OT: Solar farm with batteries, to power LA

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:17:00 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 11:37:22 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 02:03:48 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/13/19 1:46 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 13 Sep 2019 09:34:25 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will
deliver that for two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

If CO2 reduction is the goal, China is building enough coal plants
every week to crush the savings of that thing many times over.

There might be a lithium issue too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves




Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.

So you think we would be fighting WWII again with China? lol

A shooting war with China would be over in a matter of hours. Neither side would win.

That's obviously a silly claim. There is no reason a war couldn't go
on for days, weeks, months, even years.

This isn't about a shooting war. China won't have any trouble getting their food supplies from the world market, just as they are doing now with many food supplies which we have essentially cut them off from.

Say what? The US didn't cut China off from any food supplies.




> At the same time we are increasing our debt by subsidizing our farmers. I wonder who is buying that debt and what the impact will be if they stop buying US debt?

Not really true either. The govt has taken in enough money in new tariffs
to pay for the $32 bil aid to the farmers and the two are directly related.
Our debt is increasing because
most domestic spending is out of control. Yet those silly libs running
for president want more giveaways, like Ying Yang with his $12K a year
giveaway for all adults.

Another point, the Chinese population growth is down to 0.6%, only half again the rate in the US and much lower than many areas of the world. So there is no reason to believe they will be starving in the future either.

Like I said before, world dominance isn't about making war today, it's about financial dominance. Khrushchev wasn't talking about bombs when he said, "We will bury you!" He just couldn't pull it off.

That part I agree with.

 

[bitrex]

On 9/14/19 12:50 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 9/14/19 12:16 PM, Rick C wrote:

Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.

So you think we would be fighting WWII again with China?  lol

A shooting war with China would be over in a matter of hours.  Neither
side would win.

This isn't about a shooting war.  China won't have any trouble getting
their food supplies from the world market, just as they are doing now
with many food supplies which we have essentially cut them off from.
At the same time we are increasing our debt by subsidizing our
farmers.  I wonder who is buying that debt and what the impact will be
if they stop buying US debt?

Another point, the Chinese population growth is down to 0.6%, only
half again the rate in the US and much lower than many areas of the
world.  So there is no reason to believe they will be starving in the
future either.

Like I said before, world dominance isn't about making war today, it's
about financial dominance.  Khrushchev wasn't talking about bombs when
he said, "We will bury you!"  He just couldn't pull it off.


One of China's main issue is that it desires to present itself as a
“strong, democratic, civilised, harmonious and modern socialist country”
but in reality like the Holy Roman Empire it's none of those things and
they have to put a shit ton of economic energy and military effort into
keeping up appearances. It all looks pretty good on paper! and then one
day tens of thousands of people rioting in the streets burning
government buildings and shit.

America likes to present itself as...um...America, such as it is. Sorta
like a lady who rolls out of bed in her yoga pants and no makeup or
shower to go to the grocery store it's more honest and way less effort.

I think it's an advantage. Of a sort. China government has to constantly
police its citizens and American citizens tend to police themselves and
each other

That is to say, if you're wealthy. If you're poor and/or black in
America the police will be there for u...

 

[bitrex]

On 9/14/19 12:48 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:35:25 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/14/19 11:37 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

My girl friend works in the field of America-educating the children of
some of China's well-to-do. I mean, those kids have a "culture" such as
it is. It's mostly indistinguishable from "American" culture the kids
mostly enjoy the same movies and foods and clothes and cars and TV shows
etc.

But on average way more ignorant of their own country's history and
culture and art and religion and politics (or anyone else's for that
matter) than the average American or European student. Which would seem
hard to achieve. mind you most of these students are _graduate_ students
going for advanced degrees


WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.


The US is somewhat less constrained in the arable-land dept so long as
the climate change situation and water resources situation can be
controlled to preserve the advantages we got.

More CO2 and more precip and modestly higher temps would all be good
for agriculture. Change is not automatically bad.

More precip but also more evaporation. More rainfall does no good if the
water evaporates before it gets where you want it.

