How The Future Is The Future Of The Grid – The future where Grandpas never die

And Tomorrow never comes. Yep, it is just like Flying Cars and all those other thing you saw on the Jetson’s and still haven’t happened yet. Why because the Power Structure doesn’t want them to happen. Imagine if you will – electricity is like a crude spear made of rock and a stick. Nuclear Power is the pointy rock on tip of the spear and society is a human body. That spear is plunged in to the human body NOT so that it dies, but so it heals. Now whoever controls the shaft of that spear controls the human. THAT is the way the power grid was DESIGNED. To change power grids you have to pull the spear out. The human dies.

https://www.theverge.com/22419206/smart-grid-renewable-energy-power-sector

The grid needs to smarten up to reach clean energy goals

Smart grids were supposed to come to the rescue a long time ago

In the future, our vehicles and homes will be in constant conversation with the power grid. Smart thermostats will send information about how much energy the home is using or potentially wasting to heat or cool itself. Solar panels will say how much energy they have on hand, while electric vehicles will share information about when and where they’re charging and how much juice they need for their travels. Solar and EV batteries might even offer up the energy they’re storing in case it’s needed elsewhere.

“You just plug it in, and somehow it automatically talks to its nearest neighbors,” explains Ben Kroposki, a director at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. “[It] says, ‘Hey, I just want to let you know I’m out here. I can provide these kinds of services back.’”

That conversation is the backbone of what’s called a “smart grid.” While America’s aging grid system was built to send electricity in one direction — from power plants to homes and businesses — smart grids are a two-way street. Homes and buildings send information and electricity back to the grid or to other homes and buildings. An electric vehicle battery, for example, might be able to provide power to an area in the middle of a blackout. A smart grid also listens for directions from the utility, so that it charges whenever solar or other renewable energy is most abundant.

It’s a simple enough idea that for more than a decade has been sold as a way to improve the efficiency, environmental impact, and resiliency of the power sector. But electricity grids still have a long way to go to get “smart.” They’ve managed to fail spectacularly under the stressors of climate change and more extreme weather.

:}

Go there and read a whole lot of extra stuff. More next week.

:}

Bill Nye Thinks We Can Beat The Heat – I have never been this upbeat

I do not know what to say. I have never argued against Bill Nye and I do not propose to start here. If Bill Nye thinks we can beat climate change by a combination of Massive investments and New technology. Then today I believe him. Tomorrow will be something else.

https://news.yahoo.com/bill-nye-to-congress-im-scared-too-about-climate-change-205114192.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9sb2dpbi55YWhvby5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMm1u5c7vwGY8bbrr24UhPXel7HWK3P-VSFsYW_Td-hoOHSkcldT4qMeksmSKF0P3nM-08WaNE9ujFXwZr_fFvDQnm9ACKQh2nrSm7JQw6puItFU8VgE8B8J8HT0qYIGQjAXLgmdQaY6gJpTreqfz_ySThTJuAvWJgm1ZFzM3qrH

That is the biggest header I have ever seen.

Bill Nye to Congress: ‘I’m scared too’ about climate change

·Senior Editor
·3 min read
/
/
/

Testifying before the House Committee on Homeland Security on Tuesday, Bill Nye told lawmakers that he was “scared too” about climate change, and that the U.S. needed to “invest in a big way” to solve the problem.

Nye, whose public television program “Bill Nye the Science Guy” has helped educate children in the U.S. on a wide range of scientific topics, testified on his own behalf. Asked by Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, how the nation could address climate change when so many people did not believe it was real, Nye recounted his own dealings with skeptics.

“I’ve fought this for 30 years: trying to get people to accept the science of climate change. I offered four bets to two notorious climate deniers. I offered them $10,000 that 2016 would be the hottest year on record, 2010-2020 would be the hottest decade on record. Neither one of them would take either one of the bets,” Nye responded.

He added: “They wouldn’t take the bets because they’re scared.

:}

Go there and read happy thoughts. More next week.

