about his posts are that regardless of agree/disagree on the global warming, he believes that we should take reasonable means to protect the environment. I consider that point of view to be inherently reasonable. I wish more people were of that sort of mind.

When we can't even agree on basic facts like coal power being relatively "dirty" in terms of green house gasses, there really isn't any ground to base a discussion on.

And at least this topic has been free of personal attacks!

mojo84 wrote: CB, I take it you are in an industry that profits from alternative energy sources. Is this correct? If so, you benefit from the "climate change" is causing harm to the earth arguments. Is this correct?

I know some "green homebuilders". They laughingly say being "green certified" has added 25-30% to their bottom line as it has drives up the cost of construction, repair and maintenance. They are "all in" on climate change, global warming, climate or whatever you want to call it.

No, Mojo, I'm not. If I was, I'd freely admit it. I work in technology, but not at all related to the energy industry. My education affords me some sort of status as an "electrician" in some jurisdictions and in the lesser regulated ones (rural), I've got minimum credentials to do electrical work like solar when working with contractors. I've done a grand total of 3 arrays - all residential. Electrical (PV) and some hot water on those installs. I got certified to install wind, but then refused to install it as I didn't like the product. Unlike most of my hobbies, this one actually made money and I enjoy working with my hands - it feels like real work, especially hauling up an array in the middle of August. It really was a hobby and an interest thing that paid and I mainly did it for a friend who is a home builder. I could probably do it for a living, but it's a lot more risky in terms of predictable income than my day job.

I agree with you - I see builders that advertise "energy star" certifications and there isn't much to it. Some of that stuff there is value in - when we built, I did foam insulation, low E windows, solar hot water, and some altered construction to be able to pack more insulation in. I haven't done PV (solar) at home yet because I see that the price trend continues to be downward...

C-dub wrote:Another problem with ethanol is that it is destructive to internal combustion engines and I get worse gas mileage in my vehicles because of it. It's terrible on my lawn mower and 2-stroke Stihl tools. The conspiracy theorist part of me thinks that this might have been the plan all along to turn people away from combustion engines, but the realistic side of me thinks that when they began pushing ethanol they had no idea how bad it would be and didn't care anyway.

It's actually non-destructive to internal combustion engines. It's a much higher effective octane rating. You can run a more timing on it or more boost. Run an engine on gas, open it up. Do the same thing on E85 - the E85 motor is much cleaner.

What you notice as a consumer is that it's very destructive to rubber parts and tends to absorb water, which means that fuel fouls much sooner. Just "regular gas" (E10-E15) is much worse in terms of storage and than the non-ethanol stuff, which you really can't find anymore. It plugs carbs. At home, I run aviation fuel in all the 2-stroke stuff and small engines for the reasons that you mention. I don't deal with replacing rubber parts every 2 years and I can store it for a lot longer.

The worse mileage thing isn't because it's "bad" on motors. It's because E85 has a lower energy level than gas. Just like propane, it takes more fuel to produce the same amount of power. That lower energy level is partly diffused by lower cost, but unless you live in Houston, it's not worth the trade off. Just using E85 in a motor with no other tuning, you'll get mpg and HP loss. Dual-fuel vehicle offset this by detecting the % of alcohol and adjusting their timing maps to help take advantage of the octane rating to offset the lower energy level. Turbo vehicles can actually make more power on it.

I converted an old 4runner to run on E85 by replacing the EFI. Lower mileage, super clean combustion chamber. A turbo charged motor loved the stuff - because of the higher effective octane, you can run more boost and get more power out of it than regular gas. It was an interesting, but not practical, experiment.

baldeagle wrote: They are all using the same data sets, and the data has been doctored. At a minimum that should trouble you.

The NASA data or all the data? I can get my head around concerns with NASA data. I can't get my head around doctoring all data and no one noticing.
Putting on my tin-foil hat for a moment, what's the end goal of that conspiracy?

baldeagle wrote: I worked in higher ed for 20 years. It's not hard for me at all. Academics doctor data all the time, increasingly so in the recent decades.

