Wind turbines used to absorb a power surplus?...

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:50:15 PM UTC+11, alan_m wrote:

On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

The problem there is that it\'s not economic to have the equipment
required to do that standing around unused waiting for the occasions
when power is available.

If the climate activists have their way there will not be any other
source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any electricity when
the wind doesn\'t blow or the sun doesn\'t shine.

Twaddle. For one thing climate activists are perfectly happy with hydroelectric power. Burning fossil carbon would be perfectly fine if you captured the CO2 and dumped it underground. The economics aren\'t great, but emergency back-up power doesn\'t have to be cheap - the current grid auction scheme is designed to let back-up generators get huge prices for their power on the rare occasions when it is needed, and that is a feature of the system, not a bug.

There seems to be another climate emergency (or whatever its called this
week) conference going on soon. On the early morning news there was an
activist from California and one from the UK spouting off about we have
the technology of Windmills and Solar (nothing else) to replace all
fossil fuel generation by 2030.

We do have the technology. It means having quite a bit of spare capacity, but some processes can be turned off fast, freeing up capacity to deal with processes that can\'t.

> In Extinction Rebellion have their way there will be no oil to lubricate the moving parts for the windmills, no oil to make tyres for their bicycles and no tarmac for their cycle lanes.

Twaddle. The problem isn\'t extracting fossil carbon (which isn\'t the only source of lubricating oil, which can also be grown, like natural rubber). The problem is burning it in a way that dumps CO2 into the atmosphere. the climate change denial lobby lies about this non-stop and has invented a class of demented climate change fanatics who don\'t seem to actually exist. When I quizzed Steve Pinker about this, he admitted that he\'d never come across any, but his readers seemed to think that they exist.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 20-Mar-23 6:57 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:50:15 PM UTC+11, alan_m wrote:
On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

The problem there is that it\'s not economic to have the
equipment required to do that standing around unused waiting for
the occasions when power is available.

If the climate activists have their way there will not be any
other source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any
electricity when the wind doesn\'t blow or the sun doesn\'t shine.

Twaddle. For one thing climate activists are perfectly happy with
hydroelectric power. Burning fossil carbon would be perfectly fine if
you captured the CO2 and dumped it underground. The economics aren\'t
great, but emergency back-up power doesn\'t have to be cheap - the
current grid auction scheme is designed to let back-up generators get
huge prices for their power on the rare occasions when it is needed,
and that is a feature of the system, not a bug.

The economics of backup power are that it must use as little capital as
possible, even if that makes the marginal cost of generation high.
Carbon capture seems likely to involve a high capital cost, so is
unsuitable for backup power.

Sylvia.

 

[Peeler]

On 20 Mar 2023 04:30:02 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

I use the Verizon wireless which works well except in heavy fog. Most of
the neighbors have dishes although I think most are for TVs. A bay would
be nice; we have these things called mountains. My former ISP had a
antenna on a local mountain but not one in my quasi line of sight.

Don\'t you want to write a book about your grand personality and your
extraordinary life? You could stop pestering people on Usenet with ever more
details about yourself, you self-admiring Yankee bigmouth.

--
Gossiping \"lowbrowwoman\" about herself:
\"Usenet is my blog... I don\'t give a damn if anyone ever reads my posts
but they are useful in marshaling [sic] my thoughts.\"
MID: <iteioiF60jmU1@mid.individual.net>

 

[Peeler]

On 20 Mar 2023 02:12:45 GMT, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Flaherty

Flaherty became famous after filming \'Nanook of the North\'. In later years
he filmed \'Louisiana Story\' about oil exploration in the bayous. The local
people and wildlife loved the oil rig. (Standard Oil paid for the film)

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

Did you ever wonder why you need USENET to get people to listen to you, or
rather read your senile crap, senile bigmouth, and why you don\'t get people
in RL to listen to you and read your crap? LOL

--
Yet more of the so very interesting senile blather by lowbrowwoman:
\"My family loaded me into a \'51 Chevy and drove from NY to Seattle and
back in \'52. I\'m alive. The Chevy had a painted steel dashboard with two
little hand prints worn down to the primer because I liked to stand up
and lean on it to see where we were going.\"
MID: <j2kuc1F3ejsU1@mid.individual.net>

 

[Ricky]

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 3:22:43 AM UTC-4, alan_m wrote:

On 20/03/2023 06:56, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2023-03-20, alan_m <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/03/2023 00:27, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Domestic cats kill 2.4 billion birds annually. Windmills account for
1 in 4000 of the annual total, maybe half a million max.