:}

We get requests for links all the time, so readers this is a link for Black Owned Businesses:

https://www.websiteplanet.com/blog/support-black-owned-businesses/

This one is for people wishing to buy a Husky Dog:

https://yourdogadvisor.com/alaskan-husky/

Big Oil Had The Worst Day Ever – That’s a good thing for the Earth

I hate to gloat. I hate to Smirk. But I am gloating right now. I am SMIRKING so hard I think I Broke my face. As Tommy Friedman (New York Times pundent) had this to say, the Big Oil Companies business plan was “good to the last drop”. But it isn’t. Never could be. When a better technology comes along. The old technology is abandoned. They are gonna be left with all those oil leases and oil wells when nobody wants the stuff. I say – GOOD for THEM. It is what they deserve.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/big-oils-bad-bad-day?utm_source=digg

Big Oil’s Bad, Bad Day

Crushing blows to three of the world’s largest oil companies have made it clear that the arguments many have been making for decades have sunk in at the highest levels.

In what may be the most cataclysmic day so far for the traditional fossil-fuel industry, a remarkable set of shareholder votes and court rulings have scrambled the future of three of the world’s largest oil companies. On Wednesday, a court in the Netherlands ordered Royal Dutch Shell to dramatically cut its emissions over the next decade—a mandate it can likely only meet by dramatically changing its business model. A few hours later, sixty-one per cent of shareholders at Chevron voted, over management objections, to demand that the company cut so-called Scope 3 emissions, which include emissions caused by its customers burning its products. Oil companies are willing to address the emissions that come from their operations, but, as Reuters pointed out, the support for the cuts “shows growing investor frustration with companies, which they believe are not doing enough to tackle climate change.” The most powerful proof of such frustration came shortly afterward, as ExxonMobil officials announced that shareholders had (over the company’s strenuous opposition) elected two dissident candidates to the company’s board, both of whom pledge to push for climate action.

The action at ExxonMobil’s shareholder meeting was fascinating: the company, which regularly used to make the list of most-admired companies, had been pulling out all stops to defeat the slate of dissident candidates, which was put forward by Engine No. 1, a tiny activist fund based in San Francisco that owns just 0.02 per cent of the company’s stock, but has insisted that Exxon needs a better answer to the question of how to meet the climate challenge. Exxon has simply insisted on doubling down: its current plan actually calls for increasing oil and gas production in Guyana and the Permian Basin this decade, even though the International Energy Agency last week called for an end to new development of fossil fuels. Observers at the meeting described a long adjournment midmeeting, and meandering answers to questions from the floor, perhaps as an effort to buy time to persuade more shareholders to go the company’s way. But the effort failed. Notably, efforts by activists to push big investors appear to have paid off: according to sources, BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, backed three of the dissident candidates for the Exxon boar

:}

Go there and read More next week.

:}

Tankless Water Heaters Are Grand – This piece goes to great lengths to prove it

First off, spell check does not like the word tankless. You would think by now that the people at WORD Press would have gotten over that spelling by now. Second off (to be consistent) this is not and article that CES can defend or debate. It is an article generated by another site so “Buyer Beware”. The articles has a lot of extraneous Ads and unnecessary clutter. Please feel free to ignore all of that. I have read the article and for the most part it is factual, and more extensive then most. So with out further ado:

https://happydiyhome.com/tankless-water-heater-cost/

Tankless Water Heater Cost & Pros and Cons – Are They Worth It?

Water heaters are extremely important to your plumbing system, and this goes for both residential buildings and commercial spaces. Many people are turning to newer options, and this can lead you to wonder what a tankless water heater costs because this style of water heater will only heat up the water you use. Traditionally, water heaters heated and stored water on a continuous basis, and this can be expensive if you use a lot of water. As long as they get installed and connected correctly, it’s easy to control your tankless water heater cost for years at a time.

You get the choice of a single point unit or whole house units. A single point unit is slightly more inexpensive to buy and install because you put them right next to a water source. Whole house units cost more to install, but they are powerful enough to heat all of the water in your home at one time. The tankless water heater cost has a slightly wider price range due to a variety of the factors, and it starts at $2,000 and goes up to around $4,500 from start to finish.

The average cost is right around $2,800 for a whole house gas unit. The tankless water heater cost has fluctuating labor rates too. The flow rate, brand, and type will also influence your tankless water heater cost, and this is why you want to get a few estimates before you settle on one company to perform the installation. This can help ensure that you get a fair price with professional-quality results.