I completely agree with you there. Individual academics have been known to do unethical things. However, getting the vast majority of scientific academics to tell the same lie would be a new thing...

baldeagle wrote: I think we should do everything we can, within reason and our budget, to reduce our environmental impact.

That's ridiculously rational and reasonable. And it's hard to argue with that sort of implementation, regardless of which side you're on.

cb1000rider wrote: We HAVE been doing something. In the past 33 years the US has dramatically reduced emissions for CO, SO2, and several other gases. http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then what exactly are we bucking about here? I understand that imposing tight regulation in the US while China doesn't play by the same rules probably isn't in our best interests, but at the same time, it's like one child refusing to behave because of the behavior of another child.

cb1000rider wrote: The point of the global warming movement is to destroy our economies through carbon taxes and onerous environmental regulations to force change now, rather than being intelligent about it and planning for the future. Alternative energy sources are abjectly incapable of replacing current energy sources. Good sense says phase them in over time as the technologies mature and become more efficient. The global warming crowd says, destroy the old and use the new, and if that means you can't have heat, oh well. It's one of the greatest threats to freedom that exists now, but the liars have been exposed, so it's losing its power to persuade.

Why would anyone, liberal, progressive, conservative, or communist want to destroy our economy? I really don't think that's the goal. It doesn't feed those in charge. Are we all going to be bareback on horses riding through the woods again? People are selfish and self-directed, as a whole. I'd buy destroy, but only if it provided some benefit to the party pushing the destruction.

Aren't the same types of people, assuming we're willing to stereotype, that are out wanting to tear down the old the same people that think everyone should have heat.. and exactly the same amount of heat. Again, I could buy some utopian agenda, but an agenda that is bent on self-destruction seems like a problem that's very likely to solve itself.

Alternative energy sources are abjectly incapable of replacing current energy sources today. That may not be true in the future. And its absolutely no reason to ignore them or fail to develop them. We'll solve those problems. Maybe not in my lifetime, but they will be solved.

baldeagle wrote:
The last time I looked at it, which was about 18 months ago, the ROI was 20 years WITH subsidies, but the lifespan of the cells was 20 years, so you're in a vicious cycle. I think the best efficiency now is in the 18-20% range, so they have a ways to go to make cells that will be affordable. I have no doubt we will get there eventually..

It varies quite a bit. I installed solar (largely hobby) because I was interested in it and there was also huge installer margin on it. Generally my net was 35-40% profit. If you don't have a local subsidy on top of federal, it could easily be 20 year payback all in. Areas like Austin have substantial installer requirements, like a 1M (or something) bond payable to the City - so you get less competition and more mark-up.

The lifespan of the cells typically isn't 20 years. You'll see good manufacturers warranty for 20 years with the warranty mark being 80% of original production. So after 20 years, you'll produce less power, but it's still quite a bit.. Typically 70-80% of original install.

baldeagle wrote: The problem with wind is you have to get high to take advantage of it, so it would take zoning changes to use it, and the efficiency is fairly low. Plus there's all those dead birds.....

Those are all valid problems. None of them were my concerns. My concerns were:
1) It generates "wild" AC. You can't feed it into the grid without storing it and regulating it first.
2) Storing power requires batteries. Batteries require maintenance.
3) Moving parts. I've had zero call-backs on solar. Not one moving part. Not one failure. Just considering hail alone, I don't want to maintain those things.

baldeagle wrote: I think eventually we'll get to 100. There's a guy now working on generating energy from ocean waves that he says could theoretically feed the whole grid. Then there's Solar Roadways, which potentially could provide 100% of the energy needs of the US, including recharge electric cars as they drive on the roadway.

I agree..eventually. Based on actual availability of fuel, technology, and some by forced regulation.

