Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Climate change

Airborne_Again wrote:

Now you are mincing words. We both know that energy = power*time. In this context it doesn’t matter what words we use.

When producing electricity it makes all the difference in the world, and the key to see why is the time bit. It is very far from irrelevant when the power is produced, and it’s also very far from irrelevant how much power is produced during that time. In practical terms this means a wind/solar is incapable of delivering power. The only thing they deliver are energy in the form of random power integrated over a period of time, let’s say a day, week or year. To be able to use that energy, there are three ways:

  1. store it somehow, then use it on demand somehow (connect it to a storage device)
  2. Integrate it into the existing system of production and consumption, and let the other producers and the consumers smooth out the randomness by varying production/consumption accordingly.
  3. refine it there and then to something of value that can be stored and used later.

An example of the first is the typical solar panel hooked up to a battery, used in cottages, sail boats and so on.
The second item is how wind/solar is integrated into the grid today.
The third is the ancient wind mill, but also how many see hydrogen to be produced.

The ups of using an existing grid is of course large. It is however fairly obvious it cannot be used without the existing producers and consumers on that grid have to work harder. The ability for them to deliver power on demand, or consume/store power on demand must be increased. This ability is expensive, very expensive. Yet, when media talk about the cost of solar/wind, this cost is disregarded completely. Why? because someone do not understand/appreciate/care about the real world difference of power and energy.

MedEwok wrote:

I’m not saying you’re wrong LeSving, but wind and solar distributed over a large area (say the
EU+EFTA) can produce power quite reliably if managed with a smart grid. The sun will always shine and the wind always blow somewhere over such a large area.

Probably feasible, but insanely expensive, insanely inefficient. Everything would have to be boosted in size/capacity by a factor 10 at least. In essence, a waste of energy, money, land area, materials and time of biblical proportions. A handful of nuclear plants, combined with some pump turbine facilities and/or hydro power will do the same at a fraction of the cost, a fraction of the land use, and a fraction of the total pollution. This is essentially what is done in France, and also the Nordic grid (Norway, Sweden and Finland are connected in one single grid). It’s quite funny. Finland builds new nuclear plants, Sweden wants to shut their plants down, and all for the same reasons

LeSving wrote:

When producing electricity it makes all the difference in the world, and the key to see why is the time bit. It is very far from irrelevant when the power is produced, and it’s also very far from irrelevant how much power is produced during that time. In practical terms this means a wind/solar is incapable of delivering power. The only thing they deliver are energy in the form of random power integrated over a period of time, let’s say a day, week or year. To be able to use that energy, there are three ways:

You give an interesting meaning to the word “power”.

Anyway, this does not in any way affect my point, namely that hydrogen is an energy (if you prefer that word) carrier and not a source as it has to be produced – just like electricity – while wind/solar are sources of energy. Thus saying that hydrogen is a “solution” while wind/solar are not amounts to comparing apples with oranges.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 02 Jun 08:09
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Chickens are coming home to roost on domestic PV installations – as expected.

A big part of the problem, or if you like a key positive factor for those pushing this business, and this is identical to the old solar water heating business which was full of conmen, is that the people who are most susceptible to “believe” are also the least likely to examine the numbers. Then what you need to do to make a success of it is dig up those with the right combination of cash in the bank and a lack of scientific education.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

PV in the UK (especially in the north and west) was a non-starter. People up here constantly whinge about overcast weather, but then buy the salesman’s spiel about PV panels? (Wind on the other hand is often rather too viable…)

Funnily enough we just got our own hangar at Andreas but it’s off the grid so I’m putting up a solar panel :-) (We only need to power some LED lights from time to time so an 80W panel and leisure battery will do the job adequately).

Andreas IOM

It is school strike friday. Anyone up for a climate quiz?
Climate change quiz

EKRK, Denmark

Michael_J wrote:

Anyone up for a climate quiz?

A typical climate change denier website. After asking mostly irrelevant questions that I mostly did know the answer to it tells me “Careful! It sounds like you have an informed and balanced perspective on the climate – don’t let anyone find out.” What nonsense!

Example of irrelevant question: “The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a) 40%, b) 4%, c) 0,04%.” This is a hidden form of an argument you often hear from climate change deniers. You should be led to think that since the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small, it follows that CO2 concentration doesn’t affect the climate.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

You are still using the “denier” language with the purpose to make others think “holocaust denier” and making the person in question look like an idiot and stop the debate.

Well, I could also call you names but I will not sink that low. Welcome to the climate inquisition.

There are more and more newly published peer-reviewed research that points to a much lower climate sensitivity. Some of this research is even based on empirical evidence and not just manmade computer simulations (models) that BTW are doing a lousy job at predicting future temperatures. So who is the “denier”??

Last Edited by Michael_J at 20 Sep 12:18
EKRK, Denmark

Michael_J wrote:

You are still using the “denier” language with the purpose to make others think “holocaust denier” and making the person in question look like an idiot and stop the debate.

Denying holocaust ist a punishable offence in most places.

It is not yet punishable to have a dissident opinion on climate change…. but apparently some people would love it to be so.

Whether it occurs to such people that such restrictions would most probably mean they themselfs would bee the first ot be restricted in what they can say? It is a dangerous thing to demand. Better think what you want to achieve. And remember what has been done in the past to control thought and speech on other issues.

If books (thoughts) are put on fire, humans will burn not too long after.

LSZH, Switzerland

It is not yet punishable to have a dissident opinion on climate change

It is punishable with a death sentence and has been for many years. Your research funding stops

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

No, not really. Climate deniers tend to get funded by extremely rich private interests. If you want the best funding for climate science, then write papers that make climate change not look man-made, or look less bad. There are huge and very rich vested interests intent on delaying actions against climate change activities and will lavish any scientist who can put doubt on climate change.

Unfortunately, reality is left leaning. Man made climate change is happening and denying it won’t make it go away. As pilots we want to believe that it’s not true because then we don’t suffer the cognitive dissonance of being both (a) good people trying not to do harm and (b) knowing we are doing harm with our activities. Personally, I have come to accept I’m at least a little bit bad.

Last Edited by alioth at 20 Sep 14:39
Andreas IOM
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top