Vacation Deniers
-
Personally, I just need to find out how to generate electricity from the waste heat of my two ESXi servers. Once that's figured out I can definitely go off-grid.
-
automotive battery recycling
90% recycle rate. So there would be some environmental impact over time.
-
I wonder what that would look like....Night time your energy is from gas, daytime from solar?
NG is much cleaner anyway.
Not really. I guess you could. Typically they are grid-tied. In the daytime, you produce an excess of energy and feed it back in to the grid, lowering demand in your area for coal-fired energy. In the evening, you draw from the grid when demand is much lower. Overall, it is a huge net gain for you and if you oversize your unit, in some areas, you can get a check instead of a bill.
Right now, our energy grid is sized for peak demand, which is during the day. This is also the time that solar produces the most energy. So, overall, they are a great compliment to each other. Solar helps take up the slack during the day and they do not have to fire up the supplementary power stations nearly as often. Supplementary power stations that operate during peak demand are typically CNG turbines and not nearly as efficient as a steak based system as they offput a lot of waste heat that never passed their energy on to the turbines.
-
Yeah, my dad will end up getting a check in the winter. Which he will use to pay the gas bill....
-
90% recycle rate. So there would be some environmental impact over time.
It would be 100% if people would get their shit together. Like me, I have a shelf in the garage full of old UPS batteries. My hypocrisy knows no bounds. ;)
Batteries are essentially infinitely recyclable.
-
As long as it's maintainable by you, it shouldn't matter.
If you're dumping them, then it's a problem.
-
No chemical waste?
IIRC, aside from asphalt, batteries are one of the most recycled things out there. Now, that's lead-acid stuff, not LIon, but maybe those can be, too.
-
Yeah, my dad will end up getting a check in the winter. Which he will use to pay the gas bill....
Depending upon his location, he could look in to supplementary hydronic heat. It can be retrofitted in to conventional forced-air systems. Same concept as what I looked in to for municipal water heating, but instead of putting a heat exchanger in to a water heater, you place it in the plenum. A storage tank for water and you have a hell of a heat sink to pull from over the night.
Pretty amazing stuff actually. A friend uses it to heat his pool in the summertime, and his garage through in floor radiant tubing in the winter. All for the cost of running some pumps, which beats the hell out of paying for CNG.
-
I likes me them quick charge batteries.
-
Now, that's lead-acid stuff, not LIon, but maybe those can be, too.
Hmmmmm, good question. My first hit says:
Lithium ion batteries should not enter the solid waste stream and disposal is regulated in the United States when high volumes are involved. They can be easily recycled and their byproducts used to create new products.
-
That whole part about their byproducts can be used to create new products leads me to believe that they are not recycled in to more batteries the way that lead acid batteries are.
-
That whole part about their byproducts can be used to create new products leads me to believe that they are not recycled in to more batteries the way that lead acid batteries are.
Yes, Lithium-Ion batteries are actually very evil. "Easily recycled" means "shipped to China where we don't see what they do" - the same as rare-earth refining (which are neither rare nor earth). Messy, polluting and quite dangerous to the workforce.
- For example, a Lithium cell will explode if abused - eg overcharging, or attempting to recyle it. The business calls it "venting with flame".
Lithium's simply very reactive, which makes recovery of the metal very difficult and energy intensive - and makes it good for batteries as well.
Large-scale energy storage is actually a non-starter at present.
Batteries are a "don't make me laugh" technology. Expensive, bulky, short lifetime (how long do your UPS batteries last, and they rarely get discharged) and very low energy density. Suitable for a very small install, useless at scale.Then there is the highly experimental stuff, like flywheel, super/ultra/hyper-capacitors and the like. Interesting, but not ready yet.
The only currently viable large-scale storage technology is pumped-storage hydroelectric, which requires large ponds (up a mountain and down a mountain) that don't mind being rapidly emptied and filled as demand changes. While there quite a few possible sites, the whole "empty and fill two lakes" part tends to dampen enthusiasm and so it's unlikely that many new ones will be built in the western world.
