- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,043
- Reactions
- 12,609
Well yeah, I suppose we can keep smoking and then spend a lot of money on lung cancer operations too.
Not talking about evolution of the species but more along the lines of looking at the strategies in place to mitigate the risk ... just like the Netherlands. Read the article in FULL, it is very interesting as to how their psyche is rationalised for the inevitable.
Once again failure to comprehend the written word luutzu. I wrote ...
Not talking about evolution of the species but more along the lines of looking at the strategies in place to mitigate the risk ... just like the Netherlands. Read the article in FULL, it is very interesting as to how their psyche is rationalised for the inevitable.
There are a lot of low lying areas around the world that the salt water could be funnelled into rather than just let the tide keep rising old chum
Like the Netherlands they look at this as an opportunity for business and for civil works, construction, jobs and also for the greater good of the country. What are we doing?? Wringing our hands is all.
Some interesting facts on wind and solar power........it is not all it is cracked up to be.....costly and inefficient.
Ey Wayne, sorry for the lost.
But Tisme and others are right though, you can't take that tragedy out on those who are trying to save lives too - not theirs because these are old farts who'll be long gone before the real bad stuff (might) happen.
And while those "leaders" are hypocrites, can't say the same for the good folks here and the others out there.
And why do you buy bottled water? We all know that if you're to spend money on any drink, something have to be added to the water to make it worthwhile. Why pay $2 for a bottle when you can spend $2 and have a tub of it at home?
At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm#ixzz3pZ4AemHK
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
Bas and plod would have to find another apocalypse scenario to fret about.
Sorry Wayne, but sticking your head in the sand doesn't work
Antarctic ice shelf collapse and unstoppable sea level rise 'very likely' without tough climate action, say scientists
Lets just put that prediction in with all the other alarmist crap that never came to pass.
Don't have to, you make the perfect storm Wayne.
The first question about efficiency is "does it matter?"
Oil is very efficient to extract as such, it doesn't take much energy to get it out of the ground. That's the good bit.
But then factor in all that drilling and exploration to find it in the first place, noting that drilling rigs use a lot of power (from diesel generators usually) and a lot of dry holes end up being drilled. Not so efficient now though still pretty good.
Then we've got to transport the oil once it's out of the ground to a pipeline or direct to a refinery. Pipelines themselves are efficient in operation, but that's without counting all the steel and construction activity required to build them. Ships use quite a bit of fuel too.
Then we lose a few more % in the refining process.
Then we lose some more transporting the petrol, diesel etc to your local service station.
The service station itself uses electricity to pump the fuel into your car, and most servos seem to have rather a lot of lighting running at night (and sometimes 24/7) too. OK, they need that lighting to help with safety etc, but it's still energy being used.
And finally there's the car itself. Your average petrol engine isn't much more than 20% efficient, the rest goes out the exhaust or via the cooling system as heat. The car itself is also very inefficient - moving 1+ tonne of metal around in order to carry a human that weighs 80kg is one problem. Aerodynamic drag and braking losses are also pretty significant.
Then there's all the energy required to build vehicles in the first place and the not insignificant amount used servicing, making spare parts, crash repairs and so on.
End result is that cars are 1 - 2% efficient at best at their task of transporting people form A to B but we still use them and do so on a very large scale.
What about electricity?
A modern coal-fired plant can achieve around 44% at the power station for gross generation. But then you need 6% of that electricity to run systems within the power station. Then there's the energy to mine and transport the coal. Then there's the 4 - 10% loss in transmission and distribution to end users. And of course most power stations in use aren't brand new and state of the art - more commonly they're somewhere in the mid-30's for efficiency and that's before all those other losses are considered.
Nuclear? That's no better than coal for efficiency with many plants being around the 33% mark. Even new ones aren't great (coal and gas having seen far bigger improvements than nuclear in recent decades).
Gas? That can be done more efficiently, a modern plant can get over 50%, but in practice the least efficient power stations in Australia also just happen to be gas-fired with some barely 20% efficient (and that's without mentioning losses in gas production or transmission of the electricity produced).
Hydro? That's efficient certainly and always has been, even ye olde working museum near Queenstown Tas (Lake Margaret power station, built 1914) is 80% efficient and for a modern station it's about 90%. But we can't run the whole world with hydro - no chance of doing that.
And even after you've got electricity to your home with 30% efficiency from coal in the ground to power at your house, then there's more losses in use. An electric kettle is highly efficient yes, but a vacuum cleaner certainly isn't.
