The hidden digital roadblock that\'s keeping green electricity off the U.S. grid...

[Fred Bloggs]

Looks like conversion to renewables is about 10% of what it could be if the big corporate energy concerns applied for temporary rate increases to pay for the build-out. Some of the do, some of them don\'t. A lot of them don\'t want to do this because it entails a detailed audit of their finances. Seems appropriate the people who are using all this energy should pay for the required infrastructure.

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-digital-roadblock-keeping-green-electricity-u-s-grid

The scheme about measuring the wind to calculate a new capacity for the line based on the increased heat dissipation effect is garbage.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 14:05:31 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like conversion to renewables is about 10% of what it could be if the big corporate energy concerns applied for temporary rate increases to pay for the build-out. Some of the do, some of them don\'t. A lot of them don\'t want to do this because it entails a detailed audit of their finances. Seems appropriate the people who are using all this energy should pay for the required infrastructure.

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-digital-roadblock-keeping-green-electricity-u-s-grid

The scheme about measuring the wind to calculate a new capacity for the line based on the increased heat dissipation effect is garbage.

\"the U.S. goal of eliminating all planet-warming carbon emissions\" is
absurd, given that China is building a couple of coal-powered plants
per week, and India and Africa will catch up.

When we get enough multi-day blackouts and the cost of electricity
triples, policies will change.

An incremental addition to power generation should pay its incremental
costs.

Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of
still, hot air. No wind power, solar off at sunset. Upside, there will
be no current to overheat the transmission lines.

The US power distribution system works very well, but will be easy to
break. Not many politicians or greenies have EE degrees.

We could clamp some Thermalloy heat sinks to the tx lines.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:52:34 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 14:05:31 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like conversion to renewables is about 10% of what it could be if the big corporate energy concerns applied for temporary rate increases to pay for the build-out. Some of the do, some of them don\'t. A lot of them don\'t want to do this because it entails a detailed audit of their finances. Seems appropriate the people who are using all this energy should pay for the required infrastructure.

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-digital-roadblock-keeping-green-electricity-u-s-grid

The scheme about measuring the wind to calculate a new capacity for the line based on the increased heat dissipation effect is garbage.

\"the U.S. goal of eliminating all planet-warming carbon emissions\" is absurd, given that China is building a couple of coal-powered plants per week, and India and Africa will catch up.

The absurdity is all in John Larkin\'s blinkered point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China

China is still building coal-fired power plants, but it is building wind farms and solar farms with a lot more enthusiasm. Thermal power went up by 4.7% from 2019 to 2020, wind power went up by 34.6% and solar power went up by 24.1%., The renewables are starting from a lower base but they added more wind power (71,670 MW.hr) than thermal power (56,370 MW.hr ) and almost as much solar power (48,200 MW.hr),.

India and Africa are doing the same sums, and wind and solar are both cheaper and more modular routes to more electric power.

> When we get enough multi-day blackouts and the cost of electricity triples, policies will change.

Except that wind and solar provide electricity cheaper than you can get it by burning fossil carbon. This has been true for about a decade now, but John Larkin has yet to notice.

> An incremental addition to power generation should pay its incremental costs.

And John Larkin should get around to finding out what they are now. rather than relying on what climate change denial propaganda tells him.

> Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of still, hot air.

You\'d have to imagine it. Air circulates around high pressure system in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere. There may be still air in the dead centre of the system but the rest is moving. The eye of the hurricane shows the same effect, and it isn\'t large.

> No wind power, solar off at sunset. Upside, there will be no current to overheat the transmission lines.

But plenty to over-heat John Larkin\'s energetic (but unrealistic imagination).

> The US power distribution system works very well, but will be easy to break. Not many politicians or greenies have EE degrees.

And if John Larkin\'s EE degree is any guide, it wouldn\'t help much if they had.,

> We could clamp some Thermalloy heat sinks to the tx lines.

Or get John Larkin some training in critical thinking. It\'s unlikely that he\'d profit from it but he should make the effort.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 08 Sep 2023 14:52:10 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
<rf4nfilr8vgp1p3vp784sbodph1mp4dhlg@4ax.com>:

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 14:05:31 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like conversion to renewables is about 10% of what it could be if the big corporate energy concerns applied for temporary
rate increases to pay for the build-out. Some of the do, some of them don\'t. A lot of them don\'t want to do this because it
entails a detailed audit of their finances. Seems appropriate the people who are using all this energy should pay for the required
infrastructure.