<https://denverwatertap.org/2018/12/03/alert-lake-powell-is-near-historic-lows-and-thats-a-big-deal-for-denver/>

The climate scientists at least tend to think yeah there may be more
precip but the evaporation is gonna win the race.

 

[bitrex]

On 9/14/19 12:16 PM, Rick C wrote:

Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.

So you think we would be fighting WWII again with China? lol

A shooting war with China would be over in a matter of hours. Neither side would win.

This isn't about a shooting war. China won't have any trouble getting their food supplies from the world market, just as they are doing now with many food supplies which we have essentially cut them off from. At the same time we are increasing our debt by subsidizing our farmers. I wonder who is buying that debt and what the impact will be if they stop buying US debt?

Another point, the Chinese population growth is down to 0.6%, only half again the rate in the US and much lower than many areas of the world. So there is no reason to believe they will be starving in the future either.

Like I said before, world dominance isn't about making war today, it's about financial dominance. Khrushchev wasn't talking about bombs when he said, "We will bury you!" He just couldn't pull it off.

One of China's main issue is that it desires to present itself as a
“strong, democratic, civilised, harmonious and modern socialist country”
but in reality like the Holy Roman Empire it's none of those things and
they have to put a shit ton of economic energy and military effort into
keeping up appearances. It all looks pretty good on paper! and then one
day tens of thousands of people rioting in the streets burning
government buildings and shit.

America likes to present itself as...um...America, such as it is. Sorta
like a lady who rolls out of bed in her yoga pants and no makeup or
shower to go to the grocery store it's more honest and way less effort.

I think it's an advantage. Of a sort. China government has to constantly
police its citizens and American citizens tend to police themselves and
each other

 

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 08:39:59 -0700, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 11:58:29 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On 13 Sep 2019 09:34:25 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will
deliver that for two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

In costal cities, you could use district cooling to reduce power
requirements. Get cold water from deep down in the ocean, run the cod
water through the houses taking away the heat and dump back the warm
water to the ocean.

Of course you have to use heat exchangers to avoid circulating salt
water around the city.

Has that ever been done, using deep-sea water for cooling a city?

Helsinki and some other cities in Finland have both district heating
as well as district cooling networks. I do not know how much cooling
water is used for district cooling in the summer from the relatively
shallow Bay of Finland.

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:50:08 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:

America likes to present itself as...um...America, such as it is. Sorta
like a lady who rolls out of bed in her yoga pants and no makeup or
shower to go to the grocery store it's more honest and way less effort.

Really? That's what you think the US does? Trump seems to disagree with you feeling like he has to project strength all the time, everywhere no matter what. Previous administrations were not completely different although perhaps a bit more restrained.

I think it's an advantage. Of a sort. China government has to constantly
police its citizens and American citizens tend to police themselves and
each other

LOL! The absurdity is just so total with that statement.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:59:20 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:17:00 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 11:37:22 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 02:03:48 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/13/19 1:46 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 13 Sep 2019 09:34:25 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will
deliver that for two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

If CO2 reduction is the goal, China is building enough coal plants
every week to crush the savings of that thing many times over.

There might be a lithium issue too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves




Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.

So you think we would be fighting WWII again with China? lol

A shooting war with China would be over in a matter of hours. Neither side would win.

That's obviously a silly claim. There is no reason a war couldn't go
on for days, weeks, months, even years.

So you think nuclear missiles are reloadable? Or that after the fallout has settled we would still try to sail across the oceans in ships that have no electronics to invade a country on the other side of the world?

This isn't about a shooting war. China won't have any trouble getting their food supplies from the world market, just as they are doing now with many food supplies which we have essentially cut them off from.

Say what? The US didn't cut China off from any food supplies.

Then why are we subsidizing US farmers who used to sell to China? I suppose you are going to tell me that China started the trade war?

At the same time we are increasing our debt by subsidizing our farmers.. I wonder who is buying that debt and what the impact will be if they stop buying US debt?

Not really true either. The govt has taken in enough money in new tariffs
to pay for the $32 bil aid to the farmers and the two are directly related.

Except that the tarrifs aren't all on agricultural imports. You and I are being taxed through the tarrifs to pay farmers to not grow crops. How is that different from welfare or the various government price support programs that no one likes?

