|
|
Post by martin44 on May 30, 2023 21:17:40 GMT
Incidentely... i have been looking for some time (3 years now) for a plot of land to build a bungalow... my brother, who is a builder and would take on the task if it ever materialises... we ave talked about a triple walled building with the internal heat being generated through the internal layer of blockwork and how we could achieve it, through solar panels, only on the roof.. its interestiing if unachievable.. so far.
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141 
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on May 30, 2023 21:33:31 GMT
I might also say that in the last century... during the industrial revolution... when co2 was at its highest..and london was a fog.. the thames froze over and people went skating ... indeed there were veg markets held on the frozen ice... a conversation i had recently on R4 was responded "it was because the bridges slowed down the river" Well, first of all the industrial revolution ended in the century prior to last, at a time when the population was an estimated 1.2 billion, those emissions would have been an increase but this is only the start of the process compared to what we have today - the US didn't start to have theirs until a few decades after our first one ended. By the time the 1950's came along the population had hit 2.5 billion, however CO2 is still nowhere near its highest level - it's been constantly increasing and is still going up ~300ppm in 1950 vs ~420ppm now. Just because coal produced a lot of particulate debris in the atmosphere when people are burning it in their houses and local factories doesn't mean it amounted to more CO2, it was just more noticeable due to the soot etc. mixed in with it and the fact it was heavier than the products of combustion from natural gas (which are also non-visible). At this point the temperature chart is elevated but still relatively stable, however emissions and temperatures would rise significantly over the next seventy years as the population tripled - again, it took all of humanity's existence to get to 2.5 Billion in 1950 and we went to roughly 8 Billion in less than 75 years. So yes, I don't doubt for a moment that there will be exceptions to the rule (especially at a time just prior to when things really started ramping up), but a few outriders don't change the fact that across the entire world over multiple monitoring sources the planet is getting detectably warmer at a much faster rate that corresponds with vastly increased human activity. A question to ask yourself is, when was the last great freeze of the Thames - the kind you could skate and host a fair on?
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 30, 2023 21:36:29 GMT
I might also say that in the last century... during the industrial revolution... when co2 was at its highest..and london was a fog.. the thames froze over and people went skating ... indeed there were veg markets held on the frozen ice... a conversation i had recently on R4 was responded "it was because the bridges slowed down the river" Well, first of all the industrial revolution ended in the century prior to last, at a time when the population was an estimated 1.2 billion, those emissions would have been an increase but this is only the start of the process compared to what we have today - the US didn't start to have theirs until a few decades after our first one ended. By the time the 1950's came along the population had hit 2.5 billion, however CO2 is still nowhere near its highest level - it's been constantly increasing and is still going up ~300ppm in 1950 vs ~420ppm now. Just because coal produced a lot of particulate debris in the atmosphere when people are burning it in their houses and local factories doesn't mean it amounted to more CO2, it was just more noticeable due to the soot etc. mixed in with it and the fact it was heavier than the products of combustion from natural gas (which are also non-visible). At this point the temperature chart is elevated but still relatively stable, however emissions and temperatures would rise significantly over the next seventy years as the population tripled - again, it took all of humanity's existence to get to 2.5 Billion in 1950 and we went to roughly 8 Billion in less than 75 years. So yes, I don't doubt for a moment that there will be exceptions to the rule (especially at a time just prior to when things really started ramping up), but a few outriders don't change the fact that across the entire world over multiple monitoring sources the planet is getting detectably warmer at a much faster rate that corresponds with vastly increased human activity. A question to ask yourself is, when was the last great freeze of the Thames - the kind you could skate and host a fair on? I would have thought that the mention "london" and "the thames" would have given you some idea of where i was referring to.
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on May 30, 2023 21:37:43 GMT
Let me just make sure I'm reading you right - specialised equipment from a space centre can't be relied on but uncited sources in a cattle magazine can?
|
|
iano
Member of DD Central
Posts: 141
Likes: 177
|
Post by iano on May 30, 2023 21:39:56 GMT
Well, first of all the industrial revolution ended in the century prior to last, at a time when the population was an estimated 1.2 billion, those emissions would have been an increase but this is only the start of the process compared to what we have today - the US didn't start to have theirs until a few decades after our first one ended. By the time the 1950's came along the population had hit 2.5 billion, however CO2 is still nowhere near its highest level - it's been constantly increasing and is still going up ~300ppm in 1950 vs ~420ppm now. Just because coal produced a lot of particulate debris in the atmosphere when people are burning it in their houses and local factories doesn't mean it amounted to more CO2, it was just more noticeable due to the soot etc. mixed in with it and the fact it was heavier than the products of combustion from natural gas (which are also non-visible). At this point the temperature chart is elevated but still relatively stable, however emissions and temperatures would rise significantly over the next seventy years as the population tripled - again, it took all of humanity's existence to get to 2.5 Billion in 1950 and we went to roughly 8 Billion in less than 75 years. So yes, I don't doubt for a moment that there will be exceptions to the rule (especially at a time just prior to when things really started ramping up), but a few outriders don't change the fact that across the entire world over multiple monitoring sources the planet is getting detectably warmer at a much faster rate that corresponds with vastly increased human activity. A question to ask yourself is, when was the last great freeze of the Thames - the kind you could skate and host a fair on? I would have thought that the mention "london" and "the thames" would have given you some idea of where i was referring to. Yes, hence my referral to your comment on London's fog and the question about the Thames. I mentioned the US to point out that the big cahuna hadn't even started until way after ours.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 30, 2023 21:47:23 GMT
I would have thought that the mention "london" and "the thames" would have given you some idea of where i was referring to. Yes, hence my referral to your comment on London's fog and the question about the Thames. I mentioned the US to point out that the big cahuna hadn't even started until way after ours. where?... last thames freeze over was 1962/3 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs#:~:text=The%20last%20great%20freeze%20of,40%2C%201789%2C%20and%201814.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 30, 2023 21:52:10 GMT
Let me just make sure I'm reading you right - specialised equipment from a space centre can't be relied on but uncited sources in a cattle magazine can? no.. but im sure if i put in a little effort, other than 1 minute...
