Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,750
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
*Costa Rica has raised its hand*Hydro power is turning out to be not so reliable.
*As has western New York*
*Costa Rica has raised its hand*Hydro power is turning out to be not so reliable.
And the GAO says the cost per launch for Artemis is not sustainable. Too expensive.Duh.Tidal power suffers from lack of good sites like hydropower does, only more so. Most of the useful tidal power sites would significantly block major shipping infrastructure.Wave power seems to be very difficult to harvest at a reasonable cost, and also has intermittency issues.
Perhaps, and this may be a little difficult to grasp, but just perhaps, this isn't only about you.
As for shipping and 'difficult' we're pretty good at adapting to situations.
For instance: Even though not a power solution example, here's one where government shows warts while new thinking breaks ground.
Artemis is, as expected, having issues with legacy and clean engineering problems while, even while developing new technology, SpaceX is sticking to schedule.
The UW says the Columbia will draw down from reduced snow packs. There are conservation programs in Wa like lining and covering irrigation runs to minimize losses. Glaciers and snow packs are disappering in Wa.I agree. Drought causes problems. Although the Columbia, Snake, Kootenay, system is not part of the current problems.Hydro power is turning out to be not so reliable.
We have pretty good statistics on most of the world. So we should be able to chose sources for creating reliable hydroelectric power if we come to realize we're all in this together.
Yes. there's that. Recent rainfall and flooding has been increasing over the last decade so maybe ....The UW says the Columbia will draw down from reduced snow packs. There are conservation programs in Wa like lining and covering irrigation runs to minimize losses. Glaciers and snow packs are disappering in Wa.I agree. Drought causes problems. Although the Columbia, Snake, Kootenay, system is not part of the current problems.Hydro power is turning out to be not so reliable.
We have pretty good statistics on most of the world. So we should be able to chose sources for creating reliable hydroelectric power if we come to realize we're all in this together.
Also known as "preventing recharging of aquifer".The UW says the Columbia will draw down from reduced snow packs. There are conservation programs in Wa like lining and covering irrigation runs to minimize losses.I agree. Drought causes problems. Although the Columbia, Snake, Kootenay, system is not part of the current problems.Hydro power is turning out to be not so reliable.
We have pretty good statistics on most of the world. So we should be able to chose sources for creating reliable hydroelectric power if we come to realize we're all in this together.
Maybe if you didn't tax so much in Washington, the glaciers wouldn't be leaving the state.Glaciers and snow packs are disappering in Wa.
Up here in the great NW we consider water in terms of rich and poor. Rich is snowfall and snowpack and poor is rainfall and puddles. While the rich may be moving away the poor are increasing in great amounts relentlessly. The result is much more annual precipitation.Also known as "preventing recharging of aquifer".The UW says the Columbia will draw down from reduced snow packs. There are conservation programs in Wa like lining and covering irrigation runs to minimize losses.I agree. Drought causes problems. Although the Columbia, Snake, Kootenay, system is not part of the current problems.Hydro power is turning out to be not so reliable.
We have pretty good statistics on most of the world. So we should be able to chose sources for creating reliable hydroelectric power if we come to realize we're all in this together.
Maybe if you didn't tax so much in Washington, the glaciers wouldn't be leaving the state.Glaciers and snow packs are disappering in Wa.
Exactly! And why do you suppose there are no glaciers in Massachusetts?You have us confused with Taxachussets.
Ok,ok..you have the alst word.Exactly! And why do you suppose there are no glaciers in Massachusetts?You have us confused with Taxachussets.
I see your Star Tribune link. Do you happen to be from Minnesota?3M hopes its new powder can help unlock green hydrogen production
If you were thinking maybe a wee bit of "nanostructured supported iridium catalyst powder" might do the trick, you'd be right.
No. Ohio. But Google Finance has an uncanny ability to feed me stories that interest me. And I just started visiting GF.I see your Star Tribune link. Do you happen to be from Minnesota?3M hopes its new powder can help unlock green hydrogen production
If you were thinking maybe a wee bit of "nanostructured supported iridium catalyst powder" might do the trick, you'd be right.
Sorry for OT
Nitpick: I think you mean "electricity supply," not "energy supply." Many households spend more on the gasoline and diesel they pump into their cars and trucks than their entire electricity bill.We do. Fully 35% of California's energy supply comes from renewable sources, a proportion that increased every year for two decades until now. It's been a good investment and a successful one, financially and environmentally, and grearly reduced the amount of dirty power we're obliged to buy at considerable cost from other states.
Quite. Though, the 65% of electricity being lost seems even more relevant.Nitpick: I think you mean "electricity supply," not "energy supply." Many households spend more on the gasoline and diesel they pump into their cars and trucks than their entire electricity bill.We do. Fully 35% of California's energy supply comes from renewable sources, a proportion that increased every year for two decades until now. It's been a good investment and a successful one, financially and environmentally, and grearly reduced the amount of dirty power we're obliged to buy at considerable cost from other states.
I've attached a graphic showing the energy source/sinks for the entire U.S.A.
One thing that catches my eye in this graphic is the huge (23.8 quadrillion Btu) "electricity system energy losses."
linkarticle said:In 2019, U.S. utility-scale generation facilities consumed 38 quadrillion British thermal units (quads) of energy to provide 14 quads of electricity. Most of the difference between these values was lost as an inherent result of the energy conversion process.
The "internal combustion engine energy losses" are roughly 65% as well; And solar panel energy losses are typically 80-85%. For whatever reason, that energy is lost everywhere hasn't been explicitly mentioned in the graphic. However it is one of the first things they themselves point out in their footnote.Nitpick: I think you mean "electricity supply," not "energy supply." Many households spend more on the gasoline and diesel they pump into their cars and trucks than their entire electricity bill.We do. Fully 35% of California's energy supply comes from renewable sources, a proportion that increased every year for two decades until now. It's been a good investment and a successful one, financially and environmentally, and grearly reduced the amount of dirty power we're obliged to buy at considerable cost from other states.
I've attached a graphic showing the energy source/sinks for the entire U.S.A.
One thing that catches my eye in this graphic is the huge (23.8 quadrillion Btu) "electricity system energy losses."