Our debt is increasing because
most domestic spending is out of control. Yet those silly libs running
for president want more giveaways, like Ying Yang with his $12K a year
giveaway for all adults.

Our debt is increasing because we are spending more than we take in through taxes. Clinton was able to actually reduce the debt because business boomed and tax revenues rose, the opposite of what Trump is doing. Trump simply wants to see business grow while cutting the tax rate so government revenues don't increase. Then when the bubble bursts things will really go bad.

Another point, the Chinese population growth is down to 0.6%, only half again the rate in the US and much lower than many areas of the world. So there is no reason to believe they will be starving in the future either.

Like I said before, world dominance isn't about making war today, it's about financial dominance. Khrushchev wasn't talking about bombs when he said, "We will bury you!" He just couldn't pull it off.


That part I agree with.

Great, at least you understand something.

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:52:42 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/14/19 12:48 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:35:25 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/14/19 11:37 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

My girl friend works in the field of America-educating the children of
some of China's well-to-do. I mean, those kids have a "culture" such as
it is. It's mostly indistinguishable from "American" culture the kids
mostly enjoy the same movies and foods and clothes and cars and TV shows
etc.

But on average way more ignorant of their own country's history and
culture and art and religion and politics (or anyone else's for that
matter) than the average American or European student. Which would seem
hard to achieve. mind you most of these students are _graduate_ students
going for advanced degrees


WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.


The US is somewhat less constrained in the arable-land dept so long as
the climate change situation and water resources situation can be
controlled to preserve the advantages we got.

More CO2 and more precip and modestly higher temps would all be good
for agriculture. Change is not automatically bad.



More precip but also more evaporation. More rainfall does no good if the
water evaporates before it gets where you want it.

OK, more rainfall makes the soil dryer. Logic!

 

On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 8:52:47 AM UTC-7, Winfield Hill wrote:

Discusses the ins and outs of LA's contract, for a
400MW AC, 530MW DC solar farm with battery storage:

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-09-10/ladwp-votes-on-eland-solar-contract

"California frequently produces more solar energy than it can use during the middle of the day, then fires up gas plants in the evening to meet electricity demand after sundown."

So, why are we still paying perhaps 50% more for electricity during the day, and charging EVs at night?

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 2:57:15 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:59:20 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:17:00 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 11:37:22 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 02:03:48 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/13/19 1:46 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 13 Sep 2019 09:34:25 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will
deliver that for two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

If CO2 reduction is the goal, China is building enough coal plants
every week to crush the savings of that thing many times over.

There might be a lithium issue too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Reserves




Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.

So you think we would be fighting WWII again with China? lol

A shooting war with China would be over in a matter of hours. Neither side would win.

That's obviously a silly claim. There is no reason a war couldn't go
on for days, weeks, months, even years.

So you think nuclear missiles are reloadable? Or that after the fallout has settled we would still try to sail across the oceans in ships that have no electronics to invade a country on the other side of the world?

No, you're making the false assumption that any war between the US and
China would have to be a nuclear war, would involve invasion, etc.

This isn't about a shooting war. China won't have any trouble getting their food supplies from the world market, just as they are doing now with many food supplies which we have essentially cut them off from.

Say what? The US didn't cut China off from any food supplies.

Then why are we subsidizing US farmers who used to sell to China? I suppose you are going to tell me that China started the trade war?

Who started the trade war is irrelevant. It's a simple truth that the
US didn't cut China off from any food supplies. China chose to levy
tariffs on US food and/or to stop buying US food. That's why US
shipments into China declined. We didn't cut them off.

At the same time we are increasing our debt by subsidizing our farmers. I wonder who is buying that debt and what the impact will be if they stop buying US debt?

Not really true either. The govt has taken in enough money in new tariffs
to pay for the $32 bil aid to the farmers and the two are directly related.

Except that the tarrifs aren't all on agricultural imports.