This means that large-scale intermittent renewables (Solar/Wind/Tidal etc) is simply impossible at the moment without large-scale "demand management" - or rolling power cuts, as they used to be called.
There's some very interesting research being done into both storage and generation plant, however pushing for many (or large) renewable installations now (other than test plants) is counter-productive, because that takes budget (both capital and energy) and manpower away from the research, while creating a stock of installs that are likely to be totally obsolete before they pay off the initial energy debt.
The UK's National Grid is very worried, and have repeatedly reminded the politicians that the only way they can keep the Grid up with the current wind and solar PV targets is to do "large-scale demand management", or to pay a lot of gas plants to stay in "warm standby" - ie burning fuel to stay ready to cover a dip in wind - and lots of small diesel ready to start up.
-
This means that large-scale intermittent renewables (Solar/Wind/Tidal etc) is simply impossible at the moment without large-scale "demand management" - or rolling power cuts, as they used to be called.
There's some very interesting research being done into both storage and generation plant, however pushing for many (or large) renewable installations now (other than test plants) is counter-productive, because that takes budget (both capital and energy) and manpower away from the research, while creating a stock of installs that are likely to be totally obsolete before they pay off the initial energy debt.
The UK's National Grid is very worried, and have repeatedly reminded the politicians that the only way they can keep the Grid up with the current wind and solar PV targets is to do "large-scale demand management", or to pay a lot of gas plants to stay in "warm standby" - ie burning fuel to stay ready to cover a dip in wind - and lots of small diesel ready to start up.
I think a bigger issue preventing an immediate rollout to renewable energy is real estate. There simple isn't sufficient quality space that would allow generating enough energy to replace a large percentage of non-renewable plants. This is because solar and wind farms require significantly more land than traditional power plants in order to generate the same amount of power, and because solar and wind farms are location sensitive.
-
Meh, a lot of discussion may be rendered rather moo, rather soon.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/2_coronal_holes.jpg
-
Sauron looks angry.
-
did i miss a class X4 flare? well that's gonna be bad news if it hits us....
-
A storage tank for water and you have a hell of a heat sink to pull from over the night.
Pretty amazing stuff actually. A friend uses it to heat his pool in the summertime, and his garage through in floor radiant tubing in the winter. All for the cost of running some pumps, which beats the hell out of paying for CNG.
Real Question
You're in some foresaken place with lost of sun right?
How big of a tank?
How hot is he keeping the water?
-
In this case, Sauron is not as angry. That's the problem.
Or the solution, if you see CO2 as a problem.
And, if that slit at the top left is his pupil. Then it rather looks like Sauron is having a seizure.
-
You're in some foresaken place with lost of sun right?
I assume that was "lots"? Somewhat. I live in the Midwest USA, so we get a fair amount of sun. Enough to make it worthwhile. You really do not need to be in California for it to make economic sense. When he heats his pool, it does not get it super hot, but is just enough to make it more comfortable towards the beginning and end of the season. In the winter, he diverts it to the radiant heating in the garage (the pool is alongside the garage). It does not keep it 70F in there, but when the slab is warm it keeps it much more comfortable in there and melts off the snow from the cars, etc. It probably would be silly to do such a thing just for the garage, but in his case most of the cost was sunk in the project for the pool heater. All he needed was the diverter vavles and PEX in the slab.
How big of a tank?
Good question. I have only heard of such systems and I have no direct exposure. One of our clients was (they recently went out of business) a commercial HVAC contractor. You know how we geek out on computer hardware? He did the same with emerging technologies in his field and would tell me about them. The tank would not have to be that big. It is supplemental heat, not primary heat. But, the larger the tank, the more mass. The more mass, the more stored potential heat energy. It is much like radiant in floor heating with a slab foundation. It takes a while to get it up to temperature, but when you do the heat continues long after the system has "shut off".
How hot is he keeping the water?
See above. If I had the answers, I would tell you. I am not an HVAC guy though. ;) We have pretty much reached the limit as to what I know about hydronic heat. On a semi-related note though, I remember Jamie Hyneman talking about something related that he did to his house.
-
I assume that was "lots"? Somewhat. I live in the Midwest USA,
Everything always looks fine in the preview...
Northerly or Southerly Midwest?...
Have thought about the water for energy-storage issue before, but buttumed: would need too much storage, poor efficiency for transfer out of storage, etc...
TIL/Realized: oh yeah! radiant heat; and your new system doesn't have to replace your current system for 100% of the entire duration of the heating season.
Your friend has very slick setup.
-
Northerly or Southerly Midwest?...
North.
Have thought about the water for energy-storage issue before, but buttumed: would need too much storage
Water is massively dense as compared to air, so for a given volume it holds a lot more energy. I would guess that 200-300 gallons would be worthwhile? In my friend's case, his thermal storage masses are a swimming pool and a concrete slab, so no need for a tank.
poor efficiency for transfer out of storage, etc...
Unless I misunderstand your statement...if the storage tank is within your house, then the transfer of heat out of storage would be 100% efficient. Now, as the temperature differential decreases, you would have less heat transferred as the air moves over the coils, but once you bring that heat in to the house it can only escape through the walls and ceiling. It can't leap straight to the outdoors.
TIL/Realized: oh yeah! radiant heat; and your new system doesn't have to replace your current system for 100% of the entire duration of the heating season.
Exactly. Supplemental heat, to reduce your need for NG heating.
Your friend has very slick setup.
Yep. It was a rather organic process though. They originally planned out the solar pool heater and when he realized that it would only be used to heat the pool a small portion of the year and the solar heat exchangers were going to be installed on the garage anyway, he asked them what it would take to make it heat the garage the rest of the year. They said it would only take a couple of valves, etc. Minimal cost. So they did it.
Pretty slick thinking on his part.
-
if the storage tank is within your house, then the transfer of heat out of storage would be 100% efficient.
My inner-mathematician is
My inner-engineer-wannabe is 'd...
The buttuming issue was running a heat-exchanger* off of hot water wouldn't work too well... but IANAcivEngSo, add radiators* to my ducted house, or a speciality application like your friend's garage floor.
No I'm not thinking about this for the current abode, just thinking in general, tho.
*"Heat exchanger", that was the word I was looking for! - oh, and hey, radiators are heat exchangers and folks used them for a long time, so I bet it would actually work... I am my own worst
-
So, add radiators* to my ducted house, or a speciality application like your friend's garage floor.
Negative. Are you familiar with the inner workings of a forced-air HVAC system?
You have your furnace, and in the exit plenum is the A-coil for your air conditioning unit that through the refrigeration cycle picks up heat and transfers it out of your home in the summer. You take the same concept, minus the refrigeration cycle, for supplementary heating. You put a heat exchanger, which is very similar in concept to the A-coil in the plenum and circulate hot water (or an antifreeze solution) through the coils and transfer the heat to the air traveling through your HVAC ducts.
So, it is more like a car radiator in your air plenum.
http://www.guardianpowercleaning.com/A-COIL1.jpg
That is a refrigeration A-coil, but I believe they are similar. All of the retrofitting is done at the furnace plenum for forced-air systems. Or, at least as far as I understand it. IANA-HVAC-guy. ;)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMy8krtJvYU
I did a quick search for YouTube videos on the subject. There is a series about hydronic forced air retrofits. I have no idea if it is interesting or well done, YMMV.
-
Who the fuck is even talking about that? We are talking about becoming much less reliant on fossil fuels. There is literally no one saying that we should simultaneously shut down coal and build solar because everyone except you realizes that is a horrible idea.
Part of the problem here is that some of the "greens" have a positively idiotic definition of "alternative energy"...
You cannot, I repeat, cannot have a long-term stable electrical power generation source monoculture, any more than you can have a long-term stable crop monoculture.
So: for all the greens out there: do you think hydro, landfill-gas, and biogas should be banished from the face of the earth?
So, add radiators* to my ducted house, or a speciality application like your friend's garage floor.
Actually, many commercial hydronic systems use local Air Handling Units, which are an A-coil with hot (or chilled) water running through it and a fan, mounted in something resembling a furnace plenum.
-
So: for all the greens out there: do you think hydro, landfill-gas, and biogas should be banished from the face of the earth?
Are there actually people calling for getting rid of landfill or bio gas sources? I don't see either one of those being anything comparable to hydro.
-
You cannot, I repeat, cannot have a long-term stable electrical power generation source monoculture, any more than you can have a long-term stable crop monoculture.
Lots of basic reasons for this.
Giving credit to both, but tarunik uses the word "actually" which actually necessary for my self-perception of the ensuing possible cleverness...
@Polygeekery said:
the inner workings of a forced-air HVAC system?
Actually, [blah blah good words blah] a furnace plenum.
Technically, actually I need to do more research and less mere thinking.
-
Giving credit to both, but tarunik uses the word "actually" which actually necessary for my self-perception of the ensuing possible cleverness...
You're a @tarunik-ist.
-
Part of the problem here is that some of the "greens" have a positively idiotic definition of "alternative energy"...
Some of the greens are fucking morons. Doesn't mean that the rest of the world gets to sit down, crack open a bear, and dislocate their shoulder through patting themselves on the back.
-
...crack open a bear, and dislocate their shoulder through patting themselves on the back.
I wouldn't worry about the shoulder. Probably have some worse injuries from fighting that bear.
-
-
Touchə
-
-
-
-
Right here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k000a09uSYk
-
-
That's just composing character abuse. Find strange single characters based on ‘e’…
-
Well clearly, you'd use a Vietnamese character, as you already did...
-
Google the "Rumailah oil field" vis a vis the first Gulf War.
Short story: Kuwait built horizontal wells to steal Iraqi oil and break the OPEC quotas. This benefited the US (well, all consumers, really). Iraq attempted diplomatic resolution and failed. Iraq shopped an invasion around its diplomatic channels, including meeting with Donald Rumsfeld, who suggested that the US would not intervene. Iraq invaded, and got stomped by the US. That's why Iraq was burning Kuwaiti oil wells -- so that the oil wouldn't end up on the open market in violation of the OPEC treaty.
-
And that has what to do with the topic at hand?
We didn't go to war to gain access to that oil, we went to war (with the approval of the UN, mind) to defend Kuwait's sovereignty.
-
We didn't go to war to gain access to that oil, we went to war (with the approval of the UN, mind) to defend Kuwait's sovereignty.
We already had access to the oil, and lost it. We went to war to get it back. UN approval is irrelevant. The non-OPEC world materially and strategically benefited from Kuwaiti violations of its OPEC treaties. It was violating international law. We went to war to help them violate international law.
The topic at hand, at the point to which I replied, was that whether west goes to war in order to maintain its supply of oil. The Rumaila oil field proves it.
-
We already had access to the oil, and lost it.
This is true.
We went to war to get it back.
This is not.
The non-OPEC world materially and strategically benefited from Kuwaiti violations of its OPEC treaties. It was violating international law.
So was Iraq, by invading Kuwait.
We went to war to help them violate international law.
I highly doubt that is true. I think it's far more likely that we saw the crime of invading a sovereign nation is significantly worse than the crime of drilling horizontal oil wells. And I would agree with that. Emphatically. (For one thing, the horizontal oil wells don't directly kill people using guns and tanks.)
The topic at hand, at the point to which I replied, was that whether west goes to war in order to maintain its supply of oil.
Right; and it doesn't.
-
So was Iraq, by invading Kuwait.
Logic fail. Iraq was losing like 10% of its GDP due to the violations, which continued for some 20 years before the invasion. Iraq attempted diplomatic resolutions to the Rumaila slant drilling operations, and Kuwait's OPEC violations. Up to and including renegotiating OPEC treaties, so that they were more liberal. Kuwait agreed and then renegged.
So if the war was about international crime, why didn't Donald Rumsfeld intervene when he and Saddam met to discuss the invasion of Kuwait? Why didn't he tell Saddam that this would be seen as a grievous violation of international law, and dealt with with violence?
I highly doubt that is true. I think it's far more likely that we saw the crime of invading a sovereign nation is significantly worse than the crime of drilling horizontal oil wells. And I would agree with that. Emphatically. (For one thing, the horizontal oil wells don't directly kill people using guns and tanks.)
Who is "we"? I highly doubt you were involved in the strategic decision to invade. It was a strategic decision. The American public had nothing to do with it.
-
Logic fail.
Looking forward to this asspull...
Iraq was losing like 10% of its GDP due to the violations, which continued for some 20 years before the invasion. Iraq attempted diplomatic resolutions to the Rumaila slant drilling operations, and Kuwait's OPEC violations. Up to an including renegotiating OPEC treaties, so that they were more liberal. Kuwait agreed and then renegged.
Ok; what part of that justifies invasion? What part of that makes invading another country not an international crime?
So if the war was about international crime, why didn't Donald Rumsfeld intervene when he and Saddam met to discuss the invasion of Kuwait?
I have no idea. Ask him.
Why didn't he tell Saddam that this would be seen as a grievous violation of international law, and dealt with with violence?
I have no idea. Ask him.
... is your argument here that Iraq invading Kuwait wasn't an international crime because Donald Rumsfield personally said it wasn't? Is... is that where your brain is right now?
Who is "we"? I highly doubt you were involved in the strategic decision to invade. It was a strategic decision. The American public had nothing to do with it.
Yay, pedantic dickwedery!
-
So if the war was about international crime, why didn't Donald Rumsfeld intervene when he and Saddam met to discuss the invasion of Kuwait? Why didn't he tell Saddam that this would be seen as a grievous violation of international law, and dealt with with violence?
I think they didn't expect him to actually invade. This is all pretty flaky logic to say that war was all about oil.
Also: Goddamnit, use the fucking quotes the right way. It's like you're intending to communicate poorly. I can't understand why.
-
-
-
This is all pretty flaky logic to say that war was all about oil.
Wars are rarely over a single thing. There's usually a single casus belli but that's usually not the deep reason(s), the why of why the belligerent considers it important to take action in the first place.
In the First Gulf War, oil was very entangled in why things happened, but was surely not the only reason. There was also the blowback from the Iran-Iraq war, the economic problems in Kuwait, the general attitude of the Iraqi regime to its citizens and neighbours in the first place, and the fact that Iraq had been a Soviet ally and the Cold War was ending. Oh, and Iraq was a significant debtor to Kuwait (and Saudi Arabia).
Once Iraq invaded, action was pretty much locked in. There were strategic reasons why they couldn't be allowed to succeed (changing borders by forcefully swallowing states is a really dangerous precedent, especially according to all the other neighbouring states!) and the west got dragged in because a lot of countries had a very keen eye to what would happen to all that oil. Oil's fungibility means that interruptions to supply in one part of the world very quickly translate into price changes.
-
Oil's fungibility means that interruptions to supply in one part of the world very quickly translate into price changes
Oil prices have been all over the board in the years since this war. The biggest culprit in raising prices during that entire period was Goldman Sachs. They suffered no consequences for their actions. Obviously, there isn't all that much consternation at the government level about keeping oil prices low.
What Can I Recycle? |
?
