Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Energy Headlines for June 7 -- EnergyBulletin.net

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 01:42 PM
Original message
Energy Headlines for June 7 -- EnergyBulletin.net
CLICK HERE FOR LINKS

Energy Headlines - June 7, 2005
Staff, Energy Bulletin
Kevin Drum: "People get ready" / Matthew Simmons interviewed - Bush, Saudi Arabia and what to do after Peak Oil / Shell predicts two decades of rising energy prices / Oil field's falling production reflects U.S. trend / Tankers carry oil and a story / Long Beach at crossroads over plans for LNG plant / Bolivian president to resign over natural gas reserves / Launch set for solar-powered space ship
published June 7, 2005.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Busy, busy world, ain't it!
Thanks, Irate - good stuff here! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I read EnergyBulletin.net every single weekday...
They do a great job of combing the news for stuff about peak oil and energy, so you don't have to. I highly recommend the site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. To put this in the context of what Americans receive as "news".
I left the house yesterday afternoon, and I left the TV on CNN. They were busily discussing the Michael Jackson trial.

(2 hours pass...)

I return to the house, and they are still discussing the Michael Jackson trial. And, not just any discussion, but they are apparently discussing the "importance" of the rumor that some juror was "winking at MJ".

Not peak oil, not widespread "100 year droughts", not the shutdown of the atlantic current, not Iraq, not the budget deficits.

No. The big story of the day is some juror winking at a creepy has-been ex pop star.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Stop. You're making my head hurt.
I come to DU to get AWAY from the presentation of infotainment as news, not to find examples of it.

If I wanted examples of how derelict our news media is in its duties, I'd go hang out with my in-laws or the vast majority of my old friends....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. My bad. It's just that...
it was such an exceptional level of pettiness. Cuz, you know, they weren't just wasting time talking about the MJ trial. They were talking about somebody winking at the MJ trial.

It's like pettiness squared. Or, e to the power of pettiness.

I'm doing it again. I'll stop now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Can there be logarithmic curves of pettiness & triviality?
If so, every cable "news" network is sitting way, way, WAY up on the right-hand side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. That's the answer. A logarithmic scale.
Like a Richter scale, for pettiness. What I witnessed yesterday would have been at least an 8.0. Probably not so spectacular for "Entertainment Tonight", but it seemed pretty catastrophic, coming from CNN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I'm just a bit oversensitve right now because I recently wrote a paper...
... for a class I was taking on Age of Enlightenment examining successes and failures of the Enlightenment in modern American culture.

My research did little but confirm many of my worst suspicions about how brain-dead and unthinking we really are as a society. So, now, I try and escape examining that willful ignorance for a little while.... ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-07-05 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
9. Thanks IC
Really enjoyed this one....(and bookmarked)

http://www.energybulletin.net/6097.html

UK: Wave, Wind, Sun, and Tide a Powerful Mix

<snip>

Renewable electricity technologies that harness wind, wave, tide and sun are all very well, the thinking goes, but their output is too variable and unpredictable to provide more than a small part of our electricity needs. Meeting the government's target of 20% renewables by 2020 could mean getting as much as 15% from wind and other intermittent sources, with the balance coming from "firm" renewables such as biomass and landfill gas. And that, say critics of renewables, is as much intermittency as the system can take. Any more and we will need huge reserves of expensive, polluting backup capacity, ready to cut in whenever the wind stops blowing.

Convinced? Think again. Research at Oxford University shows that intermittent renewables, combined with domestic combined heat and power (dCHP) could dependably provide the bulk of Britain's electricity. "By mixing between sites and mixing technologies, you can markedly reduce the variability of electricity supplied by renewables," says Graham Sinden, of Oxford's Environmental Change Institute. "And if you plan the right mix, renewable and intermittent technologies can even be made to match real-time electricity demand patterns. This reduces the need for backup, and makes renewables a serious alternative to conventional power sources." In particular, it puts renewables ahead of nuclear power, which runs at the same rate all the time regardless of fluctuations in demand.

Sinden initially looked at just three generation technologies: wind, solar and dCHP — in effect, hi-tech domestic boilers, which produce electricity as they heat water. He ran computer models of power output based on weather records going back up to 35 years, and found that electricity production could be optimised by creating a mixture of 65% wind, 25% dCHP, and 10% solar cells. The high proportion of wind is because the wind blows hardest in the winter, and in the evening — when demand is highest. The dCHP also produces more at peak times, when demand for hot water and heating is also strongest. Solar makes a smaller contribution, and produces nothing at night. But it is still important to have it in the mix as it kicks in when wind and dCHP production is lowest.

<snip>

Putting these figures together with estimates of Britain's available renewable resources, wind (onshore and offshore) could realistically provide some 35% of the UK's electricity, marine and dCHP each 10-15%, and solar cells 5-10%. In other words, more than half the UK's electricity could ultimately derive from intermittent renewables.

<more>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. "Smart" power networks would improve this synergy.
(This is one of my hobbies...)

Modern computers and communication networks can do quite a lot of "thinking" in just a single cycle of a 60 or 50 Hz power system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Does that mean the other 45% is met by storage systems?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-08-05 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. It means >50% of the UK's electricity
could be met by renewables without back-up systems.

The rest would be met by "conventional" power plants.

Under the Poodle's nucular plan, 50% of the UK's electricity would come from nucular, the rest from conventional sources (and a small percentage of wind power).

Unlike the nucular option, renewables would NOT utilize imported fuel (uranium) and would NOT require a multi-multi-multi-billion pound spent fuel disposal programme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC