Reply to: Huhne plans 32,000 more wind turbines

[doodab]

That's a rotten storage system, whether kinetic, chemical, or electrical - 50% is rotten.

OK. So now you agree that a storage system creating hydrogen via electrolysis then converting it back via fuel cells is a bad idea. That is at least a start.

This is the A>B technology gap that irritates. If the technology does not exist the idea is flawed. Can we continue to be so complacent about energy conservation? I hope not.

Harvesting Heat - Technology Review

This is the reality gap that I'm talking about. If we can't actually make it, it's not going to work. I'm not saying we can't invent something new, but we do have to apply the laws of physics to whatever we invent.

Those thermoelectric modules are about 5-10% efficient, so taking the top end of that and also using the top end figures of 70% efficient electrolysis and 80% efficient fuel cells that will improve the overall efficiency of your energy storage solution by about 1.4% for an overall efficiency of 57.4%. A more realistic 60% efficient fuel cell will give you about 45% efficiency through the whole cycle.

30% of the energy is wasted during the electrolysis, so we need to improve that as well as invent new ways of harnessing thermal energy that will otherwise be wasted. Genuinely new technology is required, we simply don't have something that will do the job at the moment.

Good chance you've already done so today, that's what the alternator under your bonnet does.

I don't have a car. In fact, I haven't owned one for years.

No I did not. And yes it is. However if you're only harvesting one form of energy efficiency is obviously reduced. Energy is only borrowed.

This is the technological intellect barrier I'm on about. Fuel cells are 100% efficient.

60% generates electricity

40% generates heat - think of an grannies that might like such a thing?

Erm, yes you did, and it seems you cannot tell the difference between efficiency and the law of conservation of energy.

I do not believe that or else many installations would have not already taken place. I do think however there is much resistance to change, inventiveness. And that's sad for me in a country where so many inventions that the world now depends should replace creativeness with critics who's only contribution is hot air and noise pollution.

If anyone is contributing hot air and noise pollution it's those who offer their ideas as possible solutions without performing any sort of quantitative analysis on them. Performing that analysis isn't simply naysaying by those resistant to change, it's exactly the sort of application of science and engineering to the problem that you are calling for. There is a big difference between something that works in principle and something that works well enough to be worth implementing on an industrial scale. It makes sense to ensure we have the best (or at least close to) solution before we commit our future to it.

FWIW, that book I mentioned suggests that a large part of the storage problem can be solved by electrifying personal transport. Millions of electric cars on the roads will mean large amounts of efficient energy storage (LiPo batteries are about 99.8% efficient over the charge/discharge cycle) able to absorb peaks in the supply.

[scooterscot]

If your storage system is only 50% efficient you need to harvest twice as much energy in the first place.

That's a rotten storage system, whether kinetic, chemical, or electrical - 50% is rotten.

Heat needs to be in a harvestable form. Any heat you cannot either transform or use directly is wasted. To be used directly it needs to be generated close to where it will be used i.e. in people's houses. This implies some people will have too much and some too little, and it's not easily traded so will need to be either stored for later or wasted. The temperature also needs to be high enough to actually heat stuff up and it needs to be controllable.

This is the A>B technology gap that irritates. If the technology does not exist the idea is flawed. Can we continue to be so complacent about energy conservation? I hope not.

Harvesting Heat - Technology Review

Yes but i'm not suggesting we use internal combustion engines to store energy for later use am I?

Good chance you've already done so today, that's what the alternator under your bonnet does.

Nobody said it needed to be. You said it was. Obviously more efficient is better for the reasons given above.

No I did not. And yes it is. However if you're only harvesting one form of energy efficiency is obviously reduced. Energy is only borrowed.

You seem to think nobody is thinking about this stuff but actually lots of people are.

I do not believe that or else many installations would have not already taken place. I do think however there is much resistance to change, inventiveness. And that's sad for me in a country where so many inventions that the world now depends should replace creativeness with critics who's only contribution is hot air and noise pollution.

[doodab]

Who cares about efficiency when the source is renewable? We need both electricity and heat, with the energy given in those forms who cares about current efficiencies when considering harvesting heat from a cell? Other methods exist and not all include the medium of a copper conductor.

If your storage system is only 50% efficient you need to harvest twice as much energy in the first place. Although it might be renewable energy it's only harvestable at a finite rate so efficiency of the storage system directly impacts capacity. I expect building twice as many windmills would cost more as well.

Heat needs to be in a harvestable form. Any heat you cannot either transform or use directly is wasted. To be used directly it needs to be generated close to where it will be used i.e. in people's houses. This implies some people will have too much and some too little, and it's not easily traded so will need to be either stored for later or wasted. The temperature also needs to be high enough to actually heat stuff up and it needs to be controllable.

When comparing the engine of car you'd be lucky to achieve 40% efficiency.

Yes but i'm not suggesting we use internal combustion engines to store energy for later use am I?

Would not be suitable on a large scale though.

Exactly. We are talking very large scale.

Incidentally the process does not need to be 100% efficient, who said it does btw?