So let's throw out NASA. Baldeagle brought up some interesting points and more than one person was poking holes in the data. The fact that NASA alerted to 2014 being the "hottest year" on record (true or not) is just alarmist pandering and makes zero statistical sense when you're looking at a trend of hundreds if not thousands of years.

Any scientist that can't share data is doing it wrong and should be academically fried.

I'm not sure that all the other supporters - and there does seem to be a majority of reputable supporters are all basing their conclusions on one data set. I just read through a bunch of papers at MIT that basically all support the theory humans are influencing climate change... But we could take another college if that "source" isn't conservative enough.

The best that I can get to is "not 100% proven" - guys that are throwing this off a cliff as "not possible", I don't know how you're getting there...

MechAg94 wrote:Wind and solar are dilute, intermittent, and expensive. They will never replace other power options beyond a few percent in a free market without heavy subsidies or regulation.

Expensive, yes, but trending downward substantially. Financially feasible enough to provide payback in <10 years - albeit in consideration federal subsidy (these are my economics, not the same for everyone). Without that subsidy, it's not adopted as widely and prices stay higher longer. Long term, the subsidy with disappear. In the mean time, I'll produce my own power and use the grid as necessary to deal with the lack of storage and predictability.

Intermittent - Yes. But predictable (at least solar). What we lack to make them work through the night and through days of no sun is storage technology, but that will come eventually. Wind - I've been "certified" to install it but refused to - I decided it was substantially impractical, at least where I am.. I didn't want to deal with the storage and conversion hassles for clients when essentially they could use the grid for storing energy credit.

You're right though - the grid demand and the availability of solar and wind will not work without storage. So lacking a cheap massive storage, we'll always need traditional fuels. But I think we could easily get to 25% renewable. Maybe more. It's easier to scale traditional fuels up and down based on demand.. And we can at least somewhat predict sunlight and wind within 24-48 hours...

stroo wrote:If you are wrong about climate change and we take the kind of actions that have been proposed, we impose enormous economic costs on our country and the world for nothing. A few years ago when we decided to use corn to make ethanol, the switch of production from food to fuel caused people to starve in Africa. The light bulb change and refrigerant changes have already cost this country and enormous amount. The EPA rules on coal are about to cause significant issues in energy. So if you are wrong on climate change and we take the actions proposed by the climate change proponents, it will have enormous implications.

It'll have implications. I don't agree that all will necessary be negative.

I agree that ethanol was a bad idea. Not only because it put economic pressure on food production, but because the carbon impact of harvesting, transporting, and converting all that corn made the net impact more substantial than fossil fuels.
I've found the light bulb change resulted in me buying a bulb with lead in it, sure, it takes less power, but when they burn out in < 1 year, I'm going through more of them.. Again, the net economic and environmental impact is negative. However, it's also pushed LED technology a long way in a relatively short time - and I have started to adopt that technology. My guess is the light bulb thing will probably be good long term.

Failures don't mean we can maintain the status quo. We're going to try things that are going to fail. Some are more obvious than others.

Take the governmental and EPA push in vehicle fuel efficiency. Most of you guys probably remember cars that got high single digit mpg with "powerful" motors that put down 350hp. Then came the late 70s and early 80s, fuel economy standards went nuts, price of fuel went nuts. Vehicles got 10-20mpg and were so choked down that a Corvette put down 220hp or so - on the high side. The government still pushed. EPA still pushed. Now, we've got vehicle technology that allows me to drive a 450hp car that easily gets 24 mpg highway. Or a station wagon with 240 ft/lbs of torque that gets 40mpg at 80mph.. And if I want to get a little nuts, I can buy an all electric car that will hit 60 in under 4 seconds and haul all of the VPs to golf.
Part of what's on the back of that is the government requirements for fuel economy - variable valve timing, sequential injection, battery technology.. And those requirements help our fossil fuel supply much more than ethanol ever did.. Heck, even catalytic converters reduce hydrocarbons by a factor of 10.. It's actually pretty amazing if you've ever measured with and w/o a converter.