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-digital-roadblock-keeping-green-electricity-u-s-grid

The scheme about measuring the wind to calculate a new capacity for the line based on the increased heat dissipation effect is
garbage.


\"the U.S. goal of eliminating all planet-warming carbon emissions\" is
absurd, given that China is building a couple of coal-powered plants
per week, and India and Africa will catch up.

When we get enough multi-day blackouts and the cost of electricity
triples, policies will change.

An incremental addition to power generation should pay its incremental
costs.

Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of
still, hot air. No wind power, solar off at sunset. Upside, there will
be no current to overheat the transmission lines.

The US power distribution system works very well, but will be easy to
break. Not many politicians or greenies have EE degrees.

We could clamp some Thermalloy heat sinks to the tx lines.

The whole CO2 crap is similar to witch hunts we had in medieval times.
It looks lot like Sun activity is the main reason for the current heat,
like it is removing clouds from where was it ? Neptune?

To survive , as species, we need all the power we can get online to power our aircos.
And that means nuclear, coal, oil, gas and whatever else works.
The climate snake oil crap clowns will have to be re-educated.,
I am all for re-education camps for \'extinction-rebellion\' idiots,
-that is how the people who block highways by glueing themselves to the road are called here-
where they will be educated in technology.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 3:23:55 PM UTC+10, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 08 Sep 2023 14:52:10 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
rf4nfilr8vgp1p3vp...@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 14:05:31 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like conversion to renewables is about 10% of what it could be if the big corporate energy concerns applied for temporary
rate increases to pay for the build-out. Some of the do, some of them don\'t. A lot of them don\'t want to do this because it
entails a detailed audit of their finances. Seems appropriate the people who are using all this energy should pay for the required
infrastructure.

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-digital-roadblock-keeping-green-electricity-u-s-grid

The scheme about measuring the wind to calculate a new capacity for the line based on the increased heat dissipation effect is
garbage.


\"the U.S. goal of eliminating all planet-warming carbon emissions\" is
absurd, given that China is building a couple of coal-powered plants
per week, and India and Africa will catch up.

When we get enough multi-day blackouts and the cost of electricity
triples, policies will change.

An incremental addition to power generation should pay its incremental
costs.

Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of
still, hot air. No wind power, solar off at sunset. Upside, there will
be no current to overheat the transmission lines.

The US power distribution system works very well, but will be easy to
break. Not many politicians or greenies have EE degrees.

We could clamp some Thermalloy heat sinks to the tx lines.

The whole CO2 crap is similar to witch hunts we had in medieval times.

That\'s what climate change denial propaganda would like you to believe. You\'ve got to be hopelessly gullible to fall for it.

> It looks lot like Sun activity is the main reason for the current heat, like it is removing clouds from where was it ? Neptune?

It isn\'t. There was one duff academic paper that made that claim and it was rapidly demolished and retracted. That doesn\'t stop the climate change denial propaganda machine from quoting it constantly.

The clouds on Neptune were photochemical smog generated by the UV content of the solar radiation - a very different effect.

To survive , as species, we need all the power we can get online to power our aircos.
And that means nuclear, coal, oil, gas and whatever else works.

Actually it means solar and wind power because they happen to be cheaper. Jan doesn\'t worry about costs - he doesn\'t know about them.

> The climate snake oil crap clowns will have to be re-educated.

Actually it is clowns like Jan and John Larkin who need an education, but if they haven\'t got enough education by now to realise that climate change denial propaganda is nonsense, they are probably too dim to ever learn better.

> I am all for re-education camps for \'extinction-rebellion\' idiots - that is how the people who block highways by glueing themselves to the road are called here- where they will be educated in technology.

Sadly for Jan\'s expectations, he\'s the ignorant idiot here.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 2:52:34 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of
still, hot air. No wind power, solar off at sunset. Upside, there will
be no current to overheat the transmission lines.

Silly; a high-pressure system is only defined by contrast with an adjacent
low-pressure system (which has a circulating wind around it, that\'s what
creates the low pressure). The circulating wind means there\'s
a (potentially hurricane-force) wind power source implied.

It\'s very narrow-minded to think the high-pressure system is the whole
story.

 

[server]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 21:40:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of still, hot air.

You\'d have to imagine it. Air circulates around high pressure system in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere. There may be still air in the dead centre of the system but the rest is moving. The eye of the hurricane shows the same effect, and it isn\'t large.

Look critically at weather charts with isobar curves. Around the
relatively small eye of the low pressure, there are tightly isobar
curves around it. The tighter the curves, the better winds.

However, there can be large high pressure areas with only one or two
isobar curves and hence little winds.