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on May 31, 2023 3:02:12 GMT
Just done some sums, probably wrong but happy to be corrected. Piston weights of 17 million metric tonnes have been proposed, im rounding up to 18 million it makes the maths simpler. So if we allow the piston to fall 1 m in 1 hr and we ignore all losses the output could be 50mw. That's not a lot in the order of uk energy use. Seems we need truly huge weight lifted a long way to provide days of large energy storage. The challenge appears bigger than I thought. This looks along the right lines to me, but remember the piston drop will be massively greater than 1 metre - they plan for 100m. Your 17 million metric tonne rock piston equates most closely to the company's middle example, the one producing 3GWh energy capacity. That piston has radius 100m, height 200m and a stroke (rise and fall) of 100m. Its mass would be pi x 100^2 x 200 x density of rock (which they quote as 2600kgm -3). Which calculates as 16.3 million metric tonnes, broadly matching your example. With a drop of 100m, your 50MWh figure increases 100-fold to give a potential energy output, assuming no losses, of 5GWh. The company has then allowed for the water pumping and other losses and claims a resulting figure of 3GWh, for that particular weight of piston. So yes, 50MWh wouldn't make a dent, but 3GWh is an appreciable storage capacity. Dinorwig is 9.1 GWh for comparison. These MASSIVE pistons are approaching the ballpark weight of all the spoil removed from the Channel Tunnel! The engineering to achieve a working example is going to be a phenomenal feat!
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on May 31, 2023 9:00:45 GMT
As the storage capacity of the system is related to the volume of the piston and hence it's surface area , πr squared but the trench needed to be cut to form the bore is π2r. Just like windmills big is beautiful and cheaper. I notice from the artists impression the piston when fully lifted is above ground level ,so we're not digging a 300m hole. However what the nimbies will think of 100m high rock tower sticking out of the ground say 300m in diameter in there view god only knows.  |
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on May 31, 2023 10:49:21 GMT
As the storage capacity of the system is related to the volume of the piston and hence it's surface area , πr squared but the trench needed to be cut to form the bore is π2r. Just like windmills big is beautiful and cheaper. I notice from the artists impression the piston when fully lifted is above ground level ,so we're not digging a 300m hole. However what the nimbies will think of 100m high rock tower sticking out of the ground say 300m in diameter in there view god only knows.  Then there is good news! In the case of the piston emerging 100m above ground, its proposed diameter is a mere 200m. Positively aesthetic and easier on the eye than 300m  If they build the real big daddy in your back garden, though, it will rise 125m and be 250m across. Don't worry, it won't happen in the UK. We can't seal our water mains, so sealing 16 million tons of rock piston pressure along hundreds of metres of boundary ain't happening any time soon...
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on May 31, 2023 15:55:42 GMT
So sorry to disappoint but the big boy I propose does not weigh such pitiful amount. It's that non linear r2thing . I calc about 148 Millon tonnes
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,710
Likes: 2,985
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on May 31, 2023 16:35:52 GMT
So sorry to disappoint but the big boy I propose does not weigh such pitiful amount. It's that non linear r2thing . I calc about 148 Millon tonnes Steady on. There are only 5.96 billion trillion tonnes in the earth...
|
|
|
|
Post by crabbyoldgit on May 31, 2023 16:46:02 GMT
Give me a lever long enough and strong enough and I will move the world  |
|
|
|
Post by martin44 on May 31, 2023 21:41:53 GMT
"Can human beings change the earths climate?" "NO" not my answer... but chatgpt.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace on May 31, 2023 21:53:05 GMT
"Can human beings change the earths climate?" "NO" not my answer... but chatgpt. No. You asked it "Can human beings stop the earth's climate changing", which it correctly answered "No". If you ask it "Can human beings change the earths climate?" It correctly answers "Yes". There we are. I'm very glad you accept ChatGPT's arbitration, and that we can now put this ludicrous discussion to bed.
|
|
