NFL Player’s Vision For Energy Resiliency Survives Hurricane Ian. Template For The Future?

Status
Not open for further replies.
SubieRubyRoo said:
Moisture content of the atmosphere. Water vapor is 95% responsible for “hotter” weather. CO2 is only about 3% responsible for the temperature. And that’s actual scientific fact, not propaganda masquerading as “green” science
Click to expand...
Got a link to that scientific fact cause nasa disagrees with you.

climate.nasa.gov

Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Amplifies Earth's Greenhouse Effect

Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat. Greenhouse gases keep our planet livable. Without them, Earth’s surface temperature would be about 59...
climate.nasa.gov climate.nasa.gov
 
JeffKeryk said:
The article didn't mention storage for night time energy needs (or I missed it). Battery storage would have doubled the cost of our solar project. Perhaps one day battery material research and development will make storage more doable. Interesting times ahead.
Click to expand...
I hate to see it compete with “mobile” batteries that EV’s must have - there will be too much land devastation for the minerals … Too much geopolitical mess coming …
Fixed infrastructure - if well planned - should not need batteries …
(then there is dealing with the used batteries) …
 
4WD said:
I hate to see it compete with “mobile” batteries that EV’s must have - there will be too much land devastation for the minerals … Too much geopolitical mess coming …
Fixed infrastructure - if well planned - should not need batteries …
(then there is dealing with the used batteries) …
Click to expand...
We visited SLAC on Friday. They have a building/department working on battery tech, focusing on materials, I believe.
 
This may explain why so many people are all in about anthropogenic climate change without knowing much about it,


mass formation psychosis.jpg
 
Passport1 said:
Huge solar farms like that will displace agriculture and living space for humans. Why is all this impossibly expensive technology necessary? What exactly are we saving the planet from, CO2? Nobody seems to want to answer that.

Seems like the world is hurtling towards a dystopian future for the sake of chasing a ridiculous chimera.
Click to expand...
The way I see it is, land is not the limiting factor, water and demand is. If you don't have all the water or can sell all the farm output anyways, use some of the local farmland for solar / wind is not a bad choice. You can think of it as farm towns still need a downtown despite it takes up some of the local farmlands, having lands converted to other use (residential housing primarily) is just similar.
 
Thanks for the post on Babcock Ranch. Their claims the system didn’t go down makes me think of two things. If the grid goes down, solar grid ties also go down. This implies the presence of batteries. Also, did they get power at night? This implies batteries as well. However I believe there was no mention of it. And of course like most solar articles, there is no mention of the cost of the system.
 
Last edited:
Snagglefoot said:
Thanks for the post on Babcock Ranch. Their claims the system didn’t go down makes me think of two things. If the grid goes down, solar grid ties also go down. This implies the presence of batteries. Also, did they get power at night? This implies batteries as well. However I believe there was no mention of it. And of course like most solar articles, there is no mention of the cost of the system.
Click to expand...
Thinking the article also includes a comparison to infrastructure pounded by the sizable storm surge …
Did not see the elevation - but that distance for us would put you around 18’ above sea level - and a good deal of topography as separation …
 
dnewton3 said:
Also, as has been pointed out and discussed before on BITOG ...
Solar and wind are short term solutions to long term problems. And they are short-sighted solutions as well, as the "waste" from used solar panels and used wind turbin blades is a BIG, BIG problem looming in the very near future.
Google it; it's a thing,
Click to expand...
I am not sure this is true. Solar problems include intermittancy (night time), land use, materials scarcity and of course hazardous materials disposal (same as some other electronics materials).
Materials development (battery and panel), recycling and disposal are critical issues that are being worked on; here's an example at SLAC. There is much important work to be done, but I do not think that makes solar a short term solution. I believe solar is part of the long term solution.

Perhaps (Nuclear + Renewables) = Ideal Mix.
 
Last edited:
Koainn said:
Got a link to that scientific fact cause nasa disagrees with you.

climate.nasa.gov

Steamy Relationships: How Atmospheric Water Vapor Amplifies Earth's Greenhouse Effect

Water vapor is Earth’s most abundant greenhouse gas. It’s responsible for about half of Earth’s greenhouse effect — the process that occurs when gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap the Sun’s heat. Greenhouse gases keep our planet livable. Without them, Earth’s surface temperature would be about 59...
climate.nasa.gov climate.nasa.gov
Click to expand...
Sure, right from the EPA’s website (below).

The thing they fail to mention specifically is that yes, CO2 is the highest-contributing gas that affects temperatures… CO2 is only a liquid or solid at temps that are never naturally seen on Earth. Water vapor, as a gas, has a much higher contribution to “greenhouse gases”, but it is also present in all 3 phases in plentiful quantities on Earth. When the official “climate change” story requires obfuscating these obvious fact about water, it’s clear we’re trying to be manipulated.