:}

Go there and read this very long article. But if you just want to know the pros and cons go to the end. More next week.

:}

Springfield Wants To Keep Burning Coal – They have come up with an insidious way to do it

Springfield IL has always been opposed to renewable energy. It took a Friend of mine with a degree in Solar Power 20 years at CWLP to get the City to erect a modest Solar Farm. 700 panels, I think. There is no Wind Power because the county changed the zoning ordinances to make turbine placement unfeasible. There is modest geothermal. For homeowners, the City Council is always trying to tax smart meters to Solar more expensive. So why does it not surprise me that CWLP came up with  “program to prevent global warming” by continuing to burn tons of coal daily.

https://www.sj-r.com/story/news/politics/state/2020/06/04/cwlp-could-become-worldrsquos-largest-carbon-capture-research-station/114279824/

State

CWLP could become world’s largest carbon capture research station

Kade Heather Staff Writer

JUNE 4, 2020

City Water, Light & Power is on path for constructing the world’s largest research and development pilot for a new carbon capture system.

The U.S. Department of Energy had about 30 responses from power plants across the country when it initially proposed the idea about three years ago. The DOE has narrowed it down to about five competitors – CWLP being one.

While CWLP is not guaranteed to host the pilot system, Kevin OBrien, director of the Illinois Sustainable Technology Center at the University of Illinois, and the principle investigator overseeing the project, said DOE is “very impressed by the team,” and by CWLP’s facility.

“They toured the plant, they feel it’s a very, very well-run plant and they’re impressed by that, and that’s an important factor when you’re competing for these types of projects. So there’s no guarantee, but we think we’ve got a really high probability of winning this one,” OBrien said.

:}

Go there and read. Then write letters to the Mayor and the City Council condeming the idea. More next week.

:}

Some Things Billed As Environmental Aren’t – In this case TESLA

I repeat this only once. Elon Musk is a genius. His Electric Cars are also amazing and GENERALLY good for the environment, especially if charged by Solar and Wind Power. But they need some fire suppression ability because 4 hours and 30,000 gallons of water is like a major house fire. That’s is when these type of wrecks are uncommon. What happens when they are everywhere?

Then there is the whole disabling the auto pilot function. I mean Morons aren’t good for the environment either.

https://slate.com/technology/2021/04/tesla-crash-texas-drivers-seat-fire-autopilot.html?via=rss

The Industry

The Most Disturbing Part of the Latest Tesla Crash

Two men died near Houston, Texas, on Saturday while riding in a 2019 Tesla Model S that, according to local authorities, was speeding into a turn and ended up going off the road and crashing into a tree. It took first responders four hours and more than 30,000 gallons of water to put out the resulting fire, which kept reigniting; when damaged, the lithium ion batteries in electric cars can cause fires that are very difficult to extinguish because of how they store energy. Authorities reportedly attempted to ask Tesla for advice on how to put out the fire, but it’s unclear whether they ended up getting any help.

Besides the fire, there was something especially disturbing about the crash: No one was in the driver’s seat. One of the men was in the passenger seat and the other in the rear. There has been no official confirmation that they had engaged the car’s “autopilot” feature—something that is beloved by many Tesla owners and that critics of the company say is marketed in unsafe ways—though their wives reportedly told authorities that they had been discussing the feature before leaving for their drive.

Unlike the systems that companies like Google and Uber have been developing and testing for years, Tesla’s autopilot is not completely autonomous, though it does allow the cars to accelerate, steer, and brake by themselves. The company warns drivers that they need to be behind the wheel and paying attention in case the system makes a mistake and they have to intervene. There have nevertheless been a number of serious accidents in which the autopilot feature appeared to be involved. For instance, a man died in 2018 while using the autopilot in California; data from his phone indicates that a video game had been active on the device. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also confirmed to the New York Times in March that it is currently investigating the potential role of Tesla’s autopilot feature in 23 crashes.