Nobody said it needed to be. You said it was. Obviously more efficient is better for the reasons given above.

You seem to think nobody is thinking about this stuff but actually lots of people are.

[scooterscot]

You have a cheek talking about a technological intellect barrier when you clearly have little idea what you are talking about. I'm sure if you can come up with a way of doubling current efficiencies that you will be able to make money, but it will never actually be a 100% efficient process.

Currently practical electrolysis technology is about 60-70% efficient. The main problem here seems to be related to the oxygen produced, there is no effective catalyst for this side of the reaction and a lot of energy is wasted as heat.

Who cares about efficiency when the source is renewable? We need both electricity and heat, with the energy given in those forms who cares about current efficiencies when considering harvesting heat from a cell? Other methods exist and not all include the medium of a copper conductor.

When comparing the engine of car you'd be lucky to achieve 40% efficiency.

Anyway, disregarding that, even if you give everyone a fuel cell, and it is, for sake of argument 100% efficient (it won't be for the reasons stated above) and you manage to invent an electrolysis process that is 100% efficient how do you plan to transport the hydrogen to the fuel cells without using energy? One obvious answer here is to give everyone an electrolysis plant as well and have them stockpile hydrogen at home when the wind is blowing. How do you plan to regulate the heat output of the fuel cells so that it is useful without wasting any of the energy? How do you propose to construct electrolysis plants and fuel cells without using any energy?

It system already exists at a clients site I once worked at in the borders. The hydrogen is transported for free without using any energy generated by the system. It was so simple it was ridiculous. Would not be suitable on a large scale though.

Incidentally the process does not need to be 100% efficient, who said it does btw?

[pjclarke]

The speccie has published a rebuttal to Morner:

Mörner’s article in The Spectator demonstrates a similar carelessness with the facts. He suggests, for example, that the International Union for Quaternary Reseach (INQUA) supports his claim that ‘sea levels have been oscillating close to the present level for the last three centuries’. This has forced INQUA — not for the first time — to speak out. Its spokesman explained that ‘99 per cent of INQUA scientists don’t subscribe to this view, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he is the only one who believes this’. The evidence from *satellites and tide gauges shows that mean *global sea levels are now rising by 3mm a year.

A question of faith | The Spectator

Oh, and someone mentioned Tuvalu?

Superposition of global mean sea level rise, low-frequency regional variability and vertical ground motion shows that some islands of the region suffered significant ‘total’ sea level rise (i.e., that felt by the population) during the past 60 years. This is especially the case for the Funafuti Island (Tuvalu) where the “total” rate of rise is found to be about 3 times larger than the global mean sea level rise over 1950–2009.

ScienceDirect - Global and Planetary Change : Sea level variations at tropical Pacific islands since 1950

[EternalOptimist]

why do all his graphs look like an explosion in a smarty factory ?

[EternalOptimist]

ROFLMAO

[Cliphead]

Satellites! Sending oscillating microwaves Earthwards! And what else uses microwaves? A microwave oven. And what do ovens do?

Stands to reason dunnit? How did the corrupt rent-seeking so-called IPCC miss this? We just need a snappy title ending in -gate. OMG -what else have they missed? I think we should suspend any further anti climate change measures until this is fully investigated. And then cosmic rays, and ocean oscillations, and solar variations, undersea volcanoes, dowsing, morphic resonance ....

[pjclarke]

Satellites! Brilliant! Sending oscillating microwaves Earthwards! And what else uses microwaves? A microwave oven. And what do ovens do?

Stands to reason dunnit? Fully documented in these utterly reliable websites complete with long words and charts. How did the corrupt rent-seeking so-called IPCC miss this? We just need a snappy title ending in -gate. OMG what else have they missed? I think we should suspend any further anti climate change measures until this is fully investigated. And then cosmic rays, and ocean oscillations, and solar variations, undersea volcanoes, dowsing, morphic resonance .... should keep us going another decade.

[Cliphead]

That Murdoch fellow has a lot to answer for.

It's all them satellites I tell ya

[doodab]

It's called the Sun

That Murdoch fellow has a lot to answer for.

[Cliphead]

...unless we've missed a massive and unknown natural influence on the climate system.

It's called the Sun

[Arturo Bassick]

One of many differences being that nobody is denying that Road Traffic Accidents are real ....

Well, maybe Clarkson.

Is anybody denying that climate change is happening? I thought the main argument was the cause and the consequences.

It seems to me that the AGW crowd are so determined that we can stop it if we reduce our carbon footprint that they are ignoring the fact that it might be natural and we had better prepare for the worst.

[EternalOptimist]

and Malaria
It would be a thing of that past, except the greenies banned DTD. Another great success eh?

lunatics


but I suppose that was jeremy Clarkson as well

[BlasterBates]

I like this quote from a climategate e-mail from a climate scientist commenting on his colleague:

just read that Schellnhuber got an OBE!!!! I didn't know you got those for spouting
bullsh*t, but I guess that's how far standards have fallen. Pretty amazing...

NoTricksZone: Not here to worship what is known, but to question it. Climate news from Germany in English – by P Gosselin

Sums it all up really.