There's also a fundamental point about resources in all of this. It makes sense to optimise the efficiency of using coal, oil, gas, nuclear and hydro because ultimately they are all limited resources. Estimates vary as to how much there is, but nobody would sensibly deny that ultimately coal is a finite resource. Keep using it and eventually we run out at least of coal which is easy (cheap) to access. Rain keeps falling from the sky yes, but there's still only a limited potential to develop hydro power - so efficiency does matter there too.
In contrast there is zero practical limit to sunshine and we're a very long way from running into any limits with wind resources. The solar panels on my roof might only be producing AC power at 13% efficiency, a figure that compares poorly with hydro or even coal, but the sunlight itself is an otherwise wasted resource. We won't burn the sun out any quicker just because we use it to generate electricity, and there's no shortage of sunlight. As such, inefficiency in use isn't a problem, the only reason to be more efficient is if doing so makes it more practical (eg panels get smaller) or cheaper.
From the raw resource (fuel in the ground, sunlight, water in a dam etc) to your home, typical efficiency after all losses (assumption - 10% loss in electricity and transmission for small residential consumers, a typical figure but it varies considerably with location)
Hydro (electricity) = 81% (international data for modern plants, marginally lower for typical 1950's - 70's plants in operation)
Wind (electricity) = 40% (typical modern wind farm)
Coal (high grade, used as electricity) = 32% (typical NSW or Qld plants, best is about 37%)
Gas (used as electricity) = 29% (range 16% - 40% for Australian plants in operation)
Nuclear (electricity) = 27% (based on US data)
Coal (low grade, used as electricity) = 25% (most modern units operating in Vic)
Oil (as electricity) = 21% (range 16% - 27%) (US data - we don't use much oil for power in Australia but ours are
in the same range)
Solar (electricity) = around 14% (typical household installation including inverter losses)
Gas (used as gas) = 91%, less at least 20% lost in your appliances = 70%
Oil (as petrol) = Around 87%, less engine losses = 20%
Domestic wood heater = typically about 55% once you consider fuel to cut and transport the wood
So most energy supply and use is quite inefficient, the only real exceptions being the direct use of of fuel for heating (space heating or hot water) is an exception as is hydro-electricity. Also heat pumps - even though electricity itself is inefficient, the end use efficiency is typically in the 90 - 120% range due to the principles of operation. But those are the exceptions to the rule, for everything else it's 40% efficient at best, more commonly in the 20 - 35% range.
Against that backdrop, a solar panel that just sits on the roof and works with 15% efficiency isn't really a problem. We're not going to use up the sun.
Just what is your time frame for "never" ?
You do not realy know that.I'm flattered, but as with every other APocalypse, it will turn out to be a storm in a teacup
You do not realy know that.
The future cannot be predicted but we act on a ballance of probabilities.
I have observed permafrost nearly halved in Greenland and New Zealand and I have read the reports of similar in many other places.
This is not long term seasonal, the planet from a fireball 5 billions years ago is supposed to be cooling.
Houston "we have a problem"
Well Wayne delighted to hear of your conversion to a renewable energy led society if/when the battery storage technology falls into place. (And that is seriously in sight )
Any thoughts on how the current fossil fuel industry will stand aside and encourage this new process ? Particularly in the economic system as it currently stands ?
Well Wayne delighted to hear of your conversion to a renewable energy led society if/when the battery storage technology falls into place. (And that is seriously in sight )
Any thoughts on how the current fossil fuel industry will stand aside and encourage this new process ? Particularly in the economic system as it currently stands ?
Whadayamean "conversion"?
Ten thousand million billion trillion times on here I've outlined my overall position.
If the fossil fuel companies are smart they will embrace the change. Like all businesses, adapt or die. I think they'll be around a while yet though.
Economics 101
I'm glad you don't exaggerate Wayne. It's one of your more becoming qualities.
Let's get xxxxing real Wayne. If the fossil fuel industry was smart they would ruthlessly suppress and deny any environmental concerns about the use of fossil fuel ie global warming, air pollution, mercury poisoning, nitrous oxide scams.
They would then spend a truckful of money trying to demonise renewable energy like wind (erratic, kills birds, causes mysterious illnesses). They would also try and make sure current power systems that use coal fired power stations crowd out renewable energy sources for as long as possible by screaming that "these are too expensive" (when the truth is completely opposite)
Finally of course they would ride the white charger of coal fired power stations as saviour of the poverty stricken Third World.
Wayne this is the real economic system we currently have.
Big Business exists to make as much money as it can get away with.
It does whatever it has to to protect it's products regardless of the deleterious effects it might have on people or the planet. Where it's Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Gambling, Big Banks, Big Development the mantra is the same.
"The bucks stay with us."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?