John Larkin is blind to the problems that the over-enthusiasntic exploitati on of the "gift" brings with it.
Burning hydrocarbons as fuel releases CO2 into the atmosphere, which cause anthropogenic global warning. The atmosphere CO2 level had been 270ppm sinc e the end of the last ice age (when it was only 180 ppm) but the industrial revolution started pushing it up.
The first reliable and sustained measurements started in 1958, when it was already up to 315 ppm
formatting link
It's now at 414 ppm, and we've had about one degree Celcius of global warmi ng over the last century.
John Larkin doesn't seem to understand any of that - to the extent that he does recognise that it has happened he has persuaded himself that it doesn' t matter, with a lot of help from deceptive websites funded by the fossil c arbon extraction industry, which makes a lot of money out of selling fossil carbon as fuel and wants to keep on doing that for as long as possible, no matter how much damage is done in the process.
It's going to take 4.8 billion years before it starts turning into a red gi ant (if we haven't worked out how to stop the process by then).
As in shipping gullible nitwits like John Larkin to Antarctica where he can experience the ice age that he seems to expect to start tomorrow?
England transported convicts to Australia from 1788 to 1850 - using John La rkin's kind of logic, transporting people like him to Antarctic would work out equally well. Probably better for the rest of us than him but that mere ly my non-denialist opinion, and thus irrelevant.
Burning fossil carbon for fuel is a bad idea, not least because it is admir able chemical feedstock for making more complicated chemical compounds.
Electric cars make a lot more sense than burning hydrocarbons in engines th at are too small to be as thermodynamically efficient as power stations - e ven hybrid cars offer better fuel efficiency that straight gasoline guzzler s.
Even the worst case scenario of 2.5 metres of sea level rise in a century (which is as fast as got at the end of the last ice age) shouldn't kill anybody.
If nobody did anything about it, and big storm broke down sea defenses - as happened around the North sea in 1953 - it doesn't kill many people in advanced industrial countries, some 2,551 in that particular disaster.
Bangladesh loses some 5000 people every year to more predictable floods.
It's not the sea level rise that would be the real problem, but the lack of the capacity to anticipate its consequences.
On that basis, krw and John Larkin are the real threat to human lives.
d giant (if we haven't worked out how to stop the process by then).
can experience the ice age that he seems to expect to start tomorrow?
n Larkin's kind of logic, transporting people like him to Antarctic would w ork out equally well. Probably better for the rest of us than him but that merely my non-denialist opinion, and thus irrelevant.
dmirable chemical feedstock for making more complicated chemical compounds.
s that are too small to be as thermodynamically efficient as power stations - even hybrid cars offer better fuel efficiency that straight gasoline guz zlers.
About nukes being attractive after the sun goes out for good? Which is what it would take to get "it starting to get cold and dark".
Your daughter would have to live long enough to see the sun turn into red g iant - which is about 4.8 billions years int the future - and survive that before it got cold and dark enough to make nuclear power necessary.
red giant (if we haven't worked out how to stop the process by then).
he can experience the ice age that he seems to expect to start tomorrow?
ohn Larkin's kind of logic, transporting people like him to Antarctic would work out equally well. Probably better for the rest of us than him but tha t merely my non-denialist opinion, and thus irrelevant.
admirable chemical feedstock for making more complicated chemical compound s.
nes that are too small to be as thermodynamically efficient as power statio ns - even hybrid cars offer better fuel efficiency that straight gasoline g uzzlers.
what it would take to get "it starting to get cold and dark".
ed giant - which is about 4.8 billions years int the future - and survive t hat before it got cold and dark enough to make nuclear power necessary.
Taking John Larkin seriously is decidedly obtuse.
If you think he has made a "good point" you've almost certainly misundersto od what he was claiming (and probably not noticed he was recycling drivel f rom Anthony Watts' denialist web-site, as he frequently does).
For wind power geographical diversity requires a quite large system, in order of more than 1000 km between corners to ride through a large high pressure area.
A single wind turbine has a capacity factor Cf of about 25 to 35 %. When such turbines are combined in a sufficiently large geographical area, the dependable average power Pave is about Ppeak/3 or Ppeak/4 (Ppeak is the combined nominal power of all turbines).
During a few days a year the available power could be 2 to 4 times the average power. Simply disconnect 2/3 of the turbines to maintain that average production level. Only the greenies will complain. OTOH on a few days, the production will drop well below the average power Pave. Just start some NG fueled quick starting gas turbines, only the greenies will complain. Why bother with greenies complaints if the idea is to run a reliable and economical energy system.
Such geographical diversity also requires that you must be able to transport Pave to any corner of the system. An AC line can carry up to 1000 MW and economical maximum of 1000 km.
There are going to be much complains (and not just the greenies) trying to run overhead lines through residential areas.
One solution is to use HVDC, which can transfer for thousands of kilometers and can use underground cabling in residential areas, since the cable capacitance does not harm DC.
In a wind or solar system, the direction of power transfer can vary many times a day, so smaller IGBT based HVDC systems must be used, The older and larger SCR based HVDC systems are nasty, since these are point.to.oint only, since the line polarity must be changed, when the direction of power transfer is changed. Any 1000+ km HV lines (AC or DC) are quite expensive,
For solar power, the ultimate solution would be the use of superconductive transcontinental east-west cables across time zones, Unfortunately the heat leakage into the cable and the cooling to remove it requires a lot of power. For a 1000 km superconductive cable, the power transferred should be at least 10 GW, since the cooling consumption would be negligible. The heat ingress is independent of power transferred,
Not to mention the cost of 3-4x the up-front installation cost that must be amortized.
For untapped runs of "thousands of kilometers" DC is a good idea. For distribution, not so much. The problem is that there are few places where "thousands of kilometer" runs are useful.
Huh? Polarity implies voltage. Why would that change?
So the costs are fixed and independent of income derived from the line. You say negligible but your evidence for this. 1000km is big.
"In a line-commutated converter, the DC current does not change direction; it flows through a large inductance and can be considered almost constant. On the AC side, the converter behaves approximately as a current source, injecting both grid-frequency and harmonic currents into the AC network. For this reason, a line-commutated converter for HVDC is also considered as a current-source converter.[12] Because the direction of current cannot be varied, reversal of the direction of power flow (where required) is achieved by reversing the polarity of DC voltage at both stations. "
There are also issues with some cable isolation material dielectric properties during voltage reversal.
Transistor (IGBT) voltage sourced converters (VSC) do not need line commutation (can start a dead AC network) neither does it use voltage reversal, since the direction of current flow can be changed.
However,the capacity of VSCs has been smaller than CCS.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.