Having sufficient solar panels nay help those high pressure areas ride
through the wind energy failure.

At high latitudes instilling solar panels helping the failing wind
power systems during the summer, but panels are useless during the
winter, when all panels are covered with snow, days are cloudy and the
sun is up for only a few hours.

Renewables can be usable for some seasons at some places, but trying
to relying 100 % on them, is very hard at some seasons.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 9:01:45 PM UTC+10, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 21:40:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of still, hot air.

You\'d have to imagine it. Air circulates around high pressure system in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere. There may be still air in the dead centre of the system but the rest is moving. The eye of the hurricane shows the same effect, and it isn\'t large.

Look critically at weather charts with isobar curves. Around the
relatively small eye of the low pressure, there are tightly isobar
curves around it. The tighter the curves, the better winds.

However, there can be large high pressure areas with only one or two isobar curves and hence little winds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation

You are presumably talking about Polar cells. Closer to the equator you have Ferrel Cells and within 30 degrees of the equator you have Hadley cells, which are much more energetic.

Having sufficient solar panels may help those high pressure areas ride through the wind energy failure.

At high latitudes instilling solar panels helping the failing wind power systems during the summer, but panels are useless during the winter, when all panels are covered with snow, days are cloudy and the sun is up for only a few hours.

All panels covered with snow is a bit implausibe. They will be tilted anyway, and defrosting wouldn\'t be difficult.

> Renewables can be usable for some seasons at some places, but trying to relying 100 % on them, is very hard at some seasons.

It would take quite a bit of over-provisioning, but \"very hard\" is a bit of a stretch. There\'s not a lot of the earth that as far north as your bit and few high voltage lines from your more extensive southern neighbours could probably provide all the help that you\'d need.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[boB]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 21:40:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:52:34?AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 14:05:31 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like conversion to renewables is about 10% of what it could be if the big corporate energy concerns applied for temporary rate increases to pay for the build-out. Some of the do, some of them don\'t. A lot of them don\'t want to do this because it entails a detailed audit of their finances. Seems appropriate the people who are using all this energy should pay for the required infrastructure.

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-digital-roadblock-keeping-green-electricity-u-s-grid

The scheme about measuring the wind to calculate a new capacity for the line based on the increased heat dissipation effect is garbage.

\"the U.S. goal of eliminating all planet-warming carbon emissions\" is absurd, given that China is building a couple of coal-powered plants per week, and India and Africa will catch up.

The absurdity is all in John Larkin\'s blinkered point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China

From Wikipedia...

\"Most of the electricity in China comes from coal, which accounted for
62% of the electricity generation mix in 2021\"


I hope they ARE enthuiastic enough before it is too late ?

From Wikipedia again...
\"China has abundant energy with the world\'s fourth-largest coal
reserves and massive hydroelectric resources.\"

Why do I still see and sometimes have to still stop for coal trains
here north of Seattle where I know it is going to China ?

Maybe China can\'t dig enough of their own coal ?


boB

China is still building coal-fired power plants, but it is building wind farms and solar farms with a lot more enthusiasm. Thermal power went up by 4.7% from 2019 to 2020, wind power went up by 34.6% and solar power went up by 24.1%., The renewables are starting from a lower base but they added more wind power (71,670 MW.hr) than thermal power (56,370 MW.hr ) and almost as much solar power (48,200 MW.hr),.

India and Africa are doing the same sums, and wind and solar are both cheaper and more modular routes to more electric power.

When we get enough multi-day blackouts and the cost of electricity triples, policies will change.

Except that wind and solar provide electricity cheaper than you can get it by burning fossil carbon. This has been true for about a decade now, but John Larkin has yet to notice.

An incremental addition to power generation should pay its incremental costs.

And John Larkin should get around to finding out what they are now. rather than relying on what climate change denial propaganda tells him.

Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of still, hot air.

You\'d have to imagine it. Air circulates around high pressure system in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere. There may be still air in the dead centre of the system but the rest is moving. The eye of the hurricane shows the same effect, and it isn\'t large.

No wind power, solar off at sunset. Upside, there will be no current to overheat the transmission lines.

But plenty to over-heat John Larkin\'s energetic (but unrealistic imagination).

The US power distribution system works very well, but will be easy to break. Not many politicians or greenies have EE degrees.

And if John Larkin\'s EE degree is any guide, it wouldn\'t help much if they had.,

We could clamp some Thermalloy heat sinks to the tx lines.

