Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Aston Martin's Cosworth 6.5L 1000 hp V12 is NATURALLY ASPIRATED


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

#151 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 March 2019 - 22:32

So Henri, what are you personally doing about this. Given up flying in jets for holidays? What do your children or grandchildren think of that idea?

 

I did't think I would ever read something so pathetic from your pen Greg, but after After 5,591 posts - there it is. Did you have had a bad day or something?



Advertisement

#152 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 March 2019 - 22:38

   Do you agree that there is absolutely nothing that can be done that that will  have  even the tiniest effect on  atmospheric  CO2 levels?  Even if the entire world totally stopped burning  coal/hydrocarbons etc.  it would take hundreds of years for the CO2 levels to start to drop.  

 

 Symbolic gestures like those you are  promoting are totally pointless.   Do you agree with this last statement?

 

Years ago, I did a thumbnail calculation of the expected rise in atmospheric CO2 from human CO2 emissions and posted the result here. Probably in the "Global Warming' thread. Turns out if humans stopped burning fossil fuel, atmospheric CO2 would stop rising. (That means no I don't)



#153 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 17 March 2019 - 22:43

 The situation is far too uncertain to take the drastic action that the Greens and Labor are advocating.   There is no uncertainty about this - it will destroy the economy  and have zero effect  on GW/CC.

 

I am not a rabid advocate for extreme action. There is a sensible middle ground that will reduce CO2 emissions significantly in the longer term with zero detriment to the economy in fact probably the opposite.

 

Meanwhile the Australian economy has suffered massively from our representatives using CC as a political football.



#154 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 March 2019 - 04:24

I did't think I would ever read something so pathetic from your pen Greg, but after After 5,591 posts - there it is. Did you have had a bad day or something?

 

  GL's comment seems perfectly sensible and relevant to me - what to you find wrong with it?  



#155 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 March 2019 - 04:31

Years ago, I did a thumbnail calculation of the expected rise in atmospheric CO2 from human CO2 emissions and posted the result here. Probably in the "Global Warming' thread. Turns out if humans stopped burning fossil fuel, atmospheric CO2 would stop rising. (That means no I don't)

 

"if humans stopped burning fossil fuels atmospheric  CO2  would stop rising".    I am tempted to write "well, duhh" (but I am not that rude).  Humans (the bastards) are not going to stop burning fossil fuel, or stop breathing etc.  



#156 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 18 March 2019 - 04:41

  I am not sure what Hank was on about but -  Einstein signed a famous letter sent to Roosevelt  written by a group of scientists warning about the possibility of Germany developing an atom bomb.

 

 I  don't know why anybody would write a letter to any German scientist about a possible bomb  - Germany was where most of the original work on fission was done (Meitner et al)  - they were well aware of the bomb possibilities.   

 

 Hal should attempt to develop at least a slight sense of humour.  

 

 The only "Henri"  I have ever heard of is the famous English  King   "Henri the Eighth".  


Edited by Kelpiecross, 18 March 2019 - 04:46.


#157 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 18 March 2019 - 18:53

As for the Koenigsegggggg and similar "supercars" of this ilk - Veyron even Lambos etc. I regard them as **** ( this means "faecal matter" - it was changed automatically) - I have no interest at all in them. I like to see a car with "clever" engineering rather than just being ridiculously expensive. 

You may want to treat yourself to a few videos of Christian von Koenigsegg speaking about his cars and how they're made. 
A bit unfair of you to toss them on the not-so-clever-engineering pile. Especially the extra g's are unfair. It's the guy's last name and in the language we speak here, an egg is spelled exactly the same. 



#158 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,072 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 18 March 2019 - 20:50

Don’t feed the troll as they say. Kelpie is nothing if not well-versed in poking buttons.

Otherwise I agree with you. Christian’s work I think largely speaks for itself. They’ve been very creative at solving problems and pushing the envelope. Sure, the entire genre of HyperCars is a bit nonsense, but I think of it as the modern version of art patrons. Wealthy individuals fund creative individuals to push the envelope of their vision. I prepared a resume for them once upon a time but couldn’t convince my wife so I never passed it on. Often wish I had.

#159 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 March 2019 - 22:37

  GL's comment seems perfectly sensible and relevant to me - what to you find wrong with it?  

 

 

"if humans stopped burning fossil fuels atmospheric  CO2  would stop rising".    I am tempted to write "well, duhh" (but I am not that rude).  Humans (the bastards) are not going to stop burning fossil fuel, or stop breathing etc.  

 

The two posts above demonstrate the same piece of ignorance. If you re-check my post below you will find it makes no mention of humans breathing. Likewise, it is not necessary or even wise for an individual (Henri) to cease air travel. A better strategy is to advocate for sensible measures on a larger scale. Renewables are now cheaper. All new electricity generation infrastructure needs to be renewable. Some have even made the case that shutting down coal-fired plants to build renewables will save money. https://www.forbes.c...l/#342efc7231f3

 

Years ago, I did a thumbnail calculation of the expected rise in atmospheric CO2 from human CO2 emissions and posted the result here. Probably in the "Global Warming' thread. Turns out if humans stopped burning fossil fuel, atmospheric CO2 would stop rising. (That means no I don't)



Advertisement

#160 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 19 March 2019 - 05:14

Don’t feed the troll as they say. Kelpie is nothing if not well-versed in poking buttons.

Otherwise I agree with you. Christian’s work I think largely speaks for itself. They’ve been very creative at solving problems and pushing the envelope. Sure, the entire genre of HyperCars is a bit nonsense, but I think of it as the modern version of art patrons. Wealthy individuals fund creative individuals to push the envelope of their vision. I prepared a resume for them once upon a time but couldn’t convince my wife so I never passed it on. Often wish I had.

 

 I don't drool over "hypercars"  etc. because when you study the cars carefully you find there is nothing special about them.  Really just a powerful engine in a small car.  The detail engineering of a typical Toyota (for example) is,  I think, more sophisticated than any "hypercar"    It takes a lot of careful engineering to allow a car to run for half a million K's  without problems. 



#161 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 19 March 2019 - 05:19

You may want to treat yourself to a few videos of Christian von Koenigsegg speaking about his cars and how they're made. 
A bit unfair of you to toss them on the not-so-clever-engineering pile. Especially the extra g's are unfair. It's the guy's last name and in the language we speak here, an egg is spelled exactly the same. 

 

The extra g's  are a reference to Clarkson on Top Gear  who spelled it that way.  But there is no question that foreigners do speak ridiculous languages.  



#162 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 19 March 2019 - 05:43

(Sorry CP)

 

gg - We have been through this a 1000 times . Your reasoning might be correct but my basic attitude to GW/CC remains - it  might be happening/it might not be happening.  It might cause harm/it might not cause harm/it might actually have a beneficial effect.  

 

 The situation is far too uncertain to take the drastic action that the Greens and Labor are advocating.   There is no uncertainty about this - it will destroy the economy  and have zero effect  on GW/CC.

 

   Do you agree that there is absolutely nothing that can be done that that will  have  even the tiniest effect on  atmospheric  CO2 levels?  Even if the entire world totally stopped burning  coal/hydrocarbons etc.  it would take hundreds of years for the CO2 levels to start to drop.  

 

 Symbolic gestures like those you are  promoting are totally pointless.   Do you agree with this last statement?

 

 You didn't answer the direct question.   Nothing can be done (by Oz) that would make the slightest difference to the world's CO2 levels.  Answers like "I believe" etc. are not really answers at all.   It is like the typical politician's evasive answer  "That's not the question - the real question is -etc." and then go on to ask something totally unrelated.

 

 It is not "rocket science" (as they say)  - there is nothing Oz could do  (even disappear from the face of the Earth) that would make the slightest difference.

 

 But action could be taken that would help if GW/CC is actually happening  and could be of benefit  to Oz even if it is not happening.   (Like Snowy 2.0 - a bit pointless, but it would do no harm and would keep a lot of people in employment).   


Edited by Kelpiecross, 19 March 2019 - 05:45.


#163 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,650 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 19 March 2019 - 06:49

Re jets. 25% of my carbon footprint is jet flying. It is one of the few areas where humans can directly reduce their carbon footprint. If somebody moans about CO2 and flies for holidays, then I guess they are expecting other people to make sacrifices while maintaining their own convenience. 

 

Amusingly I was debating with an American who proudly announced his CO2 footprint was half the national average. I pointed out that still left him using more than the average UK inhabitant.



#164 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 19 March 2019 - 21:47

Re jets. 25% of my carbon footprint is jet flying. It is one of the few areas where humans can directly reduce their carbon footprint. If somebody moans about CO2 and flies for holidays, then I guess they are expecting other people to make sacrifices while maintaining their own convenience. 

 

Amusingly I was debating with an American who proudly announced his CO2 footprint was half the national average. I pointed out that still left him using more than the average UK inhabitant.

Actually I believe we can do a lot about climate change without any sacrifices. The inertia lies within vested interests, ideology and thinking that is not keeping up with (the rapidly changing) technology.

 

Did you read the Forbes article linked in post #159?



#165 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 19 March 2019 - 22:18

 You didn't answer the direct question.   Nothing can be done (by Oz) that would make the slightest difference to the world's CO2 levels.  Answers like "I believe" etc. are not really answers at all.   It is like the typical politician's evasive answer  "That's not the question - the real question is -etc." and then go on to ask something totally unrelated.

 

 It is not "rocket science" (as they say)  - there is nothing Oz could do  (even disappear from the face of the Earth) that would make the slightest difference.

 

 But action could be taken that would help if GW/CC is actually happening  and could be of benefit  to Oz even if it is not happening.   (Like Snowy 2.0 - a bit pointless, but it would do no harm and would keep a lot of people in employment).   

I thought I did answer the question (see quote below).

"OZ" is responsible for >1% of world carbon emissions, so I guess internally we could only reduce world emissions by 1% - most people would say that is more than "the slightest difference". Regardless, I want to vomit every time I hear this argument. Its like saying "why should I vote", "why should I pay tax", "why should I donate" or "why should Henri stop flying?" - none of these will make "the slightest difference" in the grand scheme of things.

 

There is also a lot of action that could be taken that would make a much bigger difference with zero economic pain - did you read the Forbes article? The risk associated with building a new coal fired power station in Australia is high - no Australian company is prepared to take that risk. It seems certain that coal (and nuclear) will become far more expensive than renewables within the lifespan of a new power station.

 

Schemes like Snowy 2.0 and a second Basslink will add reliability to a growing renewable energy generation network but more important is the need for small scale energy storage - probably hydro - distributed across the country. This combination will become the new "baseload".

 

Years ago, I did a thumbnail calculation of the expected rise in atmospheric CO2 from human CO2 emissions and posted the result here. Probably in the "Global Warming' thread. Turns out if humans stopped burning fossil fuel, atmospheric CO2 would stop rising. (That means no I don't)


Edited by gruntguru, 19 March 2019 - 22:57.


#166 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,650 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 19 March 2019 - 23:35

There's an awful lot of subsidies in that Forbes article. Yes I know nukes and coal have hidden subsidies. Anyway, directly, even if Australia went 100% non carbon for domestic electricity, the effect on my carbon footprint would be ZERO. Indirectly yes it would change because industrial electricity would also be less CO2 intensive.



#167 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 6,865 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 20 March 2019 - 00:46

Schemes like Snowy 2.0 and a second Basslink will add reliability to a growing renewable energy generation network but more important is the need for small scale energy storage - probably hydro - distributed across the country. This combination will become the new "baseload".

 

I am a little sceptical about a second Basslink cable to make Tasmania the "battery of Australia".

 

For one point, the total hydro capacity in Tasmania is 2,275MW, compared to Tumut 3's 1,800MW.

 

The largest power station in Tasmania is the Gordon Dam, rate at 432MW.

 

Tasmania has very little in the way of pumped hydro capacity at present. 3 of Tumut 3's 6 turbines can also be operated as pumps.

 

There has to be some serious upgrades to the system.



#168 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 March 2019 - 03:20

There's an awful lot of subsidies in that Forbes article. Yes I know nukes and coal have hidden subsidies. Anyway, directly, even if Australia went 100% non carbon for domestic electricity, the effect on my carbon footprint would be ZERO. Indirectly yes it would change because industrial electricity would also be less CO2 intensive.

The Forbes article gives figures with and without subsidies. How well they transfer to Australia is another thing but the main takeaway is the rate of change of the price differential between renewables and coal/nuclear. We seem to be currently at a crossover point and only a fool would claim that the trend will abruptly halt right now. Building a new coal fired power station today (to commission in 2027) with a 40 year life expectancy would almost certainly result in a financial disaster.



#169 Kelpiecross

Kelpiecross
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 20 March 2019 - 04:25

I thought I did answer the question (see quote below).

"OZ" is responsible for >1% of world carbon emissions, so I guess internally we could only reduce world emissions by 1% - most people would say that is more than "the slightest difference". Regardless, I want to vomit every time I hear this argument. Its like saying "why should I vote", "why should I pay tax", "why should I donate" or "why should Henri stop flying?" - none of these will make "the slightest difference" in the grand scheme of things.

 

There is also a lot of action that could be taken that would make a much bigger difference with zero economic pain - did you read the Forbes article? The risk associated with building a new coal fired power station in Australia is high - no Australian company is prepared to take that risk. It seems certain that coal (and nuclear) will become far more expensive than renewables within the lifespan of a new power station.

 

Schemes like Snowy 2.0 and a second Basslink will add reliability to a growing renewable energy generation network but more important is the need for small scale energy storage - probably hydro - distributed across the country. This combination will become the new "baseload".

 

  After quite a few years I think we are finally understanding each other.   I think less that I% is nothing (purely symbolic) - you think it matters.  I don't think it does.  Of course that  less-than-I%  means that conditions in Oz  would be similar to the way things were in the Great Depression of the 1930s or the Third World - but at least we would feel good (sitting cold and hungry in the dark) that we doing something to "save the planet".  

 As for the other examples - I think you have to choose your targets - I don't vote mostly as the local Labor candidate has a margin of about 20%  (no point in a symbolic vote).  We used to donate a lot of money to charity - but it has become clear that only a small percentage or nothing at all gets through the  intended recipients.   I pay tax otherwise everybody stops paying  and we end up like Greece where apparently most people just ignore the taxman.  

 

 Conclusion - do things that might make difference - not just symbolic gestures.    



#170 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 March 2019 - 05:02

  As for the other examples - I think you have to choose your targets - I don't vote mostly as the local Labor candidate has a margin of about 20%  (no point in a symbolic vote).  We used to donate a lot of money to charity - but it has become clear that only a small percentage or nothing at all gets through the  intended recipients.   I pay tax otherwise everybody stops paying  and we end up like Greece where apparently most people just ignore the taxman.  

 

 Conclusion - do things that might make difference - not just symbolic gestures.    

As I thought. You are having an each way bet - changing your tune to suit your desired outcome a-la Tony Abbot. ("Paris agreement good > Paris agreement bad > Paris agreement good". "Malaysia solution bad > Malaysia solution good.")

 

Let me summarise:

- Australia shouldn't reduce CO2 because it won't make much difference. (No chance that doing the right thing will help us influence other countries.)

- We should pay tax - it won't make much difference but doing the wrong thing might influence other people to stop paying their tax.

- Henri should stop flying - it won't make much difference but it would be a nice symbolic gesture.

- Do things that might make a difference - not just symbolic gestures.


Edited by gruntguru, 22 July 2019 - 22:31.


#171 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 March 2019 - 05:08

  After quite a few years I think we are finally understanding each other.   I think less that I% is nothing (purely symbolic) - you think it matters.  I don't think it does.  Of course that  less-than-I%  means that conditions in Oz  would be similar to the way things were in the Great Depression of the 1930s or the Third World - but at least we would feel good (sitting cold and hungry in the dark) that we doing something to "save the planet".     

We almost agree here.

1% reduction starting tomorrow would be the disaster you claim.

Less than 1% - say 0.2% by say 2030 can be done with minimal hardship (read the Forbes article.) That is a 20% reduction which expanded worldwide, would be a significant game-changer.



#172 Charles E Taylor

Charles E Taylor
  • Member

  • 195 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 20 March 2019 - 17:14

Hi

 

I don't post here much anymore.

 

 

You might find this adds some context to the various viewpoints

 

.https://www.aerosoci...amie-turner.pdf

 

 

 

Have fun.

 

 

 

 

 

Charlie



#173 scolbourne

scolbourne
  • Member

  • 508 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 21 March 2019 - 12:08

Here is an alternative solution for long distance flights that surprisingly might be more efficient than jet aircraft.

We use sub-orbital rockets !!!

 

Once up to speed (something under 28000 km/h) in space with no drag you will effectively coast with no fuel use

The added bonus is that the flight times for travelling half way round the world is only just over an hour. This means that you can cram more passengers in and do not need to worry about inflight meals etc.

Elon Musk is convinced that he can provide rocket travel so cheaply that it could even be justified to replace standard air freight.

SpaceX plan to use methane as fuel, so there is still some CO2 produced , but it would be possible to use hydrogen.

 

https://www.cnbc.com...n-a-decade.html

 

https://forum.nasasp...p?topic=47450.0


Edited by scolbourne, 21 March 2019 - 12:30.


#174 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 2,145 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 21 March 2019 - 15:48

Here is an alternative solution for long distance flights that surprisingly might be more efficient than jet aircraft.

We use sub-orbital rockets !!!

 

Once up to speed (something under 28000 km/h) in space with no drag you will effectively coast with no fuel use

The added bonus is that the flight times for travelling half way round the world is only just over an hour. This means that you can cram more passengers in and do not need to worry about inflight meals etc.

Elon Musk is convinced that he can provide rocket travel so cheaply that it could even be justified to replace standard air freight.

SpaceX plan to use methane as fuel, so there is still some CO2 produced , but it would be possible to use hydrogen.

 

https://www.cnbc.com...n-a-decade.html

 

https://forum.nasasp...p?topic=47450.0

 

I seem to recall in my childhood watching something about sub orbit air travel way back in the 1980's seems we haven't made much progress in over 30 years.



#175 rghojai

rghojai
  • Member

  • 850 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 24 May 2019 - 06:31

It's lovely to read so many insightful, relevant observations about the AM engine. 



#176 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 30 May 2019 - 23:06

Cute. Worldwide the forecast is for increased consumption of all fossil fuels except coal, which flatlines, as in China. As I said, As of 2017 2040 the rate of building of renewables wasn't even keeping up with the increase in demand.

 

2017-09-14-World-Energy-Consumption-By-S

 

Pretty much borne out by this. (note this is "additions to capacity" not "capacity."

 

4od3YhN.jpg



#177 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,650 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 30 May 2019 - 23:51

Why the huge cut at 2017 and beyond? According to https://www.carbonbr...al-power-plants India has 221GW of coal operating, 232 GW under construction, and 306 GW planned.



#178 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 02 June 2019 - 23:05

Why the huge cut at 2017 and beyond? According to https://www.carbonbr...al-power-plants India has 221GW of coal operating, 232 GW under construction, and 306 GW planned.

 

It is often difficult to distinguish the different numbers used to define future capacity. The differences between "proposed", "under development", "under construction" and "net capacity increase" are often not clear. The tendency is to quote whichever number best supports the views of the author. Sifting through the numbers in the quote below (from your link) it seems India has 16GW under construction (plus 20GTW "on hold") minus up to 10GW "unviable" and 30 GW "stressed" ie potential closures in the near term.

"Indian coal capacity will continue to rise, reaching 238GW in 2027, according to the government’s National Electricity Plan. Other analysts and indicators suggest this increase may be in doubtThe rate of coal capacity growth in India has more than halved since 2016, as the chart above shows, and there are signs it is slowing ever further. The IEA has dramatically cut its forecasts for Indian demand, due to slower than expected electricity demand growth and the falling price for renewables“For India, it’s a very clear case where renewables are able to deliver power at lower cost than new coal and even a lot of existing capacity,” says Myllyvirta. “From an economic perspective, it would make sense to substitute new renewables for existing coal,” according to a 2019 report from The Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi. In a February 2019 comment, Reuters commodities columnist Clyde Russell wrote: “The main reason coal may battle to fuel India’s future energy needs is that it’s simply becoming too expensive relative to renewable alternatives, such as wind & solar.” Indeed, some 10GW of existing coal is “unviable” and another 30GW “stressed”, according to India’s power secretary, interviewed by Bloomberg Quint in May 2018. “India’s renewables revolution is pushing coal off the debt cliff,” writes Matthew Gray, senior analyst at Carbon TrackerThe country has 94GW of new coal capacity under development, down 28% in the past year alone. This includes 36GW under construction, of which some 20GW is on hold – most often due to financial problems, according to Global Energy Monitor."

 

 

 

This hints at the future for coal in India. (Also from your link)

li31B0l.jpg



#179 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 22 July 2019 - 00:21

Track test at Silverstone. Fluff video but a milestone nonetheless.

 

https://newatlas.com...48091f-90270322



Advertisement

#180 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,650 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 22 July 2019 - 08:23

The cost of generating a certain amount of power is cheaper for solar than coal. But you only get itwhen the sun shines. The cost of providing 24/7/52 power from solar, once you add in enough storage to meet that requirement, is far in excess of nuclear, never mind coal.



#181 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 22 July 2019 - 23:14

The cost of generating a certain amount of power is cheaper for solar than coal. But you only get itwhen the sun shines. The cost of providing 24/7/52 power from solar, once you add in enough storage to meet that requirement, is far in excess of nuclear, never mind coal.

That's a very simplified version of reality which is "matching" of  generation to demand. Even traditional "base-load" generation has for example - ramping issues. As a renewable network grows geographically, the total output becomes smoother (the sun is probably shining somewhere). Either way - yes you need some storage.

 

Your "analysis" also fails to account for the possibility that climate change is a genuine problem and coal-fired infrastructure built today might become stranded assets tomorrow.

 

The cost gap must be pretty big. The Forbes article (https://www.forbes.c...l/#342efc7231f3) maintains that not only is the LCOE of renewables lower for new plant but in many cases it is profitable to shut down existing coal fired plants and replace them with renewables.



#182 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 23 July 2019 - 00:54

Some reports listed in Wikipedia show where things are headed. Note that levelised cost includes capital cost of plant and marginalised cost does not (ie assumes existing plant).

 

Lazard (2018)[edit]


In November, 2018, Lazard found that not only are utility-scale solar and wind cheaper than fossil fuels, "[i]n some scenarios, alternative energy costs have decreased to the point that they are now at or below the marginal cost of conventional generation." Overall, Lazard found "The low end levelized cost of onshore wind-generated energy is $29/MWh, compared to an average illustrative marginal cost of $36/MWh for coal. The levelized cost of utility-scale solar is nearly identical to the illustrative marginal cost of coal, at $36/MWh. This comparison is accentuated when subsidizing onshore wind and solar, which results in levelized costs of energy of $14/MWh and $32/MWh, respectively. ... The mean levelized cost of energy of utility-scale PV technologies is down approximately 13% from last year and the mean levelized cost of energy of onshore wind has declined almost 7%."[37]

Bloomberg (2018)[edit]


Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates a "global LCOE for onshore wind [of] $55 per megawatt-hour, down 18% from the first six months of [2017], while the equivalent for solar PV without tracking systems is $70 per MWh, also down 18%." Bloomberg does not provide its global public LCOEs for fossil fuels, but it notes in India they are significantly more expensive: "BNEF is now showing benchmark LCOEs for onshore wind of just $39 per MWh, down 46% on a year ago, and for solar PV at $41, down 45%. By comparison, coal comes in at $68 per MWh, and combined-cycle gas at $93." [38][39]

IRENA (2018)[edit]


The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) released a study based on comprehensive international datasets in January 2018 which projects the fall by 2020 of the kilowatt cost of electricity from utility scale renewable projects such as onshore wind farms to a point equal or below that of electricity from conventional sources.[40]

Banks (2018)[edit]


The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) says that "renewables are now cheapest energy source", elaborating: "the Bank believes that renewable energy markets in many of the countries where it invests have reached a stage where the introduction of competitive auctions will lead both to a steep drop in electricity prices and an increase in investment." [41] The World Bank (World Bank) President Jim Yong Kim agreed on 10 October 2018: "We are required by our by-laws to go with the lowest cost option, and renewables have now come below the cost of [fossil fuels]." [42]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Levelized_cost_of_electricity


Edited by gruntguru, 23 July 2019 - 00:56.


#183 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,650 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 23 July 2019 - 05:29

Lazard is ignoring intermittency

Bloomberg ditto

IREA ditto

EBRD ditto

 

In fact they all agree with my post. If you ignore intermittency then renewables are cheap. If you need 24/7/52 power then you need deployable energy or massive storage or of course a mixture, which is the sane response.



#184 ElectricBoogie

ElectricBoogie
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 16 August 2019 - 12:14

"if humans stopped burning fossil fuels atmospheric  CO2  would stop rising".    I am tempted to write "well, duhh" (but I am not that rude).  Humans (the bastards) are not going to stop burning fossil fuel, or stop breathing etc.  

What about reversing deforrestation?
CO2 is the breath of life. Animals exhale more than they inhale, plants (our food) use it as building block.
Deforrestation to let cows graze or grow crops just to feed those is a waste of surface area to feed us. I love beef but it's so pointless from an energy perspective. As is dairy.

And about jets. Guess why a plane ticcket is cheaper than driving long distance. Answer: they're actually quite efficient and your money goes towards little kerosine.



#185 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,873 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 16 August 2019 - 20:14

And about jets. Guess why a plane ticcket is cheaper than driving long distance. Answer: they're actually quite efficient and your money goes towards little kerosine.

And of course, the fact that they don't have to pay any tax on their many tons of fuel.  



#186 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 5,650 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 17 August 2019 - 23:41

When I fly to the UK that's about a ton of fuel, which is what, $300 of fuel? The ticket is $600 So 50% of my ticket price is fuel. Flying is about 1/3 of my CO2 footprint. 

 

If 4 of us drive to Sydney from Melbourne that use 72 litres of fuel, 18 litres each. I wouldn't mind betting a 737 uses that much per person to get to altitude.



#187 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 August 2019 - 23:06

About 3 L/100k /seat for a 600 nautical mile flight, so slightly more than the car with 4 people. The plane needs to be full too of course. Then you have to drive to the airport, power the airport infrastructure etc etc.

 

https://en.wikipedia...omy_in_aircraft



#188 scolbourne

scolbourne
  • Member

  • 508 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 22 August 2019 - 11:40

Australia is the third highest exporter of fossil fuels, so I guess there is a lot that Australia could do to reduce CO2 emissions. We have to accept that the world is warming and even if we stopped all human use of fossil fuels , we still have forest clearing and accidental forest fires to worry about. We have to aim to keep the temperature down to stop methane being released from tundra areas which will have a feed back affect. 

I dont hold much hope for humans doing enough about climate change, so think we will have to try to live with it by trying to stop population growth.

It is also essential to look at total energy used in producing renewables, and whether it will ever be paid back over the life of the  equipment.

Lots of people get excited about rail travel but the energy used to manufacture and lay  the track has to be included (same for roads), and this is where aircraft have the advantage especially on lightly used routes. There probably should be an extra tax on first class seats on planes to pay for the reduced capacity. Maybe have planes only flying long haul when full.

One of the best ways of reducing transport costs and energy usage is to avoid travelling altogether and have business  meetings by phone or internet. 



#189 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 16,873 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 22 August 2019 - 15:57

Lots of people get excited about rail travel but the energy used to manufacture and lay  the track has to be included (same for roads), and this is where aircraft have the advantage especially on lightly used routes. 

Only if you believe that airports and airliners are grown on trees.  Most railways were built 100+ years ago and roads even further back, so their energy costs are long since sunk.  Boeing is still making airliners, if not altogether successfully.  London Heathrow is to be extended, although over a lot of people's dead bodies.  Aviation's energy costs are still accruing. 



#190 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 6,725 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 22 August 2019 - 21:47

Yes, the old "embodied energy" chestnut often pops up in unsubstantiated statements. An easy way to "ballpark" such claims is to look at the cost and return equation. For example:

 

"wind turbines/solar panels/(insert your pet hate here) consume more energy to manufacture than they save"

 

So a solar panel you can buy for $200 (probably costs $30 to make) generates $2,000 worth of electricity during its warranty period. That solar panel factory must get their energy for free!