Author
Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy
(Read 523171 times)

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2590 on:** May 13, 2020, 04:16:59 PM »

Some more perspective on ITER and the schedule for it, if it goes according to plan. The timing for an actual functional power producing commercial fusion reactor is 2080 or so, IF everything goes as planned. Maybe that is pessimistic (it's their schedule) and we get there by 2070 with actual power to the grid from fusion. I don't think that is a realistic hope for combating climate change, is it? And yes, someone else somewhere might have an earlier breakthrough, but this is the main global effort. 2070, maybe.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/iter-fusion-project-lies-about-the-dates-budget-and-power-levels.html

ITER talks about 50 megawatts in 500 MW out but the 50 MW in is for power directly to the heat the hydrogen and the out is heat. It is not electricity input to electricity output
* The budget they talk about is 20 billion euros. This include some material, the bureaucratic management costs and the costs of assembly. The donated hardware is not included. The budget is only to get ITER to 2025. It is not to the full power experiments which might start in 2027 and not for the deuterium and tritium experiments starting in 2035 and likely continuing to 2040.
* ITER is really spending about $2 billion per year. Normally when these projects get to the major operational phases the budget goes up. It would be likely that after 2025 the budget will start going up to $3 billion to $4 billion per year. This would mean another $45-60 billion from 2025-2040
* After ITER there will need to be multiple other reactors to reach a true commercial prototype.

So multiple pre-prototype projects out to 2060. Say four countries each with their own $100-200 billion project out to 2060.

Then prototypes out to 2070. This is all assuming the technology is working.

MichiFan87 · « **Reply #2591 on:** May 13, 2020, 04:24:31 PM »

GDP and Energy consumption are no longer correlated thanks to energy efficiency improvements.

Consequently, electricity demand has stagnated, especially over the past decade, and the main reason it will increase in the future is due to electrification (not only in transportation, but other areas, too).

The GND gets a lot of bad press from conservatives because it includes a lot of social equity issues. The economics of it really shouldn't be controversial. Renewables and energy efficiency are creating more jobs than fossil fuels ever have, and they'll be among the first and fastest sectors to rebound after the pandemic.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2592 on:** May 13, 2020, 04:27:30 PM »

So, the point that demand has stagnated is not relevant for the future, and demand will grow ....

MichiFan87 · « **Reply #2593 on:** May 13, 2020, 04:30:30 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 13, 2020, 04:27:30 PM

So, the point that demand has stagnated is not relevant for the future, and demand will grow ....

My point is that electrification will simply replace fossil fuel demand with electricity demand.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2594 on:** May 13, 2020, 04:32:17 PM »

And my point is that wind and solar have to grow even faster in order to help keep up with increasing demand ... just to remain where it is today as percent of the grid.

What's going to replace coal and NG in time if demand picks up because of EVs?

I know, wind and solar. And fusion. In 2080. Maybe.

MichiFan87 · « **Reply #2595 on:** May 13, 2020, 04:39:55 PM »

Electrification will just accelerate demand for more wind and solar. Yes, it might also keep existing coal and gas plants open longer, but electrification decreases oil & gas demand by much more.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2596 on:** May 13, 2020, 04:47:46 PM »

Here is one forecast for EVs in the US, I'm saying it's good or bad, it's just one:

That would be one new vehicle out of six as an EV. The percentage on the road would of course be less than that. I've seen estimates that if every car on the road were an EV we could need 30% more generating capacity, but that varies a lot by state IF EVs are recharged at night. Maybe this is too pessimistic, dunno, but it suggests about one in ten on the road by 2028 ...

It takes a while to turn over the fleet obviously.

SFBadger96 · « **Reply #2597 on:** May 13, 2020, 05:04:08 PM »

The Green New Deal's infrastructure ideals are laudable, but because it came from the far left of the Democratic party, it is also includes ideas like universal jobs, national health care, and some other stuff I don't remember right now, but don't have much to do with cleaner infrastructure. I happen to agree that we need a better national health care fix (I think most people agree with that in principal, but there are major disagreements on how to best provide everyone care), but that doesn't have a lot to do with greening our economy, nor does the idea of providing everyone a job (which simply isn't how the job market works). One thing I think I remember that is silly is the idea of doing away with air travel. More rail? Absolutely. In the place of shorter air routes? Yup. No air travel in a country our size? No way.

Anyway, it's the things like those that make the GND even a bad goal statement. Anyhoo...I think I'm going to jump back out of this thread before I get in over my head.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #2598 on:** May 13, 2020, 05:04:25 PM »

Quote from: MichiFan87 on May 13, 2020, 04:24:31 PM

GDP and Energy consumption are no longer correlated thanks to energy efficiency improvements.

Consequently, electricity demand has stagnated, especially over the past decade, and the main reason it will increase in the future is due to electrification (not only in transportation, but other areas, too).

You may remember that during the Great Recession, when basically anyone involved in home construction / renovation was out of work, there was a proposed program to help subsidize homeowners who were trying to improve the energy efficiency of their homes.

It was DOA, though, because it got the unfortunate nickname "Cash for Caulkers" after the woeful failure of the "Cash for Clunkers" program.

Cash for Clunkers was horrible because it destroyed economic assets, which might have goosed new car sales a little but basically created a new floor in auto prices because anything worth less than $5K was more efficient to destroy when buying a new car than to sell, so the poor couldn't find a used beater car to be able to get around. Basically it was what I referred to earlier--the broken window fallacy.

Cash for Caulkers was actually a great idea. It seemed to hit basically the right things:

Get out of work contractors actually back on the job earning a productive income.
Help homeowners who may not have the capital to fund energy efficiency improvements, but unlike cash for clunkers, fixing up an older inefficient house doesn't destroy assets--it improves them.
By improving energy efficiency in our national housing stock we reduce our aggregate national energy demand, which can either reduce prices, reduce needs for new electrical/gas generation.