Or get John Larkin some training in critical thinking. It\'s unlikely that he\'d profit from it but he should make the effort.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 5:52:34 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 14:05:31 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like conversion to renewables is about 10% of what it could be if the big corporate energy concerns applied for temporary rate increases to pay for the build-out. Some of the do, some of them don\'t. A lot of them don\'t want to do this because it entails a detailed audit of their finances. Seems appropriate the people who are using all this energy should pay for the required infrastructure.

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-digital-roadblock-keeping-green-electricity-u-s-grid

The scheme about measuring the wind to calculate a new capacity for the line based on the increased heat dissipation effect is garbage.
\"the U.S. goal of eliminating all planet-warming carbon emissions\" is
absurd, given that China is building a couple of coal-powered plants
per week, and India and Africa will catch up.

When we get enough multi-day blackouts and the cost of electricity
triples, policies will change.

An incremental addition to power generation should pay its incremental
costs.

Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of
still, hot air. No wind power, solar off at sunset. Upside, there will
be no current to overheat the transmission lines.

The US power distribution system works very well, but will be easy to
break. Not many politicians or greenies have EE degrees.

We could clamp some Thermalloy heat sinks to the tx lines.

All these junk statistics citing nationwide averages are useless. It\'s the density and clustering of power usage that more directly addresses issues of feasibility.

One possibility is increasing the transmission voltage. Going to 1.5MV on a 750kV right of way will double the transmission capacity.

Turns out this is called UHV transmission, and it\'s already in place in China, and exactly for the purpose of eliminating bottlenecks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-voltage_electricity_transmission_in_China

Looks like China is leading the way here.

And just about ALL U.S. solar is manufactured by Chinese corporate. They don\'t seem to have as much presence in windpower as the Europeans, especially Denmark.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 1:23:55 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 08 Sep 2023 14:52:10 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
rf4nfilr8vgp1p3vp...@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 14:05:31 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like conversion to renewables is about 10% of what it could be if the big corporate energy concerns applied for temporary
rate increases to pay for the build-out. Some of the do, some of them don\'t. A lot of them don\'t want to do this because it
entails a detailed audit of their finances. Seems appropriate the people who are using all this energy should pay for the required
infrastructure.

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-digital-roadblock-keeping-green-electricity-u-s-grid

The scheme about measuring the wind to calculate a new capacity for the line based on the increased heat dissipation effect is
garbage.


\"the U.S. goal of eliminating all planet-warming carbon emissions\" is
absurd, given that China is building a couple of coal-powered plants
per week, and India and Africa will catch up.

When we get enough multi-day blackouts and the cost of electricity
triples, policies will change.

An incremental addition to power generation should pay its incremental
costs.

Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of
still, hot air. No wind power, solar off at sunset. Upside, there will
be no current to overheat the transmission lines.

The US power distribution system works very well, but will be easy to
break. Not many politicians or greenies have EE degrees.

We could clamp some Thermalloy heat sinks to the tx lines.
The whole CO2 crap is similar to witch hunts we had in medieval times.
It looks lot like Sun activity is the main reason for the current heat,
like it is removing clouds from where was it ? Neptune?

The increased insolation due to solar maximum has been measured fairly precisely at 0.1 W/m^2 global average. How is that significant compared to the 1000 W/m^2 quiescent?

Insolation absorption by cloud cover has significantly decreased, but it\'s due to a major reduction in particulate air pollution, not solar activity.

To survive , as species, we need all the power we can get online to power our aircos.
And that means nuclear, coal, oil, gas and whatever else works.
The climate snake oil crap clowns will have to be re-educated.,
I am all for re-education camps for \'extinction-rebellion\' idiots,
-that is how the people who block highways by glueing themselves to the road are called here-
where they will be educated in technology.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 9 Sep 2023 05:40:23 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote in
<ff6569d6-f277-4221-bf81-b7848a84decfn@googlegroups.com>:

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 1:23:55 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje w=
rote:
On a sunny day (Fri, 08 Sep 2023 14:52:10 -0700) it happened John Larkin=

jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
rf4nfilr8vgp1p3vp...@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 14:05:31 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like conversion to renewables is about 10% of what it could be if=
the big corporate energy concerns applied for temporary
rate increases to pay for the build-out. Some of the do, some of them d=
on\'t. A lot of them don\'t want to do this because it
entails a detailed audit of their finances. Seems appropriate the peopl=
e who are using all this energy should pay for the required
infrastructure.

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-digital-roadblock-keepin=
g-green-electricity-u-s-grid

The scheme about measuring the wind to calculate a new capacity for the=
line based on the increased heat dissipation effect is
garbage.


