The World Has 42 +/- years left then the well runs dry

Relax wrote:

Joat42 wrote:No, I've never said such thing. You don't even understand why they pay higher taxes, s

You can't state WHY they SHOULD pay higher taxes if one wants an "EQUAL" world. Yet you want ME to explain how your mind works?

Sorry dude, I can't see inside your head.

I actually mentioned earlier the overall reason why they pay higher taxes, but I'm afraid you where so intent on attacking me you probably couldn't understand what you read. I'm not particularly surprised about that outcome considering your recent posting history.

So, if you can't explain why you think Oil and Gas is penalized, that only means you don't know what you are talking about. Which also means that you have no real argument and that's why you behave dishonestly in an effort to hide your lack of facts, ie you are all talk and no substance.

If you want to prove me wrong, all you have to do is to explain how the Oil and Gas industry is penalized. If you don't, I'll just put you in the same shit-pile as I place the rest of the knuckle-dragging internet-trolls.

Joat42 wrote:I actually mentioned earlier the overall reason why they pay higher taxes, but I'm afraid you where so intent on attacking me you probably couldn't understand what you read. I'm not particularly surprised about that outcome considering your recent posting history.

No you didn't. If you had, you would have quoted yourself.

Likewise you never stated why they should pay more.

Stop the lies.

Troll on man, troll on.

Relax wrote:

Joat42 wrote:I actually mentioned earlier the overall reason why they pay higher taxes, but I'm afraid you where so intent on attacking me you probably couldn't understand what you read. I'm not particularly surprised about that outcome considering your recent posting history.

No you didn't. If you had, you would have quoted yourself.

Likewise you never stated why they should pay more.

I think my opening statement in this post says it all, and the explanation is further down in the same post.

Relax wrote:Stop the lies.

Troll on man, troll on.

How to determine if someone doesn't have a valid counter-argument and most likely a troll:
* They start with personal attacks
* The take things out of context
* They say the other party lie or is wrong but provide no information proving it
* They don't have any facts
* They conflate things
* They always counter a direct question with dishonest deflection

So, are you a shit-posting troll or can you actually behave like an adult?

Joat42 wrote:
How to determine if someone doesn't have a valid counter-argument and most likely a troll:
* They start with personal attacks
* The take things out of context
* They say the other party lie or is wrong but provide no information proving it
* They don't have any facts
* They conflate things
* They always counter a direct question with dishonest deflection

I seem to be running into the same problem---
Now can we get back to the original OP
Re: The World Has 42 +/- years left then the well runs dry

chuckpeterson wrote:
I seem to be running into the same problem---
Now can we get back to the original OP
Re: The World Has 42 +/- years left then the well runs dry

Just a drive by. For what little it is worth. I have not posted for a while.

President Carter in the late 70's said we would be out of oil by 2000. He had lots of scientist for back up. Sucked me in...for a while.

More useless scare mongering. Like children will not know what snow is. Ect.

Funny how the summer trip this year was powered by a gasoline motor in the motorcycle(oh all right 10% could have been ethanol ).

Just a note fossil fuel royalties and wind power pay outs are about equal. Just have opposite signs.

For relax last I saw in the USA wind gets a 2.4 cent/kWH ... though this may be dated and it is tied to inflation for the Production Tax Credit(PTC). Of course There is 30% Investment Tax Credit(ITC). Which surprisingly enough a 300 million cost of a off shore wind wind farm worth 30 MW opted for.

How much is a kWH of solar worth at midnight when I wake up for a snack?

T2M

PS My electric bill is currently about the same price as 2007. Virtually no solar(though that is changing they are adding PV now) and local utility replaced most of the generating plants with CCGT. CCGT being much kinder to make up for the variability of solar. In addition to getting permits to operate nuke plants another 20 years. 80 years now.

Unlike CA ISO which dumped almost 1.5 TWH of solar curtailment so far this year. Added 1.5 TWH (almost up to 14%(used) of the total, now) of Solar this year and over a third of it got dumped on the ground when compared to last year. Oh and closing on 100 GWH of wind power dumped on the ground as well.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Just a drive by. For what little it is worth. I have not posted for a while.

President Carter in the late 70's said we would be out of oil by 2000. He had lots of scientist for back up. Sucked me in...for a while.

More useless scare mongering. Like children will not know what snow is. Ect.

As with all discussion in regards to "peak oil", it should be noted that all those discussions hinges on known oil reserves, current science and available technology to extract them.

The problem is that when conclusions are published in "popular media" a lot of context is missing, and flashy head-lines sells.

So blame any "scare-mongering" on the media.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Funny how the summer trip this year was powered by a gasoline motor in the motorcycle(oh all right 10% could have been ethanol ).

Funny how I can get to work everyday on electrical vehicles even when the sun doesn't shine, which just like your quip is a non sequitur in the debate.

thinkstoomuch wrote:How much is a kWH of solar worth at midnight when I wake up for a snack?

Another non sequitur, but let me ask this: How good does that snack taste when about 3.8 million old oil-wells leak methane into the atmosphere and contaminates the ground water, and it's the tax-payers that have to foot the bill for the clean up?

thinkstoomuch wrote:PS My electric bill is currently about the same price as 2007. Virtually no solar(though that is changing they are adding PV now) and local utility replaced most of the generating plants with CCGT. CCGT being much kinder to make up for the variability of solar. In addition to getting permits to operate nuke plants another 20 years. 80 years now.

All grids need a steady base-load system, CCGT is one but it's still a bit slow to handle variability which is why investment in battery-storage pays for itself within a couple of years.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Unlike CA ISO which dumped almost 1.5 TWH of solar curtailment so far this year. Added 1.5 TWH (almost up to 14%(used) of the total, now) of Solar this year and over a third of it got dumped on the ground when compared to last year. Oh and closing on 100 GWH of wind power dumped on the ground as well.

Badly handled in my opinion, but perhaps the national grid need a revamp since over-production in one area should easily be diverted elsewhere. Or perhaps used to produce fresh-water, since it seems there's a constant water-shortage in CA.

Joat42 wrote:All grids need a steady base-load system, CCGT is one but it's still a bit slow to handle variability which is why investment in battery-storage pays for itself within a couple of years.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Unlike CA ISO which dumped almost 1.5 TWH of solar curtailment so far this year. Added 1.5 TWH (almost up to 14%(used) of the total, now) of Solar this year and over a third of it got dumped on the ground when compared to last year. Oh and closing on 100 GWH of wind power dumped on the ground as well.

Badly handled in my opinion, but perhaps the national grid need a revamp since over-production in one area should easily be diverted elsewhere. Or perhaps used to produce fresh-water, since it seems there's a constant water-shortage in CA.

So how big a battery do you need to balance 120 GWH of solar on a daily basis(in the summer)? That is what solar PV supplies to CA ISO supplies in summer. Of course it was only 52 GWH yesterday.

How big of a battery do you need to balance a load that varies from 903,779 to 439,558 MWH on a daily basis over the last 3 years? With a load that varies on an hourly basis between 46,974 MWH and 13,166 MWH? Data for 5 minute interval is also available.

Batteries that make money used for frequency and short term load control. Not to balance a load long term. If you use a battery a few times a year it becomes a economic sink. Instead of using it many times a day.

As far as using the power for other things several islands(small grids) in Australia tried that. Found out it was uneconomic. For example Rottnest Island for water. There are others. Things always sound simple until someone tries it. Like when King Island tried using Vanadium flow batteries. Ended up switching to a smaller lead acid and a bunch of resistors. Or El Hierro Island sounded great, worked poorly. What could go wrong overbuild the wind use pumped hydro to balance after all that elevation change. They are still using diesel. Not as much diesel I will give but not near what was promised, which was 100% renewable.


Just addressing the rest here and there. I have way to much more use of my time than make a post pretty.

Well you are right about media scare mongering. Same applies to battery materials. You use the same with ground water contamination. I just want a light to get to the kitchen When it is dark out.


The original post was about 42 years left. It is over 40 years since I was told by the President of the USA (Nuclear Power Plant management trained so not a dunce, easily bamboozled, yep) no less we were going to run out in 20 years. Yet I still have gasoline to run my motorcycle. Despite the usage much higher just about every year since then. Not a non sequitur though your reply is.

T2M

PS If you want the hourly data I compile it from the CA ISO daily renewable watch output: http://www.caiso.com/market/Pages/Repor ... rting.aspx

I could post the raw data(26k lines) for the last three years easily enough. More effort required to get older data.

PPS For a detailed back of the envelope comparison the late Roger Andrews did a post on storage required for CA ISO to go 100% renewable. http://euanmearns.com/how-californias-e ... renewable/ A little dated but not really changed.

thinkstoomuch wrote:So how big a battery do you need to balance 120 GWH of solar on a daily basis(in the summer)? That is what solar PV supplies to CA ISO supplies in summer. Of course it was only 52 GWH yesterday.

How big of a battery do you need to balance a load that varies from 903,779 to 439,558 MWH on a daily basis over the last 3 years? With a load that varies on an hourly basis between 46,974 MWH and 13,166 MWH? Data for 5 minute interval is also available.

Batteries that make money used for frequency and short term load control. Not to balance a load long term. If you use a battery a few times a year it becomes a economic sink. Instead of using it many times a day.

You don't use batteries for long term, you use it to either store excess while you spin down production or vice versa. This also means you don't have to fiddle with the frequency, and the cost savings comes from less strain on all systems involved. How much do you think it costs NOT having a battery when the load varies? It took 2 years to recoup the cost of the Hornsdale Power Reserve, although it should be said a significant portion of that revenue was due to weather-related damage to transmission lines.

thinkstoomuch wrote:As far as using the power for other things several islands(small grids) in Australia tried that. Found out it was uneconomic. For example Rottnest Island for water. There are others. Things always sound simple until someone tries it. Like when King Island tried using Vanadium flow batteries. Ended up switching to a smaller lead acid and a bunch of resistors. Or El Hierro Island sounded great, worked poorly. What could go wrong overbuild the wind use pumped hydro to balance after all that elevation change. They are still using diesel. Not as much diesel I will give but not near what was promised, which was 100% renewable.

