The Y2K problem - again (was: Fwd: Linux on a small memory PC) [message #415126] |
Sun, 17 July 2022 16:32 |
Andreas Kohlbach
Messages: 1456 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 11:16:25 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>
> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
>>>
>>> Signed 8 bit for years before 1900? Makes no sense. Unsigned 8 bit
>>> gets you pretty far. That doesn't sound like anything that would pass a
>>> design review.
>>>
>>> I worked with computers from 1964 until a few years ago.
>>> I can't recall anyone abusing dates to save space.
>>
>> Isn't this exactly what the Y2K problem was all about? Storing the
>> last two digits as characters seems just as arbitrary as using a
>> single 8bit binary value. True with just one more byte, overflow
>> isn't a problem, but if everyone used just two more bytes and kept
>> all characters in a year, Y2K wouldn't have been a problem.
>
> The user enters that 2 digit year. If you want to store a 4 digit year,
> some piece of software is going to have to figure out whether to add
> '19' or '20'.
If the software allows 20XX... If not (and it's older) it might only
store two digits: possible Y2K impact.
> When you want to enter a credit card expiration year, no one has the
> patience to enter 20xx for the next 100 years.
I see that in web form pulldown menus are used giving the current and may
be 10 next years (like 2030) to just click.
> I did a lot of Y2K remediation. Rarely was the correct solution to ask
> the user to enter a 4 digit year. I can't recall that ever happening.
Or it was static. So the 19 was fixed (and not saved) and the user added
the rest. So when 1985 he just typed "85" and the machine would likely
also only store "85".
I move this into the folklore group, knowing many of you read there too.
--
Andreas
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again (was: Fwd: Linux on a small memory PC) [message #415130 is a reply to message #415126] |
Sun, 17 July 2022 19:07 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 11:16:25 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>>
>> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
>>>>
>>>> Signed 8 bit for years before 1900? Makes no sense. Unsigned 8 bit
>>>> gets you pretty far. That doesn't sound like anything that would pass a
>>>> design review.
>>>>
>>>> I worked with computers from 1964 until a few years ago.
>>>> I can't recall anyone abusing dates to save space.
>>>
>>> Isn't this exactly what the Y2K problem was all about? Storing the
>>> last two digits as characters seems just as arbitrary as using a
>>> single 8bit binary value. True with just one more byte, overflow
>>> isn't a problem, but if everyone used just two more bytes and kept
>>> all characters in a year, Y2K wouldn't have been a problem.
>>
>> The user enters that 2 digit year. If you want to store a 4 digit year,
>> some piece of software is going to have to figure out whether to add
>> '19' or '20'.
>
> If the software allows 20XX... If not (and it's older) it might only
> store two digits: possible Y2K impact.
>
>> When you want to enter a credit card expiration year, no one has the
>> patience to enter 20xx for the next 100 years.
>
> I see that in web form pulldown menus are used giving the current and may
> be 10 next years (like 2030) to just click.
>
>> I did a lot of Y2K remediation. Rarely was the correct solution to ask
>> the user to enter a 4 digit year. I can't recall that ever happening.
>
> Or it was static. So the 19 was fixed (and not saved) and the user added
> the rest. So when 1985 he just typed "85" and the machine would likely
> also only store "85".
>
> I move this into the folklore group, knowing many of you read there too.
What’s often done is to pick a base year older than the oldest date you
have to deal with. For example, if your company was started in 1970 you
can’t have order dates prior to that, so you can interpret order dates ‘00’
to ‘69’ as 2000 to 2069, and anything ‘70’ and above as 1970. This is only
a temporary kludge, but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
global warming will have killed us all off.
--
Pete
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415132 is a reply to message #415130] |
Sun, 17 July 2022 21:14 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> What’s often done is to pick a base year older than the oldest date you
> have to deal with. For example, if your company was started in 1970 you
> can’t have order dates prior to that, so you can interpret order dates ‘00’
> to ‘69’ as 2000 to 2069, and anything ‘70’ and above as 1970. This is only
> a temporary kludge, but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
> global warming will have killed us all off.
That's the fixed window solution.
A sliding window uses the current date to pick a base year.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415135 is a reply to message #415132] |
Sun, 17 July 2022 23:42 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> What’s often done is to pick a base year older than the oldest date you
>> have to deal with. For example, if your company was started in 1970 you
>> can’t have order dates prior to that, so you can interpret order dates ‘00’
>> to ‘69’ as 2000 to 2069, and anything ‘70’ and above as 1970. This is only
>> a temporary kludge, but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
>> global warming will have killed us all off.
>
> That's the fixed window solution.
> A sliding window uses the current date to pick a base year.
>
Depends on the application, but in either case an application can still be
using a two-digit date and still be sort-of y2k compliant.
--
Pete
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again (was: Fwd: Linux on a small memory PC) [message #415136 is a reply to message #415130] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 03:46 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 238 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
> global warming will have killed us all off.
Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us all off.
A bit of warming is nothing but good news
--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.
Jonathan Swift
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415137 is a reply to message #415136] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 07:46 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
>> global warming will have killed us all off.
>
> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us all off.
> A bit of warming is nothing but good news
It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people appear
to be morons.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again (was: Fwd: Linux on a small memory PC) [message #415148 is a reply to message #415136] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 12:03 |
D.J.