I like alternative energy. Coal is cheap. It's also dirty. Use it where it makes sense. The alternative energy push in this country, but more so in other countries where energy is more expensive, have made options like solar more and more affordable.... You couldn't touch PV solar 20 years ago. Now, you can break even on it in 10 years. That sorta stuff helps all of us that are headed-off grid for the coming zombie apocalypse.

You make a good point though, that there is some risk in reacting to climate change. And it's the kind of risk that we handle very poorly as a culture. I deem it "Not My Problem" risk... Because it won't be our problem..

baldeagle wrote: The vast majority of scientists are not with you, and James Hansen is one of the perpetrators of the hoax.

So NASA is lying to me? There are no less than 12 references cited.

baldeagle wrote: And please don't give me the tired old excuse of consider the sources. The chances of an alternative story about global warming being publicized in the mainstream media is so close to zero it is effectively zero. The only way you're going to find opposing views is to search them out.

OK, so the rules are:
1) Look for alternative opinions to the list in the NASA article I provided, which lists sources.
2) I don't get to consider the source of the information, I just have to consider contrary opinions.

I'm generally pretty good at searching for opposing views. A few things sink in with me, outside of the citations of most of the (source considered) scientific community:
1) I'm an engineer, so I understand energy. We've been converting mass into heat for a really long time. It makes sense to me that there might be an impact.
2) I also understand statistics, so regardless of 2014 being the "hottest year" or not, it's statistically meaningless.. (see, I did look at what you provided). Honestly, what you and I notice in our relatively short lives isn't enough evidence of anything.
3) Although I agree the cycles of climate are "normal", that doesn't allow me to rule out the massive impact that we as humans have as part of carving up the earth.
4) We haven't been here that long geologic timeline speaking, so I admit that our impact on the earth is fairly hard to prove with 100% certainty. The question is, would I be willing to change my behavior without being 100% factually-infallible certain?

The sources you cited largely point out that NASA and another agency are manipulating temperature data. So, lets accept that as true... How do you account for another 200 reasonably credentialed agencies that have come to the same conclusion without NASA data? You cited people poking holes in NASAs data set and I see legitimate concerns in that data set based on what you posted. But the link I provided was scientific consensus outside of that data set. At random, I looked at MITs papers on the subject.. I can't exactly find a lack of consensus there...

Is it all a grand conspiracy of the federal government? OK, I could buy that. How about a grand conspiracy in most well respected institutes of higher education? That one is a bit harder for me to buy.


Thinking about it other way, I consider the following:

Say you're right. Climate change is all fallacy and the "science" behind it is a grand conspiracy of epic proportions. Or, well, maybe it's less drastic than that and the scientists that study it are just wrong:
If we do nothing and continue on our ways, we're no worse for wear.
If we do something to reduce our environmental impact, we're also no worse for wear.

Say that you're wrong. And humans are contributing to climate change at a rate that will have substantial (negative) consequences:
If we do nothing and continue on our ways, we're messing up the earth for everyone else. Perhaps irreversibly.
If we do something and reduce our environmental impact, we just make sure that the planet works well for everyone for a much longer period of time.

Assuming you're not 100% sure... And honestly, I'm not 100% sure as it's not factually proven (yet), which choice would you pick?

baldeagle wrote: And it looks like it's going to take a great deal longer for many to finally pay attention to the data and realize that global warming (now changed to climate change) is a hoax of huge proportions.

Assuming we're talking about the same thing, meaning: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.
Yea, I'm going to have to go with vast majority of the scientists on this one...

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TVegas wrote:Except that, unlike this article, the consensus on climate change is based on objective analysis among experts in the field.

Yea, you're not going to want to bring that up on this forum. The scientific consensus isn't generally accepted here.

That's OK. It took a while to realize that the world wasn't flat.