The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I was thinking today what the total possible hydro power there was if every drop of water re-entering the ocean was harnessed on it's way back. I found an article that figured an amazing more than double the worlds total current energy needs, 25 TW. Of course that is impossible in reality but....

How many angels on the head of a pin, if they're shuffle dancing to Elvis' His Latest Flame? (Sorry, it's my current fascination).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMRiKmgxrh0

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Hydroelectric power, as in not solar.
We already know hydroelectric power is almost free.
It's also just about the only power source that can lower your electricity rates.

Yep,especially those socialist hydro-dams built in the 1930's Great Depression.They're still pumping out kilowatts today,and you can buy them at $0.00198/kWh if you arrange ahead with the Western Area Power Administration.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

I was thinking today what the total possible hydro power there was if every drop of water re-entering the ocean was harnessed on it's way back. I found an article that figured an amazing more than double the worlds total current energy needs, 25 TW. Of course that is impossible in reality but an Idaho National Engineering Lab study of all potential US sites showed it could provide 40% (.17 TW) of the USA's current electricity needs if developed, up from the 7% it runs now. Most of the time a water reservoir is considered by most around it a positive. Riverfront property is normally valued less than lake front property and you end up with many more miles of shoreline than what was just the river. It also helps control flooding (assuming not flooding caused by a failed dam LOL).

Realistically I think capturing moving water energy in a mass scale would be less obtrusive and provide a better return on an investment than having a windmill on every acre. The same 'do the math' page on wind thinks 1.2 TWs the most energy possible from covering the US in turbines. Even covering 10% with millions and millions of windmills to get the same .17 TW the 130,000 new dams could create seems like a nightmare.

Solar on the other hand would only require .5% of the land of the US to produce 1 TW.

250 nuclear plants the size of Palo Verde would also make 1 TW.

So what makes the most sense to me? All of the above!

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/12/h...gy-can-we-get/

*In 42-minutes,Earth's winds = total global electrical demand.
*in 2005,the USDOE assessment: 50-miles offshore,wind was sufficient for 70% of all US electrical demand.
*in 1991,the USDOE national wind resource inventory:
-North Dakota,Kansas,and Texas wind potential = total US electrical demand
*In February,2017,it was reported that improved blade aerodynamics will offer an additional 35% increased harvesting of wind energy.

[freebeard]

*In February,2017,it was reported that improved blade aerodynamics will offer an additional 35% increased harvesting of wind energy.

[citation needed]

[aerohead]

I looked at some mining equipment:
*JP Morgan-Seimens-Caterpillar have an all-electric,Utility grid-powered open-pit mining dragline excavating machine,which uses gearless direct drive AC motors for the hoist and drag cable drums.If renewably-sourced electric power is provided,then it's zero-carbon.That was easy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Caterpillar makes a 994F wheel loader,used in open pit mining.It's diesel-hydraulic for the rams,plus has a transmission and two differentials.
*An electric motor of equal power could substitute for the engine and run all functions.
Or,hub-motors with planetary sets could replace the differentials, you could skip the transmission, and perhaps,linear motors could take the place of the hydraulic rams,or run a smaller motor just to handle the hydraulic pump/rams.
This machine has some of the largest wheels in the world.They could become batteries themselves perhaps,for a pure BEV,or perhaps an escorting battery tender could accompany the loader as it cycles between the drag line shovel and dump trucks.
*Currently,these loaders consume on the order of 990-gallons diesel/day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The Liebherr T282 dump truck hauls the pay up out of the pit to the rail car-loading conveyor.
*They're diesel-electric,so like a diesel locomotive,it's a matter of skipping the diesel engine,and provide electric power directly to the vehicle.
*Like the loaders,the dump truck has enormous wheels/tires,and again,there's potential for the tires to become 4-massive battery packs.
*Or as above,a battery pack-bearing tender,with umbilical,could accompany the truck.
*With a curb weight of 522,000-pounds,the truck would be capable of regen,during descent back down into the pit with each loading cycle,capturing back some of the kinetic energy currently lost on every trip with the diesel engine,perhaps reducing the pack size,or tender size/capacity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*If the conveyor belt system which loads the rail cars isn't already electrically-powered,there's no reason that it couldn't be.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*And the railroad train is already 'hybrid' electric.Lose the parallel diesel-generator and go to a caternary line to bring in renewably-generated electric power and you've got a zero-carbon train.
*Presently,between BNSF,CSX,and Union-Pacific,that would cut on the order of 379,766,156-tons carbon dioxide/year.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

[citation needed]

Thanks!
Scientific American,17 February,2017,page 672

[aerohead]

Oilpan brought up the issue of the amount of energy required to produce a PV panel vs how long,if at all,it would take for the panel to produce that amount of energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*On 'Really Big Things',the program went inside Cardinal Glass Manufacturing,Winlock,Washington,USA.
*It's a 600,000 sq-ft facility which runs 24/7/365.
*They produce 600-tons of residential glass a day.
*Their glass furnace consumes $6-million worth of natural gas/year (in 2006 dollars).
*It's float-glass,which leaves the furnace and onto a pool of molten tin,where as it cools,is forced into the dimensions/thickness spec'd by the customer.
*Later,cold processed into the net dimensions.
*600-tons/day equates to on the order of 47,520 linear feet.
*If you break down the fuel cost,it works out at around 1.37-cents/pound of glass.
*And it looks like the natural gas is the major energy component for the glass.
*If we knew what the commercial-rate gas sold for in 2006 was,we could arrive at the amount,and energy content per pound.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
We'd also have to factor in some element of the energy to create the facility ,all its equipment,commuting energy of the employees,and energy to prospect for, mine,and transport the lime,soda ash, and sand which is batched together for the furnace,the electrical power in the factory,and then the truck/rail transportation from the Winlock warehouse to the receiving dock of the PV manufacturer.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*The Liebherr T282 dump truck hauls the pay up out of the pit to the rail car-loading conveyor.
*They're diesel-electric,so like a diesel locomotive,it's a matter of skipping the diesel engine,and provide electric power directly to the vehicle.

Anything that doesn't move much can have a cord. Cross country trains can have electrified rails.
.
Earth movers carrying loads up out of a pit, or the giant farm tractors that are now required to grow enough food for 8 billion people, run at 40% thermal efficiency so unlike a car, there is only slightly better than 2:1 efficiency to be gained. And are not convenient to run on a cord. You will need a MWh battery to take the place of each 400 Liters of fuel.

[freebeard]

Big, heavy EV truck going downhill.... Hmm.

Originally Posted by aerohead

We'd also have to factor in some element of the energy to create the facility ....

Most thorough.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...tate-building/

I was expecting a different airfoil section, but it turns out they are re-introducing the design shown by Porsche Ulrich Hutter in the 1930s, trailing sails with dihedral. Just with modern flexible construction.



CleanTechnica in 2016:

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/29...shore-wind-us/

50 MW wind turbines are a long way off, but according to Sandia, “studies show that load alignment can dramatically reduce peak stresses and fatigue on the rotor blades.” This would not only reduce blade costs, but eventually lead to the mythical 50 MW wind turbines.

[RedDevil]

In the EU automakers are required to get down their average per car CO2 emissions to 95 gramme per kilometer.
FIAT/Chrysler/Jeep has its share of gas guzzler brands and hardly any EV or hybrid to compensate.
Tesla on the other hand has no vehicle emissions whatsoever (excluding some sound effects).

So they decided to team up...
For FIAT is is an easy choice. Pay Tesla or pay fines to the EU. Paying Tesla probably has more impact on the environment as it allows them to expand faster.
I have no idea what the EU would do with the fines, except for moving even more stuff back and forth between Brussels and Strasbourg each month.

Who knows, maybe one day Tesla provides the guts for a line of electric FIATs and Chryslers? Or even Jeeps?
I want a

Jeep Regenerade!