Messages: 821 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 08:46:19 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
>> global warming will have killed us all off.
>
> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us all off.
> A bit of warming is nothing but good news
Ding dong, your brain is calling youuu !
--
Jim
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415156 is a reply to message #415137] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 15:16 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
>>> global warming will have killed us all off.
>>
>> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us all off.
>> A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>
> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people appear
> to be morons.
>
Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock, but maybe it will be enough to
to keep us going until fusion comes on line. It’s no longer 30 years away,
now they’re talking about the next decade. One sure sign is that big
investors are starting to put money in.
--
Pete
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415157 is a reply to message #415156] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 15:27 |
scott
Messages: 4237 Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
>>>> global warming will have killed us all off.
>>>
>>> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us all off.
>>> A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>
>> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people appear
>> to be morons.
>>
>
> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock,
On what basis do you make that claim? Be specific.
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415160 is a reply to message #415157] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 16:02 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> > but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
>>>> > global warming will have killed us all off.
>>>>
>>>> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us all off.
>>>> A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>
>>> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people appear
>>> to be morons.
>>>
>>
>> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock,
>
> On what basis do you make that claim? Be specific.
>
<quote>
One of the big challenges here is that wind and solar power plants have a
much lower "capacity factor" than plants that run on fuel. A fuel-based
plant can run around the clock (with breaks for maintenance), while wind
and solar plants produce energy only when the wind is blowing or sun is
shining. Although a nuclear plant and a wind farm might have the same
"nameplate capacity" of 1 gigawatt, you'd actually need three or four wind
farms that size to produce the same number of MWh as the nuclear plant.
(EIA info on US capacity factors here; nuclear is highest, producing around
90 percent of the time, while solar PV is lowest, at around 20 percent.)
</quote>
https://www.vox.com/2015/6/9/8748081/us-100-percent-renewabl e-energy
--
Pete
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415161 is a reply to message #415157] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 16:05 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> > but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time global
>>>> > warming will have killed us all off.
>>>>
>>>> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us
>>>> all off. A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>
>>> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people
>>> appear to be morons.
>>>
>>
>> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock,
>
> On what basis do you make that claim? Be specific.
This is going to be ugly.
On my way to the gym I pass an office park. I large company just moved
in an they are installing solar panels above the parking lots. The area
is huge, maybe 200 cars can park under the panels. I haven't looked but
I assume there will be charging stations under the panels.
How cool is that? Some number of employees drive to work, get their car
charged while they work and they're good to go.
Today coming back from the gym an adult passes me on one of those
battery powered scooters. No large battery in sight. I went the same
way he was going for about 2 miles. I never did catch up with him.
Batteries keep getting better.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415164 is a reply to message #415161] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 16:13 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time global
>>>> >> warming will have killed us all off.
>>>> >
>>>> > Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us
>>>> > all off. A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>>
>>>> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people
>>>> appear to be morons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock,
>>
>> On what basis do you make that claim? Be specific.
>
> This is going to be ugly.
>
>
> On my way to the gym I pass an office park. I large company just moved
> in an they are installing solar panels above the parking lots. The area
> is huge, maybe 200 cars can park under the panels. I haven't looked but
> I assume there will be charging stations under the panels.
>
> How cool is that? Some number of employees drive to work, get their car
> charged while they work and they're good to go.
>
> Today coming back from the gym an adult passes me on one of those
> battery powered scooters. No large battery in sight. I went the same
> way he was going for about 2 miles. I never did catch up with him.
> Batteries keep getting better.
>
It makes a lot of sense to stick solar panels in otherwise unused places.
Putting them over the parking lot also provides shade, but remember the 20%
factor I quoted. It’s not easy (currently, lacking practical
superconductors) to ship solar energy around to follow the sun and you
otherwise need some large-capacity storage. One way is to use pumped
storage, but I think people might object to this. It would be tough to
provide enough battery storage.
My feeling is solar should be used on a large scale in places with lots of
sun and access to water to generate hydrogen for use as fuel. Arabia and
North Africa could be energy giants in the new economy.
--
Pete
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415165 is a reply to message #415164] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 16:15 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time global
>>>> >>> warming will have killed us all off.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us
>>>> >> all off. A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>> >
>>>> > It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people
>>>> > appear to be morons.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock,
>>>
>>> On what basis do you make that claim? Be specific.
>>
>> This is going to be ugly.
>>
>>
>> On my way to the gym I pass an office park. I large company just moved
>> in an they are installing solar panels above the parking lots. The area
>> is huge, maybe 200 cars can park under the panels. I haven't looked but
>> I assume there will be charging stations under the panels.
>>
>> How cool is that? Some number of employees drive to work, get their car
>> charged while they work and they're good to go.
>>
>> Today coming back from the gym an adult passes me on one of those
>> battery powered scooters. No large battery in sight. I went the same
>> way he was going for about 2 miles. I never did catch up with him.
>> Batteries keep getting better.
>>
>
> It makes a lot of sense to stick solar panels in otherwise unused places.
> Putting them over the parking lot also provides shade, but remember the 20%
> factor I quoted. It’s not easy (currently, lacking practical
> superconductors) to ship solar energy around to follow the sun and you
> otherwise need some large-capacity storage. One way is to use pumped
> storage, but I think people might object to this. It would be tough to
> provide enough battery storage.
>
> My feeling is solar should be used on a large scale in places with lots of
> sun and access to water to generate hydrogen for use as fuel. Arabia and
> North Africa could be energy giants in the new economy.
>
I forgot to mention that solar panels also have a limited lifespan. In 20
years there’s going to be a lot of stuff to recycle.
--
Pete
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415166 is a reply to message #415160] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 16:17 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
>>>> >> global warming will have killed us all off.
>>>> >
>>>> > Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us all off.
>>>> > A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>>
>>>> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people appear
>>>> to be morons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock,
>>
>> On what basis do you make that claim? Be specific.
>>
>
> <quote>
> One of the big challenges here is that wind and solar power plants have a
> much lower "capacity factor" than plants that run on fuel. A fuel-based
> plant can run around the clock (with breaks for maintenance), while wind
> and solar plants produce energy only when the wind is blowing or sun is
> shining. Although a nuclear plant and a wind farm might have the same
> "nameplate capacity" of 1 gigawatt, you'd actually need three or four wind
> farms that size to produce the same number of MWh as the nuclear plant.
> (EIA info on US capacity factors here; nuclear is highest, producing around
> 90 percent of the time, while solar PV is lowest, at around 20 percent.)
> </quote>
>
> https://www.vox.com/2015/6/9/8748081/us-100-percent-renewabl e-energy
Who builds wind or solar plants?
What the hell is the author trying to say?
Sure solar takes a lot of space. When the panels create a roof over a
parking area, they are a good use of that space. I don't see how the
space used is relevant.
I'm not 100% against nuclear, but if we can't dispose of the waste we
need to make sure the company creating the waste plans to contain that
waste for the next 100,000 years.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415167 is a reply to message #415160] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 16:23 |
scott
Messages: 4237 Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>> > On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
>>>> >> global warming will have killed us all off.
>>>> >
>>>> > Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us all off.
>>>> > A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>>
>>>> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people appear
>>>> to be morons.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock,
>>
>> On what basis do you make that claim? Be specific.
>>
>
> <quote>
> One of the big challenges here is that wind and solar power plants have a
> much lower "capacity factor" than plants that run on fuel. A fuel-based
> plant can run around the clock (with breaks for maintenance), while wind
> and solar plants produce energy only when the wind is blowing or sun is
> shining. Although a nuclear plant and a wind farm might have the same
> "nameplate capacity" of 1 gigawatt, you'd actually need three or four wind
> farms that size to produce the same number of MWh as the nuclear plant.
> (EIA info on US capacity factors here; nuclear is highest, producing around
> 90 percent of the time, while solar PV is lowest, at around 20 percent.)
> </quote>
That doesn't make renewable energy a "Crock".
It makes it a significant and viable component of a sustainable
energy mix. Can renewable sources provide 100% of energy? First,
define "energy" - the electrical grid? All transportation?
Energy required for e.g. producing Steel, cement or aluminum (between the
three, they use more than 2% of all energy worldwide).
>
> https://www.vox.com/2015/6/9/8748081/us-100-percent-renewabl e-energy
Note that article was written seven years ago, based on a stanford
study.
And even the article states:
"It is technically and economically feasible to run the US economy
entirely on renewable energy, and to do so by 2050."
Now, it is also clear that such steps as improved home insulation,
and improved energy efficiency across the board is required to
get to 100%.
Note that energy use has grown exponentially for the last 150
years. That cannot continue (for multiple reasons including
declining stored solar energy (oil), waste heat etc.). If it
does continue, we're only four hundred years away from a
planetary surface temperature of 212F.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
Meanwhile, if we don't get the replacements (whether renewable
or nuclear - personally I think both are required) in time,
we're screwed again.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
What they didn't state is that it would be politically feasible.
Ultimately, our current economic system is predicated on growth.
Economic growth is predicated on energy growth and population
growth. The latter is already starting to fall (China's in
particular should drop precipitously in a decade or two). Consider
that crypto-mining is wasting something like 30% of Texas'
daily electrical generation and lament the short-sightedness of
the modern capitalist system.
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415168 is a reply to message #415164] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 16:24 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time global
>>>> >>> warming will have killed us all off.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us
>>>> >> all off. A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>> >
>>>> > It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people
>>>> > appear to be morons.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock,
>>>
>>> On what basis do you make that claim? Be specific.
>>
>> This is going to be ugly.
>>
>>
>> On my way to the gym I pass an office park. I large company just moved
>> in an they are installing solar panels above the parking lots. The area
>> is huge, maybe 200 cars can park under the panels. I haven't looked but
>> I assume there will be charging stations under the panels.
>>
>> How cool is that? Some number of employees drive to work, get their car
>> charged while they work and they're good to go.
>>
>> Today coming back from the gym an adult passes me on one of those
>> battery powered scooters. No large battery in sight. I went the same
>> way he was going for about 2 miles. I never did catch up with him.
>> Batteries keep getting better.
>>
>
> It makes a lot of sense to stick solar panels in otherwise unused places.
> Putting them over the parking lot also provides shade, but remember the 20%
> factor I quoted. It’s not easy (currently, lacking practical
> superconductors) to ship solar energy around to follow the sun and you
> otherwise need some large-capacity storage. One way is to use pumped
> storage, but I think people might object to this. It would be tough to
> provide enough battery storage.
This is solar panels over a parking lot.
Finding the battery storage isn't going to be a problem.
At least on weekdays.
> My feeling is solar should be used on a large scale in places with lots of
> sun and access to water to generate hydrogen for use as fuel. Arabia and
> North Africa could be energy giants in the new economy.
I remember in HS being taught about the problems encountered storing H2.
You need to store it under high pressure and it turns the metal of the
container brittle and it leaks. I know it can be stored as hydrides but I don't
think storage is a solved problem.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415169 is a reply to message #415164] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 16:25 |
|
Originally posted by: maus
On 2022-07-18, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time global
>>>> >>> warming will have killed us all off.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us
>>>> >> all off. A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>> >
>>>> > It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people
>>>> > appear to be morons.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock,
>>>
>>> On what basis do you make that claim? Be specific.
>>
>> This is going to be ugly.
>>
>>
>> On my way to the gym I pass an office park. I large company just moved
>> in an they are installing solar panels above the parking lots. The area
>> is huge, maybe 200 cars can park under the panels. I haven't looked but
> provide enough battery storage.
>
> My feeling is solar should be used on a large scale in places with lots of
> sun and access to water to generate hydrogen for use as fuel. Arabia and
> North Africa could be energy giants in the new economy.
>
Losses in transmission are too high.
--
greymausg@mail.com
"Are you sure that you can live on your investments after retirement?
If not, send us all your money."
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415170 is a reply to message #415166] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 16:56 |
|
Originally posted by: Vir Campestris
On 18/07/2022 21:17, Dan Espen wrote:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
<snip>
>> <quote>
>> One of the big challenges here is that wind and solar power plants have a
>> much lower "capacity factor" than plants that run on fuel. A fuel-based
>> plant can run around the clock (with breaks for maintenance), while wind
>> and solar plants produce energy only when the wind is blowing or sun is
>> shining. Although a nuclear plant and a wind farm might have the same
>> "nameplate capacity" of 1 gigawatt, you'd actually need three or four wind
>> farms that size to produce the same number of MWh as the nuclear plant.
>> (EIA info on US capacity factors here; nuclear is highest, producing around
>> 90 percent of the time, while solar PV is lowest, at around 20 percent.)
>> </quote>
>>
>> https://www.vox.com/2015/6/9/8748081/us-100-percent-renewabl e-energy
>
> Who builds wind or solar plants?
> What the hell is the author trying to say?
>
> Sure solar takes a lot of space. When the panels create a roof over a
> parking area, they are a good use of that space. I don't see how the
> space used is relevant.
>
> I'm not 100% against nuclear, but if we can't dispose of the waste we
> need to make sure the company creating the waste plans to contain that
> waste for the next 100,000 years.
>
>
The nuclear waste that will be around for 100,000 years isn't really
dangerous. Less so than a sunny day.
Some of the stuff that comes out of a fission plant is really hot - and
has a short half life. Store it for a few years, and it becomes harmless.
It's the small part that's in between that's the problem.
The other side - there's a solar farm down the road. It stops producing
every night, along with every other one on the continent. Where it's hot
enough to need aircon* the solar is a good match. Not anywhere else.
There's a windfarm on the next hill. It's often parked. That's what
killed the sailing ship - wind isn't reliable. There are occasions when
the whole UK has **** all wind.
So we need grid scale storage. I don't see such a solution.
Or we burn fossil fuels. We know where that's going.
Or we burn uranium. That isn't going to run out any time soon, it's
really common - you can even get it from seawater.
Fusion might be our saviour. Not much hot stuff left over. But I won't
hold my breath.
Andy
--
* Yes, aircon would be nice today. A record high temperature is forecast
for tomorrow, and it's likely CO2. But the first driver for that is
increasing population, and I don't have a solution for that one either.
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415172 is a reply to message #415165] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 17:01 |
scott
Messages: 4237 Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>
> I forgot to mention that solar panels also have a limited lifespan. In 20
> years there’s going to be a lot of stuff to recycle.
That problem is overstated. The panels are warranted for 25 to 30 years at
90% production. They'll continue to produce for years thereafter,
but at a lower production level. Sure, there will be failures, but
at a much lower rate than 100%.
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415173 is a reply to message #415168] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 17:13 |
scott
Messages: 4237 Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>
>>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> > Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time global
>>>> >>>> warming will have killed us all off.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us
>>>> >>> all off. A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people
>>>> >> appear to be morons.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock,
>>>>
>>>> On what basis do you make that claim? Be specific.
>>>
>>> This is going to be ugly.
>>>
>>>
>>> On my way to the gym I pass an office park. I large company just moved
>>> in an they are installing solar panels above the parking lots. The area
>>> is huge, maybe 200 cars can park under the panels. I haven't looked but
>>> I assume there will be charging stations under the panels.
>>>
>>> How cool is that? Some number of employees drive to work, get their car
>>> charged while they work and they're good to go.
>>>
>>> Today coming back from the gym an adult passes me on one of those
>>> battery powered scooters. No large battery in sight. I went the same
>>> way he was going for about 2 miles. I never did catch up with him.
>>> Batteries keep getting better.
>>>
>>
>> It makes a lot of sense to stick solar panels in otherwise unused places.
>> Putting them over the parking lot also provides shade, but remember the 20%
>> factor I quoted. It’s not easy (currently, lacking practical
>> superconductors) to ship solar energy around to follow the sun and you
>> otherwise need some large-capacity storage. One way is to use pumped
>> storage, but I think people might object to this. It would be tough to
>> provide enough battery storage.
>
> This is solar panels over a parking lot.
> Finding the battery storage isn't going to be a problem.
> At least on weekdays.
There are a slew of storage systems in use, in development and
theorized. The most common today is probably pumped storage
where feasible. Austrilia uses large Tesla power packs to stablize
the grid.
As Dan noted, electric cars, trucks, tractors, et alia make
excellent storage elements.
Survey of storage 2012:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6345071
Survey of storage 2021:
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/10/16/2037/pdf?version=162971 1454
>
>> My feeling is solar should be used on a large scale in places with lots of
>> sun and access to water to generate hydrogen for use as fuel. Arabia and
>> North Africa could be energy giants in the new economy.
>
> I remember in HS being taught about the problems encountered storing H2.
> You need to store it under high pressure and it turns the metal of the
> container brittle and it leaks. I know it can be stored as hydrides but I don't
> think storage is a solved problem.
H2 is pretty much a solved problem.
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2021-12-how-to-store -liquid-hydrogen-for-zero-emission-flight
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-05-ai rbus-increases-its-uk-innovation-footprint-to-develop-new
https://www.bp.com/en/global/air-bp/news-and-views/views/wha t-is-sustainable-aviation-fuel-saf-and-why-is-it-important.h tml
https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2020-10-hydrogen-fue l-cells-explained
https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/14/zeroavias-hydrogen-fuel-ce ll-plane-ambitions-clouded-by-technical-challenges/
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415174 is a reply to message #415169] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 17:17 |
scott
Messages: 4237 Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
maus <maus@dmaus.org> writes:
> On 2022-07-18, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> My feeling is solar should be used on a large scale in places with lots of
>> sun and access to water to generate hydrogen for use as fuel. Arabia and
>> North Africa could be energy giants in the new economy.
>>
> Losses in transmission are too high.
Use the solar power to split water into H2 and combine with CO2 from the atmosphere to
make synthetic fuels, which we know how to transport efficiently.
However, your assertion regarding transmission losses may no longer
be accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
There already exist 2000 mile transmission lines that carry 12GW.
|
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415176 is a reply to message #415170] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 17:25 |
scott
Messages: 4237 Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 18/07/2022 21:17, Dan Espen wrote:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>
>> I'm not 100% against nuclear, but if we can't dispose of the waste we
>> need to make sure the company creating the waste plans to contain that
>> waste for the next 100,000 years.
>>
>>
> The nuclear waste that will be around for 100,000 years isn't really
> dangerous. Less so than a sunny day.
>
> Some of the stuff that comes out of a fission plant is really hot - and
> has a short half life. Store it for a few years, and it becomes harmless.
>
> It's the small part that's in between that's the problem.
There is also the chemical toxicity of most of the waste, independent
of its radioactivity levels. But sequestration should be straightforward.
>
> The other side - there's a solar farm down the road. It stops producing
> every night, along with every other one on the continent. Where it's hot
> enough to need aircon* the solar is a good match. Not anywhere else.
It doesn't _need_ to be a good match. Regardless of air conditioning
or not, it still reduces the use of other forms of fuel.
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415177 is a reply to message #415166] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 17:07 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:17:52 -0400
Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who builds wind or solar plants?
A lot of people do, quite near me there are still the signs of what
appears to have been a successful protest against a planned 240 acre solar
plant.
One of the reasons wind farms are more popular than solar
installations is that the land can still be used for other purposes with a
wind farm whereas once you've covered a few hundred acres with panels you
can't do anything else with it. Sure there are plenty of acres of rooftops
they could go on - but those acres have very many owners.
> What the hell is the author trying to say?
>
> Sure solar takes a lot of space. When the panels create a roof over a
> parking area, they are a good use of that space. I don't see how the
> space used is relevant.
This sort of thing is neat and an effective use of space, there
should be a lot more of it for sure. But it doesn't add up to enough acres
of panels.
The real issue with intermittent and uncontrollable supplies like
solar and wind is the need for a *lot* of storage capacity. It looks like
this may, in principle, be a solved problem but it still has to be built
and installed.
> I'm not 100% against nuclear, but if we can't dispose of the waste we
> need to make sure the company creating the waste plans to contain that
> waste for the next 100,000 years.
Build the active stuff into RTGs and don't worry too much about the
rest.
We need lots of batteries with nuclear as well since they are slow
to ramp up and down and are best left running at a steady level.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415178 is a reply to message #415156] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 17:48 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2022-07-18, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>
>>>> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
>>>> global warming will have killed us all off.
>>>
>>> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us all off.
>>> A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>
>> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people appear
>> to be morons.
>
> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock, but maybe it will be enough to
> to keep us going until fusion comes on line. It’s no longer 30 years away,
> now they’re talking about the next decade. One sure sign is that big
> investors are starting to put money in.
Don't worry about it, population growth will offset any conservation
efforts, new supply, etc.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415179 is a reply to message #415170] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 17:44 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 21:56:22 +0100
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> So we need grid scale storage. I don't see such a solution.
There are two varieties (vanadium and iron) of flow battery in
commercial grid scale use today (as in there are companies making a living
selling them to grid operators). The ferric chloride based ones look
particularly promising to me with their conservative 20K cycle rating. As
far as I can tell they're both selling big batteries as fast as they can
make them.
Flow batteries have arbitrarily large capacity (tanks of
electrolyte) and zero self discharge when idle. The tricky bit is the
electrodes and the membrane which tend to have all sorts of exotic failure
modes and side reactions. Finding solutions to these is a hot research
topic that's generating PHD theses by the tonne - so far two solutions have
gone commercial that I know of, both are into their second generation of
products.
Which is just as well because AFAICT we need grid scale storage for
*anything* other than burning fossil fuels or a fair approximation of them.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415180 is a reply to message #415167] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 18:15 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2022-07-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> Note that energy use has grown exponentially for the last 150
> years. That cannot continue (for multiple reasons including
> declining stored solar energy (oil), waste heat etc.). If it
> does continue, we're only four hundred years away from a
> planetary surface temperature of 212F.
That's OK, if our population continues doubling every 40 years
we're only six hundred years away from having one person for
every square meter of dry land on the planet.
> Ultimately, our current economic system is predicated on growth.
> Economic growth is predicated on energy growth and population
> growth. The latter is already starting to fall (China's in
> particular should drop precipitously in a decade or two).
And governments are freaking out, trying to encourage people to
have bigger families. Immigration is seen as a solution, with
the bonus that if you import skilled labour you can continue to
neglect your education system and dumb down the masses.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
-- Edward Abbey
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415183 is a reply to message #415180] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 19:08 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 997 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> On 2022-07-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> Note that energy use has grown exponentially for the last 150
>> years. That cannot continue (for multiple reasons including
>> declining stored solar energy (oil), waste heat etc.). If it
>> does continue, we're only four hundred years away from a
>> planetary surface temperature of 212F.
>
> That's OK, if our population continues doubling every 40 years
> we're only six hundred years away from having one person for
> every square meter of dry land on the planet.
I knew Zanzibar wasn't going to be big enough! ;-)
>> Ultimately, our current economic system is predicated on growth.
>> Economic growth is predicated on energy growth and population
>> growth. The latter is already starting to fall (China's in
>> particular should drop precipitously in a decade or two).
>
> And governments are freaking out, trying to encourage people to
> have bigger families.
My old-fashioned dug well is pretty low in late September. Measured
again in December and extrapolating, I estimate I will have a towering
5' diameter column of water 40' tall in April. Can I get a posh job in
government?
> Immigration is seen as a solution, with the bonus that if you import
> skilled labour you can continue to neglect your education system and
> dumb down the masses.
>
> Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
> -- Edward Abbey
Just so.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415184 is a reply to message #415180] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 19:30 |
John Levine
Messages: 1405 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
According to Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>:
> That's OK, if our population continues doubling every 40 years
But it won't. The current world population is about 8 billion,
estimages say that in 2100 it'll still be under 11 billion.
We certainly have issues but standing room only isn't one of them.
--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415187 is a reply to message #415184] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 21:48 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2022-07-18, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> According to Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>:
>
>> That's OK, if our population continues doubling every 40 years
>
> But it won't. The current world population is about 8 billion,
> estimages say that in 2100 it'll still be under 11 billion.
>
> We certainly have issues but standing room only isn't one of them.
I'm pretty sure you're right. At least I hope you are.
But we're hearing so much about how slowing growth is a
disaster for The Economy. There will be a lot of effort
spent trying to keep that growth going. It won't be pretty -
unless you're at the top where the decision makers are.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again (was: Fwd: Linux on a small memory PC) [message #415189 is a reply to message #415126] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 23:47 |
Robin Vowels
Messages: 426 Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, July 18, 2022 at 6:32:49 AM UTC+10, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 11:16:25 -0400, Dan Espen wrote:
>>
>> Computer Nerd Kev <n...@telling.you.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> n...@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
>>>>
>>>> Signed 8 bit for years before 1900? Makes no sense. Unsigned 8 bit
>>>> gets you pretty far. That doesn't sound like anything that would pass a
>>>> design review.
>>>>
>>>> I worked with computers from 1964 until a few years ago.
>>>> I can't recall anyone abusing dates to save space.
>>>
>>> Isn't this exactly what the Y2K problem was all about? Storing the
>>> last two digits as characters seems just as arbitrary as using a
>>> single 8bit binary value. True with just one more byte, overflow
>>> isn't a problem, but if everyone used just two more bytes and kept
>>> all characters in a year, Y2K wouldn't have been a problem.
>>
>> The user enters that 2 digit year. If you want to store a 4 digit year,
>> some piece of software is going to have to figure out whether to add
>> '19' or '20'.
>
> If the software allows 20XX... If not (and it's older) it might only
> store two digits: possible Y2K impact.
>
>> When you want to enter a credit card expiration year, no one has the
>> patience to enter 20xx for the next 100 years.
>
> I see that in web form pulldown menus are used giving the current and may
> be 10 next years (like 2030) to just click.
>
>> I did a lot of Y2K remediation. Rarely was the correct solution to ask
>> the user to enter a 4 digit year. I can't recall that ever happening.