Which is irrelevant. You were claiming the the $32 bil paid to
farmers was with borrowed money. It's not fair to look at only one
side of the equation. The trade war necessitated the welfare for
farmers, but it was waged with tariffs and those tariffs have
put money into the US treasury, ergo it's false to claim that it's
borrowed money.

You and I are being taxed through the tarrifs to pay farmers to not grow crops. How is that different from welfare or the various government price support programs that no one likes?

I didn't say or imply that it's different, but the reason it was needed
was because Trump levied tariffs on Chinese goods. That brought in money
more than sufficient to pay the farmers. Now, if you had some new welfare
program, where it had some means to bring in the revenue to pay for it,
then I would admit that and not say that the new welfare program is
being paid with borrowed money. do you have any such program?

Our debt is increasing because
most domestic spending is out of control. Yet those silly libs running
for president want more giveaways, like Ying Yang with his $12K a year
giveaway for all adults.

Our debt is increasing because we are spending more than we take in through taxes.

No, it's increasing because we are spending too much, govt is too big,
there are too many govt programs. Oh, and who wants more? Why the
Democrats. Funny you're here complaining about $32 bil for the farmers,
but not about all the new free stuff all the Democrats running for
president want. Like free healthcare for illegal aliens, that's a
classic. Or free $12K income for everyone over the age of 18.
That's orders of magnitude more than $32 bil.



> Clinton was able to actually reduce the debt because business boomed and tax revenues rose, the opposite of what Trump is doing.

Yeah it was the extension of the great boom that began in the 80s
when Reagan got rid of the stupid, confiscatory 70% federal tax
rates. You Democrats want to go back there. And Clinton only
briefly had a balanced budget, it didn't even register in terms
of any national debt reduction. A good portion of it was driven
by the extraordinary stock market, internet bubble that could not
last. In fact, the recession started in his last year in office.

Trump simply wants to see business grow while cutting the tax rate so government revenues don't increase. Then when the bubble bursts things will really go bad.

Govt revenue has increased. It's just that govt SPENDING has increased
even more. We have a spending problem, not a tax problem. And when you
tax businesses, who do you think really winds up paying that tax?

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 14/09/19 21:25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:52:42 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:


More precip but also more evaporation. More rainfall does no good if the
water evaporates before it gets where you want it.

OK, more rainfall makes the soil dryer. Logic!

Do read what he wrote (cf speedread your preconception of what he wrote)

Do respond to what he wrote (cf make poor strawman arguments)

 

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 23:18:07 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 14/09/19 21:25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:52:42 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:


More precip but also more evaporation. More rainfall does no good if the
water evaporates before it gets where you want it.

OK, more rainfall makes the soil dryer. Logic!

Do read what he wrote (cf speedread your preconception of what he wrote)

Do respond to what he wrote (cf make poor strawman arguments)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jf8rjfh93e13rre/Corn_Yield.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qsrtk88vrvtu03w/indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain.PNG?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1


But that doesn't matter since we'll all be dead in 10 years.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:20:28 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 17:55:45 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will deliver that for
two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

They need to get HRV (Heat Recovery Ventilation) installed in their homes. It
works the same in summer as it does in winter. Completely passive except for
fans.

How efficient is that? What's the savings?

It's not a heating system, it's a ventilation system. It provides fresh air without heating it up or cooling it down as much.

I see the system wikipedia shows includes a ground heat exchanger which are typically not inexpensive to install. In areas where water is plentiful they are more practical when water based rather than installation in the ground.


Ontario, Canada has made it mandantory for all new home construction. Huge
energy savings in summer and winter.

Commercial systems typically have fresh air requirements and so often include such heat exchangers. I haven't seen where single family residential uses any sort of fresh air exchanges. Adding a system like this won't provide any "savings" since the cost is not zero and with no system the cost is zero.

Did I miss something about these systems?

--

Rick C.

No, you have it mostly right. They are found in some newer, higher end homes though. The claims of saving a lot in summer and winter are only true if you run it to bring in fresh air and compare that to just bringing in outside air without a heat exchanger, eg opening windows with the heat or ac on. If you compare using it to simply not using it, then it's an energy loss.