\"the U.S. goal of eliminating all planet-warming carbon emissions\" is
absurd, given that China is building a couple of coal-powered plants
per week, and India and Africa will catch up.

When we get enough multi-day blackouts and the cost of electricity
triples, policies will change.

An incremental addition to power generation should pay its incremental=

costs.

Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of
still, hot air. No wind power, solar off at sunset. Upside, there will=

be no current to overheat the transmission lines.

The US power distribution system works very well, but will be easy to
break. Not many politicians or greenies have EE degrees.

We could clamp some Thermalloy heat sinks to the tx lines.
The whole CO2 crap is similar to witch hunts we had in medieval times.
It looks lot like Sun activity is the main reason for the current heat,=

like it is removing clouds from where was it ? Neptune?

The increased insolation due to solar maximum has been measured fairly prec=
isely at 0.1 W/m^2 global average. How is that significant compared to the =
1000 W/m^2 quiescent?

It is not simply the intensity but also the type of radiation emitted by the sun.

Insolation absorption by cloud cover has significantly decreased, but it\'s =
due to a major reduction in particulate air pollution, not solar activity.

You do not really believe that yourself now do you?

It is good to look at historical records and look for correlations.
Climate and even short time climate variations have occurred many times,
not so long ago there was the \'little ice age\' in Europe:
https://www.science.smith.edu/climatelit/the-effects-of-the-little-ice-age/
here also they refer to decreased sunspot activity.

The whole CO2 witch hunt is just to sell, pushed by the US and its slave countries.
Snake oil sales using mass hysteria, anything that sells by creating wars,
capitalism with [has a] total disregard for human life.
Now the US shithead president wants to contaminate Europe with depleted Uranium supplied to that idiot CIA clown in Ukraine.
A warning will not do.

To survive , as species, we need all the power we can get online to power=
our aircos.
And that means nuclear, coal, oil, gas and whatever else works.
The climate snake oil crap clowns will have to be re-educated.,
I am all for re-education camps for \'extinction-rebellion\' idiots,
-that is how the people who block highways by glueing themselves to the r=
oad are called here-
where they will be educated in technology.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 14:01:35 +0300, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 21:40:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of still, hot air.

You\'d have to imagine it. Air circulates around high pressure system in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere. There may be still air in the dead centre of the system but the rest is moving. The eye of the hurricane shows the same effect, and it isn\'t large.

Look critically at weather charts with isobar curves. Around the
relatively small eye of the low pressure, there are tightly isobar
curves around it. The tighter the curves, the better winds.

However, there can be large high pressure areas with only one or two
isobar curves and hence little winds.

Having sufficient solar panels nay help those high pressure areas ride
through the wind energy failure.

At high latitudes instilling solar panels helping the failing wind
power systems during the summer, but panels are useless during the
winter, when all panels are covered with snow, days are cloudy and the
sun is up for only a few hours.

Renewables can be usable for some seasons at some places, but trying
to relying 100 % on them, is very hard at some seasons.

Why are so many people suckers for Chinese propaganda?

 

[Ricky]

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 1:23:55 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 08 Sep 2023 14:52:10 -0700) it happened John Larkin
jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote in
rf4nfilr8vgp1p3vp...@4ax.com>:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 14:05:31 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like conversion to renewables is about 10% of what it could be if the big corporate energy concerns applied for temporary
rate increases to pay for the build-out. Some of the do, some of them don\'t. A lot of them don\'t want to do this because it
entails a detailed audit of their finances. Seems appropriate the people who are using all this energy should pay for the required
infrastructure.

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-digital-roadblock-keeping-green-electricity-u-s-grid

The scheme about measuring the wind to calculate a new capacity for the line based on the increased heat dissipation effect is
garbage.


\"the U.S. goal of eliminating all planet-warming carbon emissions\" is
absurd, given that China is building a couple of coal-powered plants
per week, and India and Africa will catch up.

When we get enough multi-day blackouts and the cost of electricity
triples, policies will change.

An incremental addition to power generation should pay its incremental
costs.

Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of
still, hot air. No wind power, solar off at sunset. Upside, there will
be no current to overheat the transmission lines.

The US power distribution system works very well, but will be easy to
break. Not many politicians or greenies have EE degrees.

We could clamp some Thermalloy heat sinks to the tx lines.
The whole CO2 crap is similar to witch hunts we had in medieval times.
It looks lot like Sun activity is the main reason for the current heat,
like it is removing clouds from where was it ? Neptune?