>
After 1999, I expected that everyone would have learnt from the mistakes of the past,
and start writing 2000, etc. for the years.
But no!
Banks especially dropped the two leading digits and so we will be back with
the Y2k problem at the year 2199
>
> Or it was static. So the 19 was fixed (and not saved) and the user added
> the rest. So when 1985 he just typed "85" and the machine would likely
> also only store "85".
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again (was: Fwd: Linux on a small memory PC) [message #415190 is a reply to message #415130] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 23:49 |
Robin Vowels
Messages: 426 Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, July 18, 2022 at 9:07:39 AM UTC+10, Peter Flass wrote:
> What’s often done is to pick a base year older than the oldest date you
> have to deal with. For example, if your company was started in 1970 you
> can’t have order dates prior to that, so you can interpret order dates ‘00’
> to ‘69’ as 2000 to 2069, and anything ‘70’ and above as 1970. This is only
> a temporary kludge, but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
> global warming will have killed us all off.
>
Or, you can use PL/I, in which case the problem goes away.
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415191 is a reply to message #415160] |
Mon, 18 July 2022 23:53 |
Robin Vowels
Messages: 426 Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:03:01 AM UTC+10, Peter Flass wrote:
> <quote>
> One of the big challenges here is that wind and solar power plants have a
> much lower "capacity factor" than plants that run on fuel. A fuel-based
> plant can run around the clock (with breaks for maintenance), while wind
> and solar plants produce energy only when the wind is blowing or sun is
> shining.
>
Solar-thermal power stations can produce electricity around the clock.
These are already operating in the U.S.A. and in Spain.
..
> Although a nuclear plant and a wind farm might have the same
> "nameplate capacity" of 1 gigawatt, you'd actually need three or four wind
> farms that size to produce the same number of MWh as the nuclear plant.
> (EIA info on US capacity factors here; nuclear is highest, producing around
> 90 percent of the time, while solar PV is lowest, at around 20 percent.)
> </quote>
>
> https://www.vox.com/2015/6/9/8748081/us-100-percent-renewabl e-energy
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415192 is a reply to message #415170] |
Tue, 19 July 2022 00:01 |
Robin Vowels
Messages: 426 Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:56:25 AM UTC+10, Vir Campestris wrote:
> The nuclear waste that will be around for 100,000 years isn't really
> dangerous. Less so than a sunny day.
>
> Some of the stuff that comes out of a fission plant is really hot - and
> has a short half life. Store it for a few years, and it becomes harmless.
>
> It's the small part that's in between that's the problem.
>
> The other side - there's a solar farm down the road. It stops producing
> every night, along with every other one on the continent.
>
The solar-thermal power station can run 24 hours a day.
>
> Where it's hot
> enough to need aircon* the solar is a good match. Not anywhere else.
>
> There's a windfarm on the next hill. It's often parked. That's what
> killed the sailing ship - wind isn't reliable. There are occasions when
> the whole UK has **** all wind.
>
> So we need grid scale storage. I don't see such a solution.
>
> Or we burn fossil fuels. We know where that's going.
>
> Or we burn uranium. That isn't going to run out any time soon, it's
> really common - you can even get it from seawater.
>
> Fusion might be our saviour. Not much hot stuff left over. But I won't
> hold my breath.
> --
> * Yes, aircon would be nice today. A record high temperature is forecast
> for tomorrow, and it's likely CO2. But the first driver for that is
> increasing population, and I don't have a solution for that one either.
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415209 is a reply to message #415173] |
Tue, 19 July 2022 04:34 |
Harry Vaderchi
Messages: 719 Registered: July 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 21:13:56 GMT
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> writes:
>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>>>
>>>> > Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> >> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>>>> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time global
>>>> >>>>> warming will have killed us all off.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us
>>>> >>>> all off. A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people
>>>> >>> appear to be morons.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock,
>>>> >
>>>> > On what basis do you make that claim? Be specific.
>>>>
>>>> This is going to be ugly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On my way to the gym I pass an office park. I large company just moved
>>>> in an they are installing solar panels above the parking lots. The area
>>>> is huge, maybe 200 cars can park under the panels. I haven't looked but
>>>> I assume there will be charging stations under the panels.
>>>>
>>>> How cool is that? Some number of employees drive to work, get their car
>>>> charged while they work and they're good to go.
>>>>
>>>> Today coming back from the gym an adult passes me on one of those
>>>> battery powered scooters. No large battery in sight. I went the same
>>>> way he was going for about 2 miles. I never did catch up with him.
>>>> Batteries keep getting better.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It makes a lot of sense to stick solar panels in otherwise unused places.
>>> Putting them over the parking lot also provides shade, but remember the 20%
>>> factor I quoted. It’s not easy (currently, lacking practical
>>> superconductors) to ship solar energy around to follow the sun and you
>>> otherwise need some large-capacity storage. One way is to use pumped
>>> storage, but I think people might object to this. It would be tough to
>>> provide enough battery storage.
>>
>> This is solar panels over a parking lot.
>> Finding the battery storage isn't going to be a problem.
>> At least on weekdays.
>
> There are a slew of storage systems in use, in development and
> theorized. The most common today is probably pumped storage
> where feasible. Austrilia uses large Tesla power packs to stablize
> the grid.
