OT: Antarctic ices sheets are loosing mass

ry storage...

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman
Loading thread data ...

When it starts to get cold and dark, we'll feel better about nukes.

Save the oil for transportation.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

The tax would kill enough people but perhaps you're OK with that because it's not you (today).

Reply to
krw

tery storage...

e
,
.
e

After the sun shrinks to a white dwarf?

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

When has a tax ever killed anybody?

Taxing carbon that gets burnt would merely speed up the shift to wind and solar power (which hasn't killed anybody yet).

Krw might expire of apoplexy if a carbon tax were imposed but I'd be OK with that - he deserves a Darwin award.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Not convinced, but so long as it's not "too many", widespread coastal flooding would probably kill too many don't you think?

--
  When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
Reply to
Jasen Betts

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Larkin has a good point.

That may change in the future; maybe my daughter will see it but I doubt I will.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

You have a good point.

That may change in the future; maybe my daughter will see it but I doubt I will.

The astute may compare and contrast that with the message I posted a couple of minutes ago.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

ave

at,

t

al.

he

the

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Don't be obtuse :)

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Since your assumption is nonsense, your conclusion is just silly.

Reply to
krw

:

have

y

that,

put

ical.

the

n the

gy

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).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

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,

Reply to
upsidedown

The current interglacial is running on borrowed time. We may well be at the peak, and headed into another LIA, longer term into a big one.

formatting link

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Moral: Greenies (a.k.a. lefties) always complain.

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.

Reply to
krw

The UK is ~1000km tip to toe, so the UK measurements contradict that contention.

Blocking high pressures in winter are particularly nasty, since they can last days and weeks.

The devil's details are "sufficiently large" coupled with "sufficiently infrequent".

That is done, and non-greenies complain about it being stupid to cook earthworms.

But I (and most people I expect) don't care about high power generation. But /everybody/ cares about low power generation.

Needs to be more than 1000km, and that crosses political boundaries, which is undesirable. Just as relying on gas from Russia is undesirable

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Not always. While I disagree with many of his contentions (e.g. those you mention below) about AGW, that doesn't mean all his points are invalid.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

so, what's your excuse?

--
  When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
Reply to
Jasen Betts

For mercury arc and SCR converters:

formatting link
"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.

Reply to
upsidedown

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.