To make that a fair comparison you have to use the figures for kills per
cat and kills per windmill.


Many fewer wind turbines are needed per household than cats.

Is there any need for cats?

They keep the Nazis at bay.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Ricky]

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 4:47:40 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 20-Mar-23 6:57 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:50:15 PM UTC+11, alan_m wrote:
On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

The problem there is that it\'s not economic to have the
equipment required to do that standing around unused waiting for
the occasions when power is available.

If the climate activists have their way there will not be any
other source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any
electricity when the wind doesn\'t blow or the sun doesn\'t shine.

Twaddle. For one thing climate activists are perfectly happy with
hydroelectric power. Burning fossil carbon would be perfectly fine if
you captured the CO2 and dumped it underground. The economics aren\'t
great, but emergency back-up power doesn\'t have to be cheap - the
current grid auction scheme is designed to let back-up generators get
huge prices for their power on the rare occasions when it is needed,
and that is a feature of the system, not a bug.

The economics of backup power are that it must use as little capital as
possible, even if that makes the marginal cost of generation high.
Carbon capture seems likely to involve a high capital cost, so is
unsuitable for backup power.

That makes no sense. The cost of capital is a factor in the profit from an operation. Maximizing profit is the ultimate goal. That includes both the marginal cost and the capital costs. If the business is regulated, the allowed profit may be based on the capital investment.

The cost of carbon capture is a factor, but there is cost associated with not capturing carbon. We simply ignore that cost presently. Eventually, it will catch up with us.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[alan_m]

On 19/03/2023 21:04, John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 19:18:21 +0000, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

On 18-Mar-23 16:38, John Larkin wrote:
Steam ships used cheap fuel, basically street paving quality gunk, but
were so complex that it was hard to find crews to keep them running.
Diesels are much simpler.

Steam ships that used poor quality coal paid for it with greatly
increased maintenance costs, and significantly reduced performance.

I was thinking about \"Residual fuel oil\" like Bunker C, not coal. It
has to be heated to make it liquid enough to pump, and it\'s full of
sulfur and stuff.

Russian high grade fuel for their aircraft mover

https://youtu.be/dY9NVvKrlMQ?t=287

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 7:47:40 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 20-Mar-23 6:57 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:50:15 PM UTC+11, alan_m wrote:
On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

The problem there is that it\'s not economic to have the
equipment required to do that standing around unused waiting for
the occasions when power is available.

If the climate activists have their way there will not be any
other source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any
electricity when the wind doesn\'t blow or the sun doesn\'t shine.

Twaddle. For one thing climate activists are perfectly happy with
hydroelectric power. Burning fossil carbon would be perfectly fine if
you captured the CO2 and dumped it underground. The economics aren\'t
great, but emergency back-up power doesn\'t have to be cheap - the
current grid auction scheme is designed to let back-up generators get
huge prices for their power on the rare occasions when it is needed,
and that is a feature of the system, not a bug.

The economics of backup power are that it must use as little capital as
possible, even if that makes the marginal cost of generation high.
Carbon capture seems likely to involve a high capital cost, so is
unsuitable for backup power.

What makes you think that?

The fundamental point about back-up power is that it has to be there when you need it. Doing it with minimal capital cost would be nice, but it is secondary.

The mechanics of capturing a limited amount of CO2 don\'t necessarily involve a high capital cost. Pumping it into a natural cavern could be pretty cheap, if you could find one.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[SteveW]

On 20/03/2023 00:27, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> writes:
On 3/19/2023 7:19 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 22:31:32 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

So the windfarm notion is not entirely implausible. However, wind
turbines use electronics to match the turbine output to the grid
frequency, and it seems unlikely that it\'s designed to operate in
reverse for the relatively rare occasions that that would be used.

Wind farms will consume power from the grid (when there is insufficient wind) to:

1) Prevent ice from forming on the blades (where/when freezing is possible).
2) Power the mechanism that turns the head of the windmill into the direction
of the winds (when less than or greater than the operating speed of the
generator).


3) Kill birds


Would be nice to see how many birds are killed versus wildlife (and
people) in digging coal mining and oil wells.