It would have targeted stimulus at the exact sector that needed it while generating positive externalities for the rest of us.

But it got a bad nickname, and was thereby doomed.

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2599 on:** May 13, 2020, 05:33:12 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 13, 2020, 04:16:59 PM

Some more perspective on ITER and the schedule for it, if it goes according to plan. The timing for an actual functional power producing commercial fusion reactor is 2080 or so, IF everything goes as planned. Maybe that is pessimistic (it's their schedule) and we get there by 2070 with actual power to the grid from fusion. I don't think that is a realistic hope for combating climate change, is it? And yes, someone else somewhere might have an earlier breakthrough, but this is the main global effort. 2070, maybe.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/iter-fusion-project-lies-about-the-dates-budget-and-power-levels.html

ITER talks about 50 megawatts in 500 MW out but the 50 MW in is for power directly to the heat the hydrogen and the out is heat. It is not electricity input to electricity output
* The budget they talk about is 20 billion euros. This include some material, the bureaucratic management costs and the costs of assembly. The donated hardware is not included. The budget is only to get ITER to 2025. It is not to the full power experiments which might start in 2027 and not for the deuterium and tritium experiments starting in 2035 and likely continuing to 2040.
* ITER is really spending about $2 billion per year. Normally when these projects get to the major operational phases the budget goes up. It would be likely that after 2025 the budget will start going up to $3 billion to $4 billion per year. This would mean another $45-60 billion from 2025-2040
* After ITER there will need to be multiple other reactors to reach a true commercial prototype.

So multiple pre-prototype projects out to 2060. Say four countries each with their own $100-200 billion project out to 2060.

Then prototypes out to 2070. This is all assuming the technology is working.

Well once you've got fusion then maybe the energy lost during artificial carbon capture would be moot?

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2600 on:** May 13, 2020, 05:41:19 PM »

Quote from: SFBadger96 on May 13, 2020, 05:04:08 PM

The Green New Deal's infrastructure ideals are laudable, but because it came from the far left of the Democratic party, it is also includes ideas like universal jobs, national health care, and some other stuff I don't remember right now, but don't have much to do with cleaner infrastructure. I happen to agree that we need a better national health care fix (I think most people agree with that in principal, but there are major disagreements on how to best provide everyone care), but that doesn't have a lot to do with greening our economy, nor does the idea of providing everyone a job (which simply isn't how the job market works). One thing I think I remember that is silly is the idea of doing away with air travel. More rail? Absolutely. In the place of shorter air routes? Yup. No air travel in a country our size? No way.

Anyway, it's the things like those that make the GND even a bad goal statement. Anyhoo...I think I'm going to jump back out of this thread before I get in over my head.

Honestly I hate when politicians from either side muck about in this arena. There is no way health care and climate change should be tied together. There is no way we should let the free hand of the market decide our fate, either. At least guide it a little bit...

Riffraft · « **Reply #2601 on:** May 13, 2020, 05:50:21 PM »

Quote from: Big Beef Tacosupreme on May 13, 2020, 01:25:32 PM

I'm not sure where you live, but I installed a geothermal system and I love it.

I haven't investigate geothermal lately, but I would suspect that it is fairly expensive here in the desert due to the highly compact and dense natural of the ground. Drilling down would not be easy.

It funny that me, not being a being a person who puts much credence in the man-made global warming has actually done a fair amount of investigating into self-energy production, not because of it benefit to society but because I would rather be self-sufficient for my energy creation.

I have made plans for years to live off the grid, but life hasn't allowed it up to this point. 80 acres partially wooded, partially cleared for subsistence farming, a good water table and production of energy by Wind, solar and/or geothermal. Its a dream.

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2602 on:** May 13, 2020, 05:51:23 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 13, 2020, 04:47:46 PM

Here is one forecast for EVs in the US, I'm saying it's good or bad, it's just one:

That would be one new vehicle out of six as an EV. The percentage on the road would of course be less than that. I've seen estimates that if every car on the road were an EV we could need 30% more generating capacity, but that varies a lot by state IF EVs are recharged at night. Maybe this is too pessimistic, dunno, but it suggests about one in ten on the road by 2028 ...

It takes a while to turn over the fleet obviously.

One thing that might effect this -- I believe the total number of cars on the road is supposed drop pretty significantly once self driving cars become viable.

A typical person's car is only used for a fraction of the day. In theory, a single self driving car could service multiple people. Google/Uber/etc foresee such a world. You'd schedule your pickup and a self driving car would be there to take you anywhere you need to go.

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2603 on:** May 13, 2020, 05:58:49 PM »

Quote from: Riffraft on May 13, 2020, 05:50:21 PM

I haven't investigate geothermal lately, but I would suspect that it is fairly expensive here in the desert due to the highly compact and dense natural of the ground. Drilling down would not be easy.

It funny that me, not being a being a person who puts much credence in the man-made global warming has actually done a fair amount of investigating into self-energy production, not because of it benefit to society but because I would rather be self-sufficient for my energy creation.

I have made plans for years to live off the grid, but life hasn't allowed it up to this point. 80 acres partially wooded, partially cleared for subsistence farming, a good water table and production of energy by Wind, solar and/or geothermal. Its a dream.

I dunno, the rocks here are crazy bad. The drilling machines had no problem going right through them.

I do know some regions are better than others. We paid $19,000 when our house was constructed. I would assume it is more expensive now, or if you were to add it to an existing house. Added $100 to the mortgage, and saved $200-300 a month in utility bills.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

MichiFan87

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

MichiFan87

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

MichiFan87

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

SFBadger96

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Riffraft

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment