2 hours ago, Luke said:

Common sense once suggested that the earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

Yes, but later someone suggested it was round and Magellan circumnavigated the world.  Who knows what studies will provide evidence that aliens did tamper with primate genetics.  It's possible aliens are living amongst us now.  Just because we don't have evidence right now doesn't mean we won't discover some in the future.  There are many, many possibilities out there in all the disciplines that we haven't even dreamt of yet.  And we are currently enjoying comfortable lives that seemed impossible not that long ago.

Noel

 

7 hours ago, dave2013 said:

However, currently only about 12% of electricity in the USA comes from wind and solar, and we have a *lot* of wind turbines and solar panels.  I guess if you have your way then we will just have to build almost 10 times more of those turbines, panels, and batteries.  I wonder how much that will cost? 

I have discovered in my own situation that gas generation of electricity is very inefficient.

I have a 3000W gasoline generator with a 4 gallon tank and the instructions say it will run a maximum of 18 hours on that tank (less if under load).  What occurred to me is that my generator will happily suck down fuel and produce available power whether I use it or not.  The generator still uses fuel as it runs.

My batteries/inverter on the other hand only are only depleted by as much power as I use and consequently it is much more efficient.  I can use the gas generator to recharge the batteries and then use the batteries in a much more efficient manor.

I really don't know how this applies to major full scale industrial strength power production but Im sure the basic principle must transfer quite directly.  You want to know where the money comes from and I'd bet we'd actually be saving money by not being so inefficient as we currently are.

btw - have you watched the news lately or are you intentionally rounded at the free end?

40 minutes ago, sightseer said:

You want to know where the money comes from and I'd bet we'd actually be saving money by not being so inefficient as we currently are.

You're probably right that solar and wind are more efficient than natural gas or coal-fired power plants.  I'm not sure about nuclear or hydroelectric.

I've stated many times in these forums that I support further construction of solar and wind power plants.  I also support more development of geothermal.

What I am against is demonizing fossil fuels and trying to get rid of them so fast that it causes economic misery for everyone.

This nonsense about net zero or carbon neutral by 2030 needs to be challenged.  I'm encouraged, however, as big-talking govts. continue to push that date back.  I'm reading lately about 2035 and even 2040, as they realize that it simply isn't possible to accomplish in less than 20 years.  I would give a date of 2050 to be realistic.

Dave

16 hours ago, dave2013 said:

What technology?  Solar panels mounted on a raised platform so you can grow some crops under them?  That's not exactly an advanced concept. 

 

Huh... of course its defined as technology. Technology doesn't mean it has to be advanced technology. You are latching on to ONE word I used to be argumentative. Nobody said it was designed to feed billions like you implied and nobody said it was "advanced" technology.

 

16 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I'd never heard the catchy term "agrivoltaics", which is a misnomer because the panels are still "photovoltaic", so the term is just something that marketing folks came up with.

 

So what? It has to have a name and its a combination of photovoltaics and agriculture so why not. Again, you are just being argumentative and using it as an excuse to be cynical.

 

16 hours ago, dave2013 said:

Again, you love to promote these neat ideas but they just aren't practical in the near-term. 

 

I've not "promoted" anything. I simply corrected you when you implied the technology was no good because it can't provide power for billions of people, which it was never intended to do in the first place. Of course its practical, its in use successfully now. Its no different to "Flotovoltaics or any of the other technologies that combine photovoltaics with something else. And I'm amused that you think you can deem it impractical when you didn't even know what it was or what its role was intended to be. Its one of the useful renewable energy technologies of which there are many, that's how renewables work. 

 

16 hours ago, dave2013 said:

You don't have a background or education in science and technology, so it's easy for you to be dazzled by these youtube videos promoting this or that niche technology.

 

Your usual style, you now revert to thinly veiled insults. Honesty David, no idea why you do this. I'm not dazzled by anything, I've not said if I favour the technology or not, I've just corrected the misconceptions you have. If you would like me to comment on what I think about agrivoltaics, then I'd say its good for what it was designed for, and that's small to medium scale power production and utilising the space underneath for a useful purpose like growing crops or grazing cattle and sheep rather than just wasting the space. No different to any of the small to medium scale applications that have been brought to fruition. Every little helps. 

 

 

16 hours ago, dave2013 said:

However, currently only about 12% of electricity in the USA comes from wind and solar, and we have a *lot* of wind turbines and solar panels.

 

So what? That's nothing to do with gyrotrons to bore holes for geothermal which this thread was supposed to be about, or specifically agrivoltaics. In April US hit 22% from renewables. Reenables aren't just about wind, aren't just about solar, its a combination of renewables technologies. This isn't an argument, I'm just giving you the fact.

 

16 hours ago, dave2013 said:

I guess if you have your way then we will just have to build almost 10 times more of those turbines, panels, and batteries.

 

What do you mean "my way" I've just corrected your false perception of what agrivoltaics is about (which you knew nothing about). I've got to hand it to you, you are an expert in diverting  a thread in this direction, so that for the 5 millionth time we can argue about the same things over and over again. 

Can I suggest we refrain from arguing about the same thing over and over again. Its pointless.  And ultimately it will just result in the topic being locked. 

 

 

Edited July 8, 20223 yr by martin-w

16 hours ago, birdguy said:

Dave and I might be right or wrong.  But to dismiss our suppositions and theories borders on scientific bigotry because you refuse to consider the possibility.

 

Nobody is dismissing your suppositions. They are what they are supposition. They are simply being treated as just that, "supposition". Precisely why I said it wasn't possible to prove its not true. If you want your supposition to be taken seriously... provide evidence. 

 

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

Your usual style, you now revert to thinly veiled insults.

That was not meant as an insult.  You admitted in another post that you don't have a background or experience in science and technology.  You frequently post videos you find on youtube about this or that neat little technology that promises to revolutionize energy production.  I believe you do this not only because you find the stories interesting, but because those stories are encouraging for folks who believe like you do.  That's fine.  However, you latch on to these ideas not understanding that they are either impractical or at a minimum are many years away from being realized and applied in the real world.  There's "science" and then there's "applied science".  There are many experiments done in a lab on a small scale which are amazing and promising, but they mean little until and unless they can be utilized on a large scale.

I've admitted over time that the core issue we can't mention is real and that much of it is likely due to increased industrialization and population increase over the past 100 years.  However, I still believe that the issue has been abused, politicized, and exaggerated.  I agree that we need to transition to renewable energy and ultimately stop using fossil fuels.  I think much of the disagreement surrounding the issue lies in how we achieve this and how quickly.  What's been done lately clearly ain't working well, unless, that is, one is wealthy and doesn't worry about the cost.

Dave

28 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

However, I still believe that the issue has been abused, politicized, and exaggerated.

I would agree with the first two, but not the third. I remember as a child in the 1980s reading about the "Greenhouse Effect" and how rising CO2 levels would change our climate and have significant negative effects. It's been almost a half century now, and the science has been (by and large) validated as CO2 levels and global temperatures rise. Where things have diverged from the models have been in situations where our models were insufficiently complex or we didn't understand the interactions.

I used to work for a major US cable channel that focus on the weather. The meteorologists and climatologists we worked with were unanimous about the reality of the issue, and their urgency and stridency got louder as the effects got worse. It's no different than a house on fire - as it progresses from smelling smoke, to seeing smoke, to flames and then a raging inferno one's reaction will get more vigorous.

32 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

What's been done lately clearly ain't working well, unless, that is, one is wealthy and doesn't worry about the cost.

We're already seeing in the West how reservoirs are drying out and drinking water, irrigation and hydroelectricity are getting negatively impacted. Once LA and Las Vegas run out of drinking water and the Central Valley can no longer irrigate its crops the cost today will seem like peanuts compared to the economic disruption. And unfortunately for them we cannot delay that when it happens.

I am reminded of a quote by Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Too many people's livelihoods depend on the status quo and they don't want to pay the price to change and avoid future problems. It seems like they're avoiding it, but they're just accumulating a debt with a massive interest price when it comes due.

Cheers!

3 minutes ago, Luke said:

I am reminded of a quote by Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Too many people's livelihoods depend on the status quo and they don't want to pay the price to change and avoid future problems. It seems like they're avoiding it, but they're just accumulating a debt with a massive interest price when it comes due.

For myself, I am simply waiting with interest to see where the massive finger-pointing and blame-shifting will try to (I am sure quite angrily) reallocate responsibility when the bill does come due.

Mostly I just feel sorry for the children, and the children's children, etc. that will have the burden of dealing with our mess.

I hope they survive the experience.

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

You admitted in another post that you don't have a background or experience in science and technology.

That was not meant as an insult.

 

That depends whether writing science fiction for two decades and being interested in science and technology from the age of 17 is a "background". And that depends if correcting your misconceptions numerous times is evidence of a "background.

What's YOUR background smarty pants? 

Telling me I'm "dazzled" by YouTube videos as if I'm an easily influenced kid with no scientific knowledge is insulting. And that's added to previous insults in other discussions. 

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

You frequently post videos you find on youtube about this or that neat little technology that promises to revolutionize energy production.

 

So what? I also post articles from scientific publications. And yes,  YouTube videos about future technology are interesting. Not to mention posting about the exploits of cats,  Elon Musk's latest rockets, quantum physics, the inflaton field, UFO's, latest PC hardware in the hardware forum and anything I find interesting. 

 

Quote

I believe you do this not only because you find the stories interesting, but because those stories are encouraging for folks who believe like you do.  

 

What on Earth does "believe like me" mean? I post them because new technologies are fascinating to me and many others it stems from my interest in science and technology. There is no other agenda. I'm not the one with an agenda. 

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

you latch on to these ideas not understanding that they are either impractical or at a minimum are many years away from being realized and applied in the real world. 

 

I do nothing of the sort, you literally just made that up. I do not "latch on" to anything and am well aware that technology takes time to be manifest in the open market. Telling me I lack understanding of such an obvious concept is obviously insulting. 🙄

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

There are many experiments done in a lab on a small scale which are amazing and promising, but they mean little until and unless they can be utilized on a large scale.

 

Why are you stating the obviously! None of us here are idiots.

 

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

I've admitted over time that the core issue we can't mention is real and that much of it is likely due to increased industrialization and population increase over the past 100 years.  However, I still believe that the issue has been abused, politicized, and exaggerated.

 

We are all well aware of what you believe. You've diverted topics in this direction countless times and rehashed the same arguments over and over again. You have also totally ignored opposing arguments and turned up again making exactly the same points as if counter arguments had never been made. You have an inflated opinion of your own opinion.

And surely you realise that not mentioning the worlds climate change doesn't mean you aren't talking about climate change and about to get this topic locked AGAIN as usual. You've also delved into the politics and political discussions are not allowed on the forum either. Its like you want to get the topic locked. 

 

Edited July 8, 20223 yr by martin-w

37 minutes ago, Luke said:

We're already seeing in the West how reservoirs are drying out and drinking water, irrigation and hydroelectricity are getting negatively impacted.

Yes, and perhaps climate has had something to do with that.  I also think that population increase in the western USA has played a big role.

Take a look at the population increase in these states since 1940:

California: 7 million to 39 million

Arizona: 500,000 to 7 million

Nevada: 110,000 to 3 million

New Mexico: 500,000 to 2 million

All those people consuming ever increasing amounts of already scarce water has depleted the reservoirs, lakes, and underground aquifers.

When I lived in New Mexico, there was a company that wanted to pump out many billions of gallons of water a year from a huge aquifer under the plains of San Agustin and ship it off to Arizona and California.  The ranchers and farmers put up a valiant fight for years.  I don't know if they eventually won but I hope so.

Like I've said before, too many people, and in this case, in the wrong place as well.

Dave

Edited July 8, 20223 yr by dave2013

27 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

when the bill does come due.

The bill is already coming due.  We're all seeing it with price inflation, resulting from too many people and too few resources, plus an added dose of massive money printing to keep the party going.

Dave

OK, we've departed from the topic and have found ourselves back to yet another round of tedious "tastes great! less filling!" squabbling about climate change, so that's it.  Locked.