Domestic cats kill 2.4 billion birds annually. Windmills account for
1 in 4000 of the annual total, maybe half a million max.

While I agree that wind turbines probably don\'t kill very many birds,
the cat kill figures are somewhat suspect.

According to the RPSB, over spring and summer (the peak time), cats kill
27 million birds in the UK, a small fraction of the figure you state,
which was, of course, worldwide.

From a recent newspaper report, even that figure may be wildly
exaggerated. The stats were apparently extrapolated from a count carried
out at one location - which was a farm, where the cats were not fed at
all and HAD to live by hunting.

Further, it has been calculated that 2 out of 3 bird deaths are due to
farm cats, feral cats and other unowned cats. Domestic cats are
therefore likely to kill no more than 9 million birds in the UK (and
probably far fewer, due to the distortion of the figures already mentioned).

Analysis of killed birds has shown that many are already injured or ill.
A proportion are fledglings that failed to fly and would not survive anyway.

 

[Frank]

On 3/19/2023 11:34 PM, Bob F wrote:

On 3/19/2023 4:19 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 22:31:32 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> writes:
On 19/03/2023 16:40, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 19 Mar 2023 11:11:15 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

On 19-Mar-23 9:07 am, Bob F wrote:
On 3/18/2023 2:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 19-Mar-23 3:31 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 22:17:53 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 18-Mar-23 8:39 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
An electrician (who I don\'t believe) told me if there\'s too
much power
on the grid, they use wind turbines as fans to absorb extra
power.  Is
this really true?  Aren\'t there plenty of power stations
they can just
turn down a bit?  Take your foot off the gas so to speak?

I was also disturbed to hear from him it costs £700 to
install smart
meters into each home.  And in the UK that comes from green
tax.
Shouldn\'t that tax be being spent on making more green energy,
building
new wind farms?

Coal fired power stations cannot change their output rapidly, and
can be
willing to pay for the right to generate in preference to
reducing
output.

So the windfarm notion is not entirely implausible. However, wind
turbines use electronics to match the turbine output to the grid
frequency, and it seems unlikely that it\'s designed to operate in
reverse for the relatively rare occasions that that would be
used.

Wind farms  will consume power from the grid (when there is
insufficient wind) to:

  1) Prevent ice from forming on the blades (where/when freezing is
possible).
  2) Power the mechanism that turns the head of the windmill into the
direction
     of the winds (when less than or greater than the operating speed
of the
     generator).


3) Kill birds


Like you really care about the birds?

How bought Willie:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/15/new-jersey-whale-death-wind-turbines

 

[server]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 00:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:50:15?PM UTC+11, alan_m wrote:
On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

The problem there is that it\'s not economic to have the equipment
required to do that standing around unused waiting for the occasions
when power is available.

If the climate activists have their way there will not be any other
source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any electricity when
the wind doesn\'t blow or the sun doesn\'t shine.

Twaddle. For one thing climate activists are perfectly happy with hydroelectric power.

Really ?

To be really usable as the main source of electricity, hydro
electricity needs to be able to store water from one wet season to the
next. This requires building big dams. The greenies will make a lot of
noise if some beetle will drown due to building such dams. Forcing
millions of people to move (as in China) might also be an issue.

To avoid building alternate power generation for unreliable renewables
(such as wind and solar) huge electric transfer networks needs to be
built. Building new high voltage lines is problematic in order to get
the Right of Way for the pylons (NIMBY). Building the required
connection requires underground cables and this requires HVDC cabling
which is quite expensive not to mention using super conductive lines
all across a continent.

Burning fossil carbon would be perfectly fine if you captured the CO2 and dumped it underground.

The greenies object storing spent nuclear fuel underground stating
that it is dangerous for 30,000 to 300,000 years. If CO2 is as
dangerous as they claim, the CO2 will remain dangerous forever, not
just 300,000 years .

Storing gaseous CO2 underground is risky, since if it escapes, it may
kill people living above. CO2 can kill a lot of people as happened in
East Africa when CO2 released from a lake killed whole villages.

>The economics aren\'t great, but emergency back-up power doesn\'t have to be cheap - the current grid auction scheme is designed to let back-up generators get huge prices for their power on the rare occasions when it is needed, and that is a feature of the system, not a bug.

If you can burn cleanly some carbon material into CO2, at least use
the CO2 to grow plants with sun light to some useful plants, do not
store the CO2 underground.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 12:03:18 AM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 00:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:50:15?PM UTC+11, alan_m wrote:
On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

The problem there is that it\'s not economic to have the equipment
required to do that standing around unused waiting for the occasions
when power is available.

If the climate activists have their way there will not be any other
source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any electricity when
the wind doesn\'t blow or the sun doesn\'t shine.

Twaddle. For one thing climate activists are perfectly happy with hydroelectric power.
Really ?

To be really usable as the main source of electricity, hydro
electricity needs to be able to store water from one wet season to the
next. This requires building big dams.

It has been done. Some country is more suitable. I grew up in Tasmania where hydroelectric generation currently provides 80% of the power sold. Wind=power accounts for most of the rest,

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

> The greenies will make a lot of noise if some beetle will drown due to building such dams. Forcing millions of people to move (as in China) might also be an issue.

These aren\'t \"greenies\". They are fanatical nature-lovers. There aren\'t many of them and they aren\'t influential.

Climate change denial propaganda loves lumping them in with the climate change activitists who are lot more rational and a lot more numerous.

To avoid building alternate power generation for unreliable renewables
(such as wind and solar) huge electric transfer networks needs to be
built. Building new high voltage lines is problematic in order to get
the Right of Way for the pylons (NIMBY). Building the required
connection requires underground cables and this requires HVDC cabling
which is quite expensive not to mention using super conductive lines
all across a continent.

Nobody has bothered to put in super-conducting lines anywhere. It is already feasible, but doesn\'t seem to make economic sense yet. Higher temperature superconductors do seem to be being developed\\, so we may get there eventualy

We\'ve already got a lot of them, and we won\'t have any trouble get the additional rights of way to put up those extra lines that may turn out to be necessary.

Burning fossil carbon would be perfectly fine if you captured the CO2 and dumped it underground.

The greenies object storing spent nuclear fuel underground stating that it is dangerous for 30,000 to 300,000 years.

Spent nuclear fuel is mixture of fission products

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

there are quite a few of them. Some of them are radioactive, with short half-lives and consequently very active. Others decay much more slowly and stay radioactive for longer.

> If CO2 is as dangerous as they claim, the CO2 will remain dangerous forever, not just 300,000 years .

CO2 isn\'t dangerous if it doesn\'t get into the atmosphere.

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

Sticking it into an exhausted gas field isn\'t dangerous at all.

> Storing gaseous CO2 underground is risky, since if it escapes, it may kill people living above. CO2 can kill a lot of people as happened in East Africa when CO2 released from a lake killed whole villages.

So don\'t store it under a lake.

The economics aren\'t great, but emergency back-up power doesn\'t have to be cheap - the current grid auction scheme is designed to let back-up generators get huge prices for their power on the rare occasions when it is needed, and that is a feature of the system, not a bug.

If you can burn cleanly some carbon material into CO2, at least use the CO2 to grow plants with sun light to some useful plants, do not store the CO2 underground.

The point about back generators is that you don\'t use them often. Dumping the CO2 into an underground cavern, then bleeding it out again into greenhouses to help plant growth - the Dutch do that quite a lot - is perfectly feasible. Wittering on about storing it forever is nuts.

Basalt absorbs CO2 and turns it into carbonates. If you pick your underground cavern carefully (or salt it with enough crushed basalt) you\'ve got a perfectly fine longer term solutions (at least until a volcano erupts through your cavern and gets the carbonates hot enough to free the CO2.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Larkin]

On 20 Mar 2023 04:30:02 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:48:16 -0700, John Larkin wrote:


We know some people who live in Inverness, who didn\'t have fast
internet.
A group of neighbors bought a cheap microwave link and piped in from a
friend across Tomales Bay. It\'s astounding what a Gbit microwave link
costs nowadays.

I use the Verizon wireless which works well except in heavy fog. Most of
the neighbors have dishes although I think most are for TVs. A bay would
be nice; we have these things called mountains. My former ISP had a
antenna on a local mountain but not one in my quasi line of sight.

Our internet provider at work is MonkeyBrains, all microwave. We have
a dish on the roof aiming at another building a few blocks away,
although they can do miles. We paid for 50+50 mbits and get about
400+400. To get fiber we would have had to pay to dig up the sidewalk
for a couple of blocks.

A 100 Mbit microwave link pair costs under $100 now. A better longer
range Gbit dish pair is about $200. That\'s astounding.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:08:03 +0000, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:

On 19/03/2023 21:04, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 19:18:21 +0000, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

On 18-Mar-23 16:38, John Larkin wrote:
Steam ships used cheap fuel, basically street paving quality gunk, but
were so complex that it was hard to find crews to keep them running.
Diesels are much simpler.

Steam ships that used poor quality coal paid for it with greatly
increased maintenance costs, and significantly reduced performance.

I was thinking about \"Residual fuel oil\" like Bunker C, not coal. It
has to be heated to make it liquid enough to pump, and it\'s full of
sulfur and stuff.


Russian high grade fuel for their aircraft mover

https://youtu.be/dY9NVvKrlMQ?t=287

Russia actually runs on vodka.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK7l55ZOVIc

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 20:34:02 -0700, Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:

On 3/19/2023 4:19 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 22:31:32 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> writes:
On 19/03/2023 16:40, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 19 Mar 2023 11:11:15 +1100, Sylvia Else
sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

On 19-Mar-23 9:07 am, Bob F wrote:
On 3/18/2023 2:46 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 19-Mar-23 3:31 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 22:17:53 +1100, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid
wrote:

On 18-Mar-23 8:39 pm, Commander Kinsey wrote:
An electrician (who I don\'t believe) told me if there\'s too much power
on the grid, they use wind turbines as fans to absorb extra power.  Is
this really true?  Aren\'t there plenty of power stations they can just
turn down a bit?  Take your foot off the gas so to speak?

I was also disturbed to hear from him it costs £700 to install smart
meters into each home.  And in the UK that comes from green tax.
Shouldn\'t that tax be being spent on making more green energy,
building
new wind farms?

Coal fired power stations cannot change their output rapidly, and
can be
willing to pay for the right to generate in preference to reducing
output.

So the windfarm notion is not entirely implausible. However, wind
turbines use electronics to match the turbine output to the grid
frequency, and it seems unlikely that it\'s designed to operate in
reverse for the relatively rare occasions that that would be used.

Wind farms will consume power from the grid (when there is insufficient wind) to:

1) Prevent ice from forming on the blades (where/when freezing is possible).
2) Power the mechanism that turns the head of the windmill into the direction
of the winds (when less than or greater than the operating speed of the
generator).


3) Kill birds


Like you really care about the birds?

I like birds. I feed a bunch of them twice a day. They prefer Fritos
to anything else we\'ve tried; I\'m sympathetic to that choice. I have
one giantic raven and a one-legged blue jay that will fly and snatch a
Frito out of my hand.

The tiny little Juncos clean up every spec of food off the deck

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 06:50:08 +0000, alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk>
wrote:

On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

The problem there is that it\'s not economic to have the equipment
required to do that standing around unused waiting for the occasions
when power is available.

If the climate activists have their way there will not be any other
source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any electricity when
the wind doesn\'t blow or the sun doesn\'t shine.

There seems to be another climate emergency (or whatever its called this
week) conference going on soon. On the early morning news there was an
activist from California and one from the UK spouting off about we have
the technology of Windmills and Solar (nothing else) to replace all
fossil fuel generation by 2030.

In Extinction Rebellion have their way there will be no oil to
lubricate the moving parts for the windmills, no oil to make tyres for
their bicycles and no tarmac for their cycle lanes.

This isn\'t about Saving The Earth, it\'s about fame and power.
Political power, not electrical.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 15:03:08 +0200, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 00:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:50:15?PM UTC+11, alan_m wrote:
On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

The problem there is that it\'s not economic to have the equipment
required to do that standing around unused waiting for the occasions
when power is available.

If the climate activists have their way there will not be any other
source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any electricity when
the wind doesn\'t blow or the sun doesn\'t shine.

Twaddle. For one thing climate activists are perfectly happy with hydroelectric power.

Really ?

Of course not. One faction is successfully getting dams demolished to
save smelt or some other ugly little fish.

Dam removal is just one faction of the overall anti-human movement to
de-civilize the world.