>
> As Dan noted, electric cars, trucks, tractors, et alia make
> excellent storage elements.
>
> Survey of storage 2012:
> https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6345071
> Survey of storage 2021:
> https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/10/16/2037/pdf?version=162971 1454
>
>>
>>> My feeling is solar should be used on a large scale in places with lots of
>>> sun and access to water to generate hydrogen for use as fuel. Arabia and
>>> North Africa could be energy giants in the new economy.
>>
>> I remember in HS being taught about the problems encountered storing H2.
>> You need to store it under high pressure and it turns the metal of the
>> container brittle and it leaks. I know it can be stored as hydrides but I don't
>> think storage is a solved problem.
>
> H2 is pretty much a solved problem.
>
> https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2021-12-how-to-store -liquid-hydrogen-for-zero-emission-flight
>
> https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-05-ai rbus-increases-its-uk-innovation-footprint-to-develop-new
>
> https://www.bp.com/en/global/air-bp/news-and-views/views/wha t-is-sustainable-aviation-fuel-saf-and-why-is-it-important.h tml
>
> https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/news/2020-10-hydrogen-fue l-cells-explained
>
> https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/14/zeroavias-hydrogen-fuel-ce ll-plane-ambitions-clouded-by-technical-challenges/
Ok, it's a(n) hydrogen powered aircraft - but it's a Piper Alpha.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415214 is a reply to message #415164] |
Tue, 19 July 2022 10:00 |
D.J.
Messages: 821 Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 13:13:53 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:
>>
>>> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>> >>> but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time global
>>>> >>> warming will have killed us all off.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us
>>>> >> all off. A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>> >
>>>> > It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people
>>>> > appear to be morons.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock,
>>>
>>> On what basis do you make that claim? Be specific.
>>
>> This is going to be ugly.
>>
>>
>> On my way to the gym I pass an office park. I large company just moved
>> in an they are installing solar panels above the parking lots. The area
>> is huge, maybe 200 cars can park under the panels. I haven't looked but
>> I assume there will be charging stations under the panels.
>>
>> How cool is that? Some number of employees drive to work, get their car
>> charged while they work and they're good to go.
>>
>> Today coming back from the gym an adult passes me on one of those
>> battery powered scooters. No large battery in sight. I went the same
>> way he was going for about 2 miles. I never did catch up with him.
>> Batteries keep getting better.
>>
>
> It makes a lot of sense to stick solar panels in otherwise unused places.
> Putting them over the parking lot also provides shade, but remember the 20%
> factor I quoted. Its not easy (currently, lacking practical
> superconductors) to ship solar energy around to follow the sun and you
> otherwise need some large-capacity storage. One way is to use pumped
> storage, but I think people might object to this. It would be tough to
> provide enough battery storage.
>
> My feeling is solar should be used on a large scale in places with lots of
> sun and access to water to generate hydrogen for use as fuel. Arabia and
> North Africa could be energy giants in the new economy.
Also the US Southwest has open areas, but much of that is ranch land
or Native American reservations.
--
Jim
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415224 is a reply to message #415178] |
Tue, 19 July 2022 13:48 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-07-18, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 18/07/2022 00:07, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > but in this case it will work until 2070, by which time
>>>> > global warming will have killed us all off.
>>>>
>>>> Er no, by which time renewable energy policy will have killed us all off.
>>>> A bit of warming is nothing but good news
>>>
>>> It's just amazing how politics can make relatively sane people appear
>>> to be morons.
>>
>> Renewable energy is pretty much of a crock, but maybe it will be enough to
>> to keep us going until fusion comes on line. It’s no longer 30 years away,
>> now they’re talking about the next decade. One sure sign is that big
>> investors are starting to put money in.
>
> Don't worry about it, population growth will offset any conservation
> efforts, new supply, etc.
>
A lot of things will offset. We used to have this thing called “paper
currency” that took a little energy to make the paper and print, and then
would stay in use for quite a while with no further energy expenditure. Now
we have this stupid thing called “bitcoin” that apparently requires a lot
of energy each time it is transferred. Oh well, it lets people pay for p*rn
anonymously, so it must be better.
--
Pete
|
|
|
Re: The Y2K problem - again [message #415225 is a reply to message #415180] |
Tue, 19 July 2022 13:48 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375 Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-07-18, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>
>> Note that energy use has grown exponentially for the last 150
>> years. That cannot continue (for multiple reasons including
>> declining stored solar energy (oil), waste heat etc.). If it
>> does continue, we're only four hundred years away from a
>> planetary surface temperature of 212F.
>
> That's OK, if our population continues doubling every 40 years
> we're only six hundred years away from having one person for
> every square meter of dry land on the planet.
>
>> Ultimately, our current economic system is predicated on growth.
>> Economic growth is predicated on energy growth and population
>> growth. The latter is already starting to fall (China's in
>> particular should drop precipitously in a decade or two).
>
> And governments are freaking out, trying to encourage people to
> have bigger families. Immigration is seen as a solution, with
> the bonus that if you import skilled labour you can continue to
> neglect your education system and dumb down the masses.
Very short-sighted. Economists see growth, increasing consumerism, and
inflation as good things without looking at the big picture.
>
> Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
> -- Edward Abbey
>
--
Pete
|
|
|