 

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 15:36:08 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:20:28 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 17:55:45 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will deliver that for
two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

They need to get HRV (Heat Recovery Ventilation) installed in their homes. It
works the same in summer as it does in winter. Completely passive except for
fans.

How efficient is that? What's the savings?

It's not a heating system, it's a ventilation system. It provides fresh air without heating it up or cooling it down as much.

I see the system wikipedia shows includes a ground heat exchanger which are typically not inexpensive to install. In areas where water is plentiful they are more practical when water based rather than installation in the ground.


Ontario, Canada has made it mandantory for all new home construction. Huge
energy savings in summer and winter.

Commercial systems typically have fresh air requirements and so often include such heat exchangers. I haven't seen where single family residential uses any sort of fresh air exchanges. Adding a system like this won't provide any "savings" since the cost is not zero and with no system the cost is zero.

Did I miss something about these systems?

--

Rick C.



No, you have it mostly right. They are found in some newer, higher end homes though. The claims of saving a lot in summer and winter are only true if you run it to bring in fresh air and compare that to just bringing in outside air without a heat exchanger, eg opening windows with the heat or ac on. If you compare using it to simply not using it, then it's an energy loss.

It's an unfortunate fact of nature that a good air-air heat exchanger
has a lot of drag in both directions, so needs fans to force the air
through.

My house doesn't have any explicit makeup air system, so there's
nothing to improve there.

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 9:48:51 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

More CO2 and more precip and modestly higher temps would all be good
for agriculture. Change is not automatically bad.

Longterm investment in crop variants, husbandry of herd animals, and cultural
preferences on foodstuffs, all argue for long-term unchanging conditions.

Do you like sorghum with your yams? Or sour cream on beet soup? Put
rancid yak butter in your tea? Enjoy crunchy toasted termites?
How flexible ARE people on these issues?

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 7:07:37 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 15:36:08 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:20:28 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 17:55:45 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will deliver that for
two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

They need to get HRV (Heat Recovery Ventilation) installed in their homes. It
works the same in summer as it does in winter. Completely passive except for
fans.

How efficient is that? What's the savings?

It's not a heating system, it's a ventilation system. It provides fresh air without heating it up or cooling it down as much.

I see the system wikipedia shows includes a ground heat exchanger which are typically not inexpensive to install. In areas where water is plentiful they are more practical when water based rather than installation in the ground.


Ontario, Canada has made it mandantory for all new home construction. Huge
energy savings in summer and winter.

Commercial systems typically have fresh air requirements and so often include such heat exchangers. I haven't seen where single family residential uses any sort of fresh air exchanges. Adding a system like this won't provide any "savings" since the cost is not zero and with no system the cost is zero.

Did I miss something about these systems?

--

Rick C.



No, you have it mostly right. They are found in some newer, higher end homes though. The claims of saving a lot in summer and winter are only true if you run it to bring in fresh air and compare that to just bringing in outside air without a heat exchanger, eg opening windows with the heat or ac on. If you compare using it to simply not using it, then it's an energy loss.

It's an unfortunate fact of nature that a good air-air heat exchanger
has a lot of drag in both directions, so needs fans to force the air
through.

Even worse, the heat exchanger is far from perfect. Also, once installed
any of these things have some energy loss most of the time. I've
seen them in attics for example, with the air intake and exhaust in
the ceilings. So, even when not in use, you have poorly insulated
flex duct run through the attic and into the living space. That has
to leak a lot of energy 24/7, obviously much worse in winter and summer.

My house doesn't have any explicit makeup air system, so there's
nothing to improve there.

Same here. These become important in tightly sealed houses, where there
is less natural air exchange. Or for people in houses like we have who
like lots of fresh air all the time. i'd use it once in awhile, like
after a smoking oven.....

 

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 16:23:52 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 9:48:51 AM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

More CO2 and more precip and modestly higher temps would all be good
for agriculture. Change is not automatically bad.

Longterm investment in crop variants, husbandry of herd animals, and cultural
preferences on foodstuffs, all argue for long-term unchanging conditions.

Nothing has ever changed. Nothing will ever change. The crops that we
grown now are as good as they ever were and can never be better.
Farmers are ignorant and will never change. More water and more CO2
can only make things worse.