To survive , as species, we need all the power we can get online to power our aircos.
And that means nuclear, coal, oil, gas and whatever else works.
The climate snake oil crap clowns will have to be re-educated.,
I am all for re-education camps for \'extinction-rebellion\' idiots,
-that is how the people who block highways by glueing themselves to the road are called here-
where they will be educated in technology.

You should be careful. There are days when you look an awful lot like a witch!

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 9:54:01 PM UTC+10, boB wrote:

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 21:40:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:52:34?AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 14:05:31 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like conversion to renewables is about 10% of what it could be if the big corporate energy concerns applied for temporary rate increases to pay for the build-out. Some of the do, some of them don\'t. A lot of them don\'t want to do this because it entails a detailed audit of their finances.. Seems appropriate the people who are using all this energy should pay for the required infrastructure.

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-digital-roadblock-keeping-green-electricity-u-s-grid

The scheme about measuring the wind to calculate a new capacity for the line based on the increased heat dissipation effect is garbage.

\"the U.S. goal of eliminating all planet-warming carbon emissions\" is absurd, given that China is building a couple of coal-powered plants per week, and India and Africa will catch up.

The absurdity is all in John Larkin\'s blinkered point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China

China is still building coal-fired power plants, but it is building wind farms and solar farms with a lot more enthusiasm. Thermal power went up by 4.7% from 2019 to 2020, wind power went up by 34.6% and solar power went up by 24.1%., The renewables are starting from a lower base but they added more wind power (71,670 MW.hr) than thermal power (56,370 MW.hr ) and almost as much solar power (48,200 MW.hr),.

India and Africa are doing the same sums, and wind and solar are both cheaper and more modular routes to more electric power.

I shifted boBs reaction down to where he should have posted it.

From Wikipedia...

\"Most of the electricity in China comes from coal, which accounted for
62% of the electricity generation mix in 2021\"

I hope they ARE enthuiastic enough before it is too late ?

From Wikipedia again...
\"China has abundant energy with the world\'s fourth-largest coal
reserves and massive hydroelectric resources.\"

Of course that\'s all from the Wikipedia link that I posted, but ignores the data I pulled from it to make the point that China is moving it electricity generation from coal to renewables. which boB hadn\'t bothered to read.

Why do I still see and sometimes have to still stop for coal trains
here north of Seattle where I know it is going to China ?

Maybe China can\'t dig enough of their own coal ?

If you weren\'t quite so enthusiastic about confirming your own prejudices, you might be able to realise that China is moving it\'s electricity generation away from burning coal. They are aware that burning coal does have unfortunate side effects, and the electricity you produce is more expensive than you get from renewable sources.

You are making the same mistake as John Larkin, and seem equally unwilling to correct your opinions.

When we get enough multi-day blackouts and the cost of electricity triples, policies will change.

Except that wind and solar provide electricity cheaper than you can get it by burning fossil carbon. This has been true for about a decade now, but John Larkin has yet to notice.

An incremental addition to power generation should pay its incremental costs.

And John Larkin should get around to finding out what they are now. rather than relying on what climate change denial propaganda tells him.

Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of still, hot air.

You\'d have to imagine it. Air circulates around high pressure system in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere. There may be still air in the dead centre of the system but the rest is moving. The eye of the hurricane shows the same effect, and it isn\'t large.

No wind power, solar off at sunset. Upside, there will be no current to overheat the transmission lines.

But plenty to over-heat John Larkin\'s energetic (but unrealistic imagination).

The US power distribution system works very well, but will be easy to break. Not many politicians or greenies have EE degrees.

And if John Larkin\'s EE degree is any guide, it wouldn\'t help much if they had.,

We could clamp some Thermalloy heat sinks to the tx lines.

Or get John Larkin some training in critical thinking. It\'s unlikely that he\'d profit from it but he should make the effort.

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 1:15:09 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 14:01:35 +0300, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 21:40:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of still, hot air.

You\'d have to imagine it. Air circulates around high pressure system in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere. There may be still air in the dead centre of the system but the rest is moving. The eye of the hurricane shows the same effect, and it isn\'t large.

Look critically at weather charts with isobar curves. Around the
relatively small eye of the low pressure, there are tightly isobar
curves around it. The tighter the curves, the better winds.

However, there can be large high pressure areas with only one or two
isobar curves and hence little winds.

Having sufficient solar panels nay help those high pressure areas ride
through the wind energy failure.

At high latitudes instilling solar panels helping the failing wind
power systems during the summer, but panels are useless during the
winter, when all panels are covered with snow, days are cloudy and the
sun is up for only a few hours.

