Large Tesla Battery

2oldman wrote:

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
I find myself INSULATED from many of these arguments.

Fine. I find it interesting, myself.

It's a PUN...

I consume about 1/50th of the energy as most of you. I repair rather than discard.

Some segments I read here on this forum remind me of Al Gore. Ranting, foaming at the mouth, while his electrical bill averaged $5,500 month at his mansion and consumed 20,000 gallons of water per month.

In the Antelope Valley I took advantage of low humidity. A huge swamp cooler. Cut my electrical bill 80% versus air conditioning. Casita in Michoacan has SIX INCHES of foam board on the walls and double that on the ceiling. Roof is corrugated opaque fiberglass sheeting four inches above concrete and it is removable. Result?

95F day. 75% relative humidity. 830 square feet. A single window 5,000 BTU A/C unit cycles about 70/30 keeping temp at 78F. After sundown the ratio inverts to 30/70

I would tend to want to audit my own energy consumption and number of manufacturing energy intensive to build throwaways before I would dare to preach to anyone else...

agesilaus wrote:
This is why solar and battery is so compelling except to just use the power directly instead of storing as carbon or hydrogen.
---------------------------------------

How do you apply solar or wind power to your vehicle? Hydrogen has so far proven to be worse than batteries for vehicle power. And don't say you'll use solar and or wind to power up a battery, that is anything but direct use and requires a very large industrial base to make it work as poorly as it does right now.

Differ on the Hydrogen, Money Spent on Solyndra and the like should have gone to pure research, A couple Billion going to a project like The Manhatten project was in its day developing Hydrogen cells would likely have us all living better lives today.
The technology will come in time.
sorry misread what you were saying.

I don't know if we're talking about how GCC is a hoax or alternative energy.

This is why solar and battery is so compelling except to just use the power directly instead of storing as carbon or hydrogen.
---------------------------------------

How do you apply solar or wind power to your vehicle? Hydrogen has so far proven to be worse than batteries for vehicle power. And don't say you'll use solar and or wind to power up a battery, that is anything but direct use and requires a very large industrial base to make it work as poorly as it does right now.

kerrlakeRoo wrote:
You say to replicate the outcomes, but with climate sciences, most of the material used came from a questionable source, so its the same thing as the old computer programmers complaint, "garbage in, garbage out".

What questionable source? What do you mean?

time2roll wrote:

Chris Bryant wrote:
Tesla is building the largest battery bank in the world in Australia.
The capacity... 129 Mega freekin watt hours.
http://newatlas.com/tesla-powerpack-australia-biggest-battery/50382

These batteries will work great to capture the renewable energy 24/7 to be utilized at peak times of the day. Renewables don't always produce at the optimum time and this resolves that issue.

Very cost effective compared to a full-on new coal fired plant just to run four hours a day during peak demand.

IMO as these systems are implemented and expanded they will eventually take over the bulk of the grid supply at a lower cost.

My local electric utility has installed a huge "battery" for just this reason. Wholesale electricity prices change by the hour (or maybe faster) and when supply is high, prices are low. Being able to buy low and have it available for when needed is a big deal. Probably more of a big deal than being able to say "we are using renewable source electricity". Maybe indirectly but the driving force is money. Just like we might put a large tank in our two vehicle so we could buy extra gas when passing a station with cheap prices and then using it to get through a state where prices are through the roof. Even if not enough to get by through the higher price period/place, it does save money overall.

The battery our local company installed is about the size of a huge railroad car and when filled with it's "electrolyte" is fully charged. Able to soak up electricity quick and discharge it even quicker.

Yes, it is the wave of the future and will make wind or solar power more useable.

2oldman wrote:

kerrlakeRoo wrote:
If a given person employed at a facility, college or whatever and is offered a grant to research something, there is always something that they are specifically to prove, or to justify. When the outcome is preordained by the requirements of the grants, the results will always give what the entity offering the funding is looking for, otherwise they may not offer you money again.

That's not science. True knowledge is by rigorous science, meaning peer review and replication, not by being paid to prove something you want proven. But yes, scientists have to earn a living too. I just don't think your assertions are true in the world of "real" science. I think there's correlation, but not causation.

However, throughout history there have been those who, if paid enough, will testify to just about anything. Witness tobacco executives saying "I believe nicotine is not addictive" and various "scientists" who declared leaded gasoline was no big deal.

I never called it "real science" that was your term. I'm simply saying that it's human nature. If your reason for doing the research is to gain the grant funding, the best way to ensure getting it again is to give the requester what he wanted. The current methodology perverts the outcome.
You say to replicate the outcomes, but with climate sciences, most of the material used came from a questionable source, so its the same thing as the old computer programmers complaint, "garbage in, garbage out".

Oldman, do you read much? If so try State of Fear. By Crichton.
He started out to write a global warming fiction piece to promote the environmental, halfway through his research started changing his mind, and wrote something totally the opposite of what he started out to do.
He fills it with raw data and If you check you will see his notes are accurate.
If this stuff interest you, you'll love it.

agesilaus wrote:

time2roll wrote:

2oldman wrote:
I don't understand why extracting carbon from co2 and burning it makes any sense.

It is CO2 neutral. Like growing a tree and then burning it. Net CO2 effect to the atmosphere is zero.

Carbon then ends up being a storage media for energy similar to hydrogen. Both cases end up using the sun's energy to create the stockpile.

Well not really, that ignores what may be a very large industrial plant and the power required to run it that would be needed to convert CO2 to fuel. Also it ignores the manufacturing processes and the transportation required to build the plant, move all the supplies and fuel, support all the people needed to run the plant and so on.

And don't forget all the many tons of jet fuel required to move the upper crust climate warriors to all their various climate conferences in their inefficient private jets.

It's anything but energy or carbon neutral.

There is no point in burning carbon to extract carbon :R
And yes once you have the carbon fuel it still needs distribution.

This is why solar and battery is so compelling except to just use the power directly instead of storing as carbon or hydrogen.
JMHO

kerrlakeRoo wrote:
If a given person employed at a facility, college or whatever and is offered a grant to research something, there is always something that they are specifically to prove, or to justify. When the outcome is preordained by the requirements of the grants, the results will always give what the entity offering the funding is looking for, otherwise they may not offer you money again.

That's not science. True knowledge is by rigorous science, meaning peer review and replication, not by being paid to prove something you want proven. But yes, scientists have to earn a living too. I just don't think your assertions are true in the world of "real" science. I think there's correlation, but not causation.

However, throughout history there have been those who, if paid enough, will testify to just about anything. Witness tobacco executives saying "I believe nicotine is not addictive" and various "scientists" who declared leaded gasoline was no big deal.

time2roll wrote:

2oldman wrote:
I don't understand why extracting carbon from co2 and burning it makes any sense.

It is CO2 neutral. Like growing a tree and then burning it. Net CO2 effect to the atmosphere is zero.

Carbon then ends up being a storage media for energy similar to hydrogen. Both cases end up using the sun's energy to create the stockpile.

Well not really, that ignores what may be a very large industrial plant and the power required to run it that would be needed to convert CO2 to fuel. Also it ignores the manufacturing processes and the transportation required to build the plant, move all the supplies and fuel, support all the people needed to run the plant and so on.

And don't forget all the many tons of jet fuel required to move the upper crust climate warriors to all their various climate conferences in their inefficient private jets.

It's anything but energy or carbon neutral.