Nobody has said that one energy-solution is something that fits all needs. Anyone can come up with examples where "solution X" didn't work or worked poorly, and all types of energy-production have drawbacks when they are used on very small grids - like islands.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Just addressing the rest here and there. I have way to much more use of my time than make a post pretty.

Well you are right about media scare mongering. Same applies to battery materials. You use the same with ground water contamination. I just want a light to get to the kitchen When it is dark out.

It's not scare mongering, the USA has 3.8 million abandoned oil-wells and most of them leak one thing or another that's bad for the environment. Making batteries and PV also impacts the environment, from mining to production to recycling, but most of that can be mitigated from the start.

Also, if your argument is 'I just want my lights on, I don't care how', why do you care where the energy comes from?

thinkstoomuch wrote:The original post was about 42 years left. It is over 40 years since I was told by the President of the USA (Nuclear Power Plant management trained so not a dunce, easily bamboozled, yep) no less we were going to run out in 20 years.

T2M

If you are referring to Carter, he actually said that if nothing changes the US would have an energy-crisis in the mid to late 80's due to demand outstripping supply. Just as the 42 years is an estimate based on current data and that prediction will hold true if nothing changes, which is why it's smart to forestall it.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Yet I still have gasoline to run my motorcycle. Despite the usage much higher just about every year since then. Not a non sequitur though your reply is.

It's a non sequitur for the simple reason that things have provably changed, if you want to continue using information from the late 70's as an argument, why aren't you complaining about how much it costs to fuel your motorcycle? The world moves on, move with it.

thinkstoomuch wrote:PS If you want the hourly data I compile it from the CA ISO daily renewable watch output: http://www.caiso.com/market/Pages/Repor ... rting.aspx

I could post the raw data(26k lines) for the last three years easily enough. More effort required to get older data.

PPS For a detailed back of the envelope comparison the late Roger Andrews did a post on storage required for CA ISO to go 100% renewable. http://euanmearns.com/how-californias-e ... renewable/ A little dated but not really changed.

Pumping water around is an inefficient solution but it works. Going 100% renewable isn't really practical with current tech except in some select geographical locations, all we can do is offset production based on fossil-fuel with the goal to go 100% renewable in the future when it becomes technologically and economically viable.

Joat42 wrote:...snip...

Congratulations you have now designed the CA ISO system. Which you have said is poorly designed, I agree.

Unfortunately once solar gets to ~13% you now are making power companies buy stuff to dump it on the ground. It is now cheaper pay other sources and the solar. To keep things stable.

Using fossil fuels and everything else for a "pseudo battery". In an area that covers 8 states, sort of. They have something like 15 GW of interconnections mostly to import except when the sun is shining and the solar is sold to a grid that is paying other folks. Negative prices another wonderful feature. They have a web site that shows it I learned Python just to get the data at 5 minute intervals they have since changed site and I can no longer get more than short snapshots.

I like proven ways to decarbonize the grid if that is the goal(which really is not my goal, lots of other reasons to do it). Nuclear where France has achieved 75%+ using nuclear. Or for that matter Illinois where 50%+ of the grid is nuclear. There are many other examples. Much cheaper for the consumer than using solar to do it. Plus build the plant and it lasts a human lifetime(maybe more) if the company maintains it properly. Which Florida Pirate and Loot does.

For wind I am not sure of the break point. Last I looked probably around 20% if Texas is the gauge. They are currently running into a curtailment issues despite the 8 billion they spent on power lines. It used to be around 10% before that investment. I think. Much harder for me to deal with their data publishing methods. CA ISO makes it much easier for me.

I love solar just is not economic. Wind not so much Even my favorite Solana produces electrical energy wholesale at less than my current retail rate even factoring in my connection to the grid charge and taxes. But it is neat watching solar power on the grid after midnight. Without a NG connection.

Funny how rotating inertia used to a wonderful job balancing the grid until wind and solar showed up. Though it is dependent on how far power plant you are. Which is why when Florida Power and Light decommissions a power plant they keep the rotating part attached to the grid with a motor, it is called a condenser. Instantaneous response.

So now that we have established that the original post is bull pucky and batteries are not the answer, I guess I am done.

Merry Christmas,
T2M
T2M

Glad to see you back here T2M. It has been quiet and a bit boring.
Electricity generation is a complex issue. On a micro scale my domestic roof top panels have supplied me with more than enough power for 13 years now. During the day I export my surplus to the Web, and at night I import what I need, but am ahead on the balance. Thus no power bills during that time.
Our city is perched on a range so is looking at utilising our water supply dams for large floating solar farms, and using pumped hydro for storage. The general area has numerous solar, wind, gas and a modern HELE coal station. We have much more power than we need, so export it to the national grid.
The next few years could be interesting in that new technology is coming. Toyota are experimenting with solid state lithium batteries, that give range and refuelling time similar to petrol vehicles. As Europe is discovering a continent wide net will ensure that there is always some power being produced somewhere. Because of the US phobia about government control and production it may not achieve that.