Renewables can be usable for some seasons at some places, but trying
to relying 100 % on them, is very hard at some seasons.

Why are so many people suckers for Chinese propaganda?

A trifle ironic, when John Larkin has been a gullible sucker for climate change denial propaganda for decades now.

Of course a lot of that is American propaganda, and he seems to feel that it is his patriotic duty to support rich Americans who got rich by digging up fossil carbon and selling it for fuel and want to keep on making money out of this anti-social habit for a few years longer, by lying about the side effects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[boB]

On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 08:39:04 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 9:54:01?PM UTC+10, boB wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 21:40:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:52:34?AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 14:05:31 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like conversion to renewables is about 10% of what it could be if the big corporate energy concerns applied for temporary rate increases to pay for the build-out. Some of the do, some of them don\'t. A lot of them don\'t want to do this because it entails a detailed audit of their finances. Seems appropriate the people who are using all this energy should pay for the required infrastructure.

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-digital-roadblock-keeping-green-electricity-u-s-grid

The scheme about measuring the wind to calculate a new capacity for the line based on the increased heat dissipation effect is garbage.

\"the U.S. goal of eliminating all planet-warming carbon emissions\" is absurd, given that China is building a couple of coal-powered plants per week, and India and Africa will catch up.

The absurdity is all in John Larkin\'s blinkered point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China

China is still building coal-fired power plants, but it is building wind farms and solar farms with a lot more enthusiasm. Thermal power went up by 4.7% from 2019 to 2020, wind power went up by 34.6% and solar power went up by 24.1%., The renewables are starting from a lower base but they added more wind power (71,670 MW.hr) than thermal power (56,370 MW.hr ) and almost as much solar power (48,200 MW.hr),.

India and Africa are doing the same sums, and wind and solar are both cheaper and more modular routes to more electric power.

I shifted boBs reaction down to where he should have posted it.

From Wikipedia...

\"Most of the electricity in China comes from coal, which accounted for
62% of the electricity generation mix in 2021\"

I hope they ARE enthuiastic enough before it is too late ?

From Wikipedia again...
\"China has abundant energy with the world\'s fourth-largest coal
reserves and massive hydroelectric resources.\"

Of course that\'s all from the Wikipedia link that I posted, but ignores the data I pulled from it to make the point that China is moving it electricity generation from coal to renewables. which boB hadn\'t bothered to read.

Why do I still see and sometimes have to still stop for coal trains
here north of Seattle where I know it is going to China ?

Maybe China can\'t dig enough of their own coal ?

If you weren\'t quite so enthusiastic about confirming your own prejudices, you might be able to realise that China is moving it\'s electricity generation away from burning coal. They are aware that burning coal does have unfortunate side effects, and the electricity you produce is more expensive than you get from renewable sources.

You are making the same mistake as John Larkin, and seem equally unwilling to correct your opinions.

I would really love to believe China is doing the right thing, and
maybe they really are moving as fast as you or Wikipedia says they
are. I hope the data in that article is trustworthy.


I am in the renewable energy business BTW, but these types of facts
and figures aren\'t part of my work. I like Chinese but the CCP really
tries to hide truth.

I\'m just done trying to predict the future... I need to retire and
then maybe I can pay better attention.

God help us all.

boB

When we get enough multi-day blackouts and the cost of electricity triples, policies will change.

Except that wind and solar provide electricity cheaper than you can get it by burning fossil carbon. This has been true for about a decade now, but John Larkin has yet to notice.

An incremental addition to power generation should pay its incremental costs.

And John Larkin should get around to finding out what they are now. rather than relying on what climate change denial propaganda tells him.

Imagine a giant high-pressure system, a million square miles or so of still, hot air.

You\'d have to imagine it. Air circulates around high pressure system in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere. There may be still air in the dead centre of the system but the rest is moving. The eye of the hurricane shows the same effect, and it isn\'t large.

No wind power, solar off at sunset. Upside, there will be no current to overheat the transmission lines.

But plenty to over-heat John Larkin\'s energetic (but unrealistic imagination).

The US power distribution system works very well, but will be easy to break. Not many politicians or greenies have EE degrees.

And if John Larkin\'s EE degree is any guide, it wouldn\'t help much if they had.,

We could clamp some Thermalloy heat sinks to the tx lines.