I mean, come on, who in their right mind would spend one single flipping penny on “climate change” if they knew the truth that water, yes, that substance that every single living thing on the planet requires, was the real “villain”, not some boogeyman like CO2 they pin on mainly man-made sources in predicting the apocalypse??
 

Attachments

  • A5842DCF-2B76-496D-8B06-E42D9018144F.jpeg
    A5842DCF-2B76-496D-8B06-E42D9018144F.jpeg
    244.6 KB · Views: 4
And Koiann, there’s a hint in the last sentence: amplifying. If water had less of an effect, or even a 1:1 ratio of effect to the other greenhouse gases, it would be a contributor. The fact that even the EPA says it’s an “amplifier” should tell you that water vapor’s effect is greater than 1.
 
Blueshound said:
Agreed. Also, just learned you cannot "ignore" a staff member.
Click to expand...
I believe in being respectful to other forum members, especially when posting differing opinions. This is, IMO, supposed to be an adult conversation. All good.
You do need a thick skin at times, but that's no biggie. I have also apologized when I was wrong or especially when I mis-read a post.
 
JeffKeryk said:
I believe in being respectful to other forum members, especially when posting differing opinions. This is, IMO, supposed to be an adult conversation. All good.
You do need a thick skin at times, but that's no biggie. I have also apologized when I was wrong or especially when I mis-read a post.
Click to expand...
I saw absolutely nothing with your disagreement with me. I stated some facts which I've seen credible evidence to believe them to be correct. You disagreed; you've probably seen stuff that counters my points. I believe that solar/wind/bio will never have the capacity to cover our current energy consumption, let alone the projected growth in electric needs as things transition to more electric power. I believe that nuke is the real, pratical, long-lasting solution. (fision for now; fusion if it ever comes feasible en mass).

I do stand by my statements; I don't agree with yours. But that's OK; we're adults and can agree to disagree.


NOTE: There's nothing wrong whatsoever with disagreeing with a "staff member" (or anyone here) as long as it's done civilly and within the rules.
 
Last edited:
dnewton3 said:
I saw absolutely nothing with your disagreement with me. I stated some facts which I've seen credible evidence to believe them to be correct. You disagreed; you've probably seen stuff that counters my points. I believe that solar/wind/bio will never have the capacity to cover our current energy consumption, let alone the projected growth in electric needs as things transition to more electric power. I believe that nuke is the real, pratical, long-lasting solution. (fision for now; fusion if it ever comes feasible en mass).

I do stand by my statements; I don't agree with yours. But that's OK; we're adults and can agree to disagree.


NOTE: There's nothing wrong whatsoever with disagreeing with a "staff member" (or anyone here) as long as it's done civilly and within the rules.
Click to expand...
Of course. Our main difference is I believe in a balanced, multi faceted approach, focusing on geographic region. What makes sense for me in sunny Los Gatos makes no sense in parts of the Santa Cruz Mountains just up the road from me. I also believe in science and the technology that comes from it. When I started in Semiconductors, 65 nm tech node was state of the art. We are talking about 5 nm nodes now. So the idea that what we know now is it makes zero sense to me.

Science is man's endless search for truth in nature.
 
Last edited:
Astro14 said:
What’s interesting about this is the shift in power generation from big facilities, to smaller, private facilities.

Electric power generation has always been a large cooperative endeavor. Generation took huge machines, that were very expensive, so whether public, or private, they were big operations. Hoover dam, the TVA, public utilities, etc.

But with solar, power is now scalable - you can make as much or as little as you want, in a way that doesn’t change the cost/unit of generating capacity very much. Scale up or down as needed. Storage is a separate issue, but similarly scalable.

So, it’s possible to go “off grid” into smaller communities with shared resources, or even private dwellings with sufficient resources for generation and storage.

This wasn’t possible in the past because the cost of generating capacity was so very high, and there was a threshold for affordable power that required a very large plant.

But that has changed, and the possibilities are interesting.
Click to expand...


While I agree with you on this one hundred percent....

How many world champions going around crying about a circumstance would ACTUALLY do this themselves ???

How many with 10,000 SQ foot plus homes are going to get rid of their lavish homes and downsize to save the planet ?? How many would get rid of their private jets are ACTUALLY going to fly commercial or even take say a train across this country???

How many of these Charlatans would really put their lifestyles and homes and money where their mouth is ????

Yeah..... Crickets.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
SHELL BP Going into Wind Generation
Replies
7
Views
1K
Pablo
Back
Top