Got it.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2019-09-14, Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 4:20:28 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Friday, September 13, 2019 at 3:28:43 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 17:55:45 GMT, Steve Wilson <no@spam.com> wrote:

Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

That battery is 1/4 the power of the array, and will deliver that for
two hours. Why bother?

They call it four hours, probably because the demand
goes down in the evening. The huge benefit of this
type of solar farm is providing power during the hot
days, when everyone in LA is running AC full blast.
The extra 130MW saves on DC-AC conversion costs and
provides off-peak power. They also discuss holding
off on using the battery until the next morning, to
reduce early AM peaks and avoid ramping up generators.

They need to get HRV (Heat Recovery Ventilation) installed in their homes. It
works the same in summer as it does in winter. Completely passive except for
fans.

How efficient is that? What's the savings?

It's not a heating system, it's a ventilation system. It provides fresh air without heating it up or cooling it down as much.

I see the system wikipedia shows includes a ground heat exchanger which are typically not inexpensive to install. In areas where water is plentiful they are more practical when water based rather than installation in the ground.


Ontario, Canada has made it mandantory for all new home construction. Huge
energy savings in summer and winter.

Commercial systems typically have fresh air requirements and so often include such heat exchangers. I haven't seen where single family residential uses any sort of fresh air exchanges. Adding a system like this won't provide any "savings" since the cost is not zero and with no system the cost is zero.

Did I miss something about these systems?

--

Rick C.



No, you have it mostly right. They are found in some newer, higher end homes though. The claims of saving a lot in summer and winter are only true if you run it to bring in fresh air and compare that to just bringing in outside air without a heat exchanger, eg opening windows with the heat or ac on. If you compare using it to simply not using it, then it's an energy loss.

Yeah, but these houses are airtight, if you've developed a way to live
without oxygen it's a loss.

If your house already leaks enough air for comfort it's also a loss,
but the existing leak is a bigger loss.

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, September 15, 2019 at 2:48:51 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:35:25 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 9/14/19 11:37 AM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Besides China's pollution issues which they're going to be forced to
confront very seriously eventually, they have 30% of the world's
population but only 6% of its arable land.

Long term at least we have China by the balls.

I think so. They are at some fundamental disadvantages in a
trade/tariff war. And in a culture war.

My girl friend works in the field of America-educating the children of
some of China's well-to-do. I mean, those kids have a "culture" such as
it is. It's mostly indistinguishable from "American" culture the kids
mostly enjoy the same movies and foods and clothes and cars and TV shows
etc.

But on average way more ignorant of their own country's history and
culture and art and religion and politics (or anyone else's for that
matter) than the average American or European student. Which would seem
hard to achieve. mind you most of these students are _graduate_ students
going for advanced degrees


WWII was partially decided by food and fuel resources. Britain,
Germany, and Japan were all constrained, but the US wasn't.

The US is somewhat less constrained in the arable-land dept so long as
the climate change situation and water resources situation can be
controlled to preserve the advantages we got.

More CO2 and more precipitation and modestly higher temps would all be good
for agriculture. Change is not automatically bad.

John Larkin has been told this by his denialist websites. Our current agricultural practices are all finely tuned to exploit the local environments.

Climate change means that those local environments are going to change. We may be able to find practices and crops that do well in the new environments, but it will take time and some experiment.

Change actually is automatically bad, but if you understand and anticipate it the damage may be manageable.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 4:37:09 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Nothing has ever changed. Nothing will ever change. The crops that we
grown now are as good as they ever were and can never be better.
Farmers are ignorant and will never change. More water and more CO2
can only make things worse.

Silly. Your body temperature is comfortable at 98.6F. Give it a one percent
increase, it's 103F fever, and one percent less, it's 94 degrees chill.

While both are possible, neither is comfortable; you would seek a doctor.

'more water' ???

'more CO2' - that's an accumulation of waste gas, and yes, that CAN make things
worse, if it acidifies oceans worldwide (for instance). Because that would be
a discomfort for an entire WORLD of lifeforms, not just an individual.