To be really usable as the main source of electricity, hydro
electricity needs to be able to store water from one wet season to the
next. This requires building big dams. The greenies will make a lot of
noise if some beetle will drown due to building such dams. Forcing
millions of people to move (as in China) might also be an issue.

To avoid building alternate power generation for unreliable renewables
(such as wind and solar) huge electric transfer networks needs to be
built. Building new high voltage lines is problematic in order to get
the Right of Way for the pylons (NIMBY). Building the required
connection requires underground cables and this requires HVDC cabling
which is quite expensive not to mention using super conductive lines
all across a continent.

Burning fossil carbon would be perfectly fine if you captured the CO2 and dumped it underground.


The greenies object storing spent nuclear fuel underground stating
that it is dangerous for 30,000 to 300,000 years. If CO2 is as
dangerous as they claim, the CO2 will remain dangerous forever, not
just 300,000 years .

Storing gaseous CO2 underground is risky, since if it escapes, it may
kill people living above. CO2 can kill a lot of people as happened in
East Africa when CO2 released from a lake killed whole villages.

The economics aren\'t great, but emergency back-up power doesn\'t have to be cheap - the current grid auction scheme is designed to let back-up generators get huge prices for their power on the rare occasions when it is needed, and that is a feature of the system, not a bug.

If you can burn cleanly some carbon material into CO2, at least use
the CO2 to grow plants with sun light to some useful plants, do not
store the CO2 underground.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 2:00:38 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 15:03:08 +0200, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 00:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Monday, March 20, 2023 at 5:50:15?PM UTC+11, alan_m wrote:
On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

The problem there is that it\'s not economic to have the equipment
required to do that standing around unused waiting for the occasions
when power is available.

If the climate activists have their way there will not be any other
source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any electricity when
the wind doesn\'t blow or the sun doesn\'t shine.

Twaddle. For one thing climate activists are perfectly happy with hydroelectric power.

Really ?

Of course not. One faction is successfully getting dams demolished to save smelt or some other ugly little fish.

That the story the climate change denial propaganda machine feeds John Larkin, and he is gullible enough to swallow it.,

> Dam removal is just one faction of the overall anti-human movement to de-civilize the world.

Invented by the climate change denial propaganda machine. They know they aren\'t going to persuade people who can think so they lay it on thick because the gullible twits they can influence won\'t notice how outrageous their nonsense is.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, March 21, 2023 at 1:56:32 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 06:50:08 +0000, alan_m <ju...@admac.myzen.co.uk
wrote:
On 19/03/2023 23:45, Sylvia Else wrote:

The problem there is that it\'s not economic to have the equipment
required to do that standing around unused waiting for the occasions
when power is available.

If the climate activists have their way there will not be any other
source of backup equipment after 2030 to provide any electricity when
the wind doesn\'t blow or the sun doesn\'t shine.

There seems to be another climate emergency (or whatever its called this
week) conference going on soon. On the early morning news there was an
activist from California and one from the UK spouting off about we have
the technology of Windmills and Solar (nothing else) to replace all
fossil fuel generation by 2030.

In Extinction Rebellion have their way there will be no oil to
lubricate the moving parts for the windmills, no oil to make tyres for
their bicycles and no tarmac for their cycle lanes.

This isn\'t about Saving The Earth, it\'s about fame and power.
Political power, not electrical.

And the political power being marshalled here is nonsense for bird-brains.

Alan_m is trotting climate change denial propaganda which equates a rational desire not to screw up the plant by letting anthropogenic global warming get out of hand with a fanatical love of nature which is prepared to sacrifice millions of human lives to save some wren from extinction. I\'ve never met any of these fanatical nature lovers, but every sucker for climate change denial propaganda seems to think that they exist. If you are gullible enough to fall for climate change denial propaganda, you are gullilble enough to believe pretty much anything.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Cindy Hamilton]

On 2023-03-20, John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:

I like birds. I feed a bunch of them twice a day. They prefer Fritos
to anything else we\'ve tried; I\'m sympathetic to that choice. I have
one giantic raven and a one-legged blue jay that will fly and snatch a
Frito out of my hand.

The tiny little Juncos clean up every spec of food off the deck

We feed the birds, too. The rabbits also benefit.

One afternoon I came out and put some banana bread out. I barely
had time to turn around and step away from it before a rabbit
dashed out of cover and started in on it.

--
Cindy Hamilton