Or get John Larkin some training in critical thinking. It\'s unlikely that he\'d profit from it but he should make the effort.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 6:18:39 PM UTC+10, boB wrote:

On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 08:39:04 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 9:54:01?PM UTC+10, boB wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 21:40:50 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 7:52:34?AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 14:05:31 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

Looks like conversion to renewables is about 10% of what it could be if the big corporate energy concerns applied for temporary rate increases to pay for the build-out. Some of the do, some of them don\'t. A lot of them don\'t want to do this because it entails a detailed audit of their finances. Seems appropriate the people who are using all this energy should pay for the required infrastructure.

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-digital-roadblock-keeping-green-electricity-u-s-grid

The scheme about measuring the wind to calculate a new capacity for the line based on the increased heat dissipation effect is garbage.

\"the U.S. goal of eliminating all planet-warming carbon emissions\" is absurd, given that China is building a couple of coal-powered plants per week, and India and Africa will catch up.

The absurdity is all in John Larkin\'s blinkered point of view.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China

China is still building coal-fired power plants, but it is building wind farms and solar farms with a lot more enthusiasm. Thermal power went up by 4.7% from 2019 to 2020, wind power went up by 34.6% and solar power went up by 24.1%., The renewables are starting from a lower base but they added more wind power (71,670 MW.hr) than thermal power (56,370 MW.hr ) and almost as much solar power (48,200 MW.hr),.

India and Africa are doing the same sums, and wind and solar are both cheaper and more modular routes to more electric power.

I shifted boBs reaction down to where he should have posted it.

From Wikipedia...

\"Most of the electricity in China comes from coal, which accounted for
62% of the electricity generation mix in 2021\"

I hope they ARE enthusiastic enough before it is too late ?

From Wikipedia again...
\"China has abundant energy with the world\'s fourth-largest coal
reserves and massive hydroelectric resources.\"

Of course that\'s all from the Wikipedia link that I posted, but ignores the data I pulled from it to make the point that China is moving it electricity generation from coal to renewables. which boB hadn\'t bothered to read.

Why do I still see and sometimes have to still stop for coal trains = here north of Seattle where I know it is going to China ?

Maybe China can\'t dig enough of their own coal ?

If you weren\'t quite so enthusiastic about confirming your own prejudices, you might be able to realise that China is moving it\'s electricity generation away from burning coal. They are aware that burning coal does have unfortunate side effects, and that the electricity you produce that way is more expensive than you get from renewable sources.

You are making the same mistake as John Larkin, and seem equally unwilling to correct your opinions.

I would really love to believe China is doing the right thing, and maybe they really are moving as fast as you or Wikipedia says they are. I hope the data in that article is trustworthy.

Wikipedia does make an effort to get their articles right. National statistics on energy production tend to be pretty reliable. If you don\'t trust that data, do try to find something more reliable.

China really is making 80% of all the solar cells being manufactured all around the world at the moment, and they had to invest a lot of money in manufacturing at ten times the scale that anybody else had. This did let them halve the unit price and dominate the market, so it was a profitable investment.

> I am in the renewable energy business BTW, but these types of facts and figures aren\'t part of my work. I like Chinese but the CCP really tries to hide truth.

The CCP isn\'t candid, but in this area they don\'t seem to have anything to hide. Their don\'t have a lot of spare food production capacity, and climate change could well leave them in famine.

> I\'m just done trying to predict the future... I need to retire and then maybe I can pay better attention.

Nobody is asking you to predict the future, but it would be nice if you were more careful about what you say about the present.

> God help us all.

Not a policy that works all that well. People that look after themselves and their environment do seem to do better than those who rely on God to do it for therm.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 10:59:34 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

By world standards, the US productive, inventive, and not very
corrupt. The population is diverse and mobile, which has
optimizations.

We also have a fairly low proportion of depressive, frightened,
useless old gits.

What an odd assessment that is! I\'m politically concerned with agriculture, air quality, water issues,
housing issues... real necessities, like food, water, shelter, are quality-of-life indicators
for me. Proportional measure of fright isn\'t on MY political radar.

Everyone (in infancy, at least) is useless sometimes. Not an acceptable national issue at all,
because the human condition is... preexisting.

 

[none]

In article <1137b878-da7f-4d9f-ac61-c9f7f7ec5e67n@googlegroups.com>,
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
<SNIP>

Wikipedia does make an effort to get their articles right. National
statistics on energy production tend to be pretty reliable. If you
don\'t trust that data, do try to find something more reliable.

It is our responsability to fix wikipedia articles that are not
correct.

<SNIP.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

--
Don\'t praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn\'t make spring.
You must not say \"hey\" before you have crossed the bridge. Don\'t sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat spinning. - the Wise from Antrim -