 

 

:}

Do Carbon Credits Work – In some cases, NOT

Mitigation efforts always sound sensible to sensible people. There are always people who have a knee jerk, industry involved NO WAY reaction. Just like with cigarettes: doesn’t cause it -you can’t prove it, to ok maybe it exists but there is nothing you can do about it, to those methods won’t work, to if you outlaw it you will put people out of work. But most people (as far as the carbon economy goes) Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading and Carbon Reduction methods all seem OK. But how can you tell if they work, or in this case DON’T?

https://www.propublica.org/article/the-climate-solution-actually-adding-millions-of-tons-of-co2-into-the-atmosphere?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Environment

The Climate Solution Actually Adding Millions of Tons of CO2 Into the Atmosphere

.
.

New research shows that California’s climate policy created up to 39 million carbon credits that aren’t achieving real carbon savings. But companies can buy these forest offsets to justify polluting more anyway.

This story was co-published with MIT Technology Review.

Along the coast of Northern California near the Oregon border, the cool, moist air off the Pacific sustains a strip of temperate rainforests. Soaring redwoods and Douglas firs dominate these thick, wet woodlands, creating a canopy hundreds of feet high.

But if you travel inland the mix of trees gradually shifts.

Beyond the crest of the Klamath Mountains, you descend into an evergreen medley of sugar pines, incense cedars and still more Douglas firs. As you continue into the Cascade Range, you pass through sparser forests dominated by Ponderosa pines. These tall, slender trees with prickly cones thrive in the hotter, drier conditions on the eastern side of the state.

All trees consume carbon dioxide, releasing the oxygen and storing the carbon in their trunks, branches and roots. Every ton of carbon sequestered in a living tree is a ton that isn’t contributing to climate change. And that thick coastal forest can easily store twice as much carbon per acre as the trees deeper inland.

:}

Go there and read probably a gazillion words. Take a weekend. More next week.

:}

Mothers Against Climate Change – April Fools joke – or Serious Movement

MACC doesn’t sound nearly as good as MADD but I suppose it could always work. I mean mothers are a potent source of social change. However, it took 100 years for them to get the vote and we do not have 100 years. I guess if my Grandma, Mable Ross, had started such a movement we would be in pretty good shape now. It also seems like a pretty “white” movement. I suppose that is where you have to start. GOOD LUCK LADIES!

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-moms-who-are-battling-climate-change?utm_source=pocket-newtab

The Moms Who Are Battling Climate Change

A new initiative seeks to tap into mothers’ concern for the world their children are inheriting.

Three years ago, I had a baby. I won’t go into the details, but suffice it to say that she is extremely cute, and I enjoy being her mother. A few months after her birth, I was scrolling on my phone, and I came across news of a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It described a future world that will have experienced 1.5 degrees Celsius of global warming. In this world, the oceans are acidifying, and most coral reefs have been bleached to death; hundreds of millions of people face severe drought, and even more face deadly heat waves. The kicker? This planet—the 1.5-degree-warmer one—was the best-case scenario. Scientists were using the report to argue that we should try to shoot for that. The Paris climate accord aims to limit the global-temperature increase to “below 2 degrees Celsius.” At present, both goals seem like a stretch. According to the U.N., all of the world’s current pledges would only cut carbon emissions by one per cent—a far cry from the nearly fifty per cent needed this decade in order to meet our goals. So, 1.5 degrees is coming. According to some researchers, we could get there around 2030, when my daughter will be entering middle school.

I did some further Googling: What will the world look like when she’s middle-aged? When her children are middle-aged? I found a Web site that lets you plot major events in your child’s life against the projected global-temperature increase. Even the “optimistic” scenarios show the world warming two degrees during her lifetime. The more realistic scenarios—the ones based on what countries are actually doing to reduce emissions, not what they’ve pledged—show it heating up to three degrees. There is a universe of difference between those numbers, but they are both awful, bringing rising seas, heat waves, food and water shortages, wildfires, droughts, and hurricanes, not to mention the loss of biodiversity. Naturally, this line of research prompted a nervous breakdown. I had always understood, intellectually, that climate change was an existential threat, but it was only after my daughter’s birth that it became real to me.

I’m not alone. According to the Yale Program on Climate Change Communications, twenty-six per cent of Americans report feeling “alarmed” about climate change, up from less than half that number six years ago. About the same number of people describe themselves as “concerned”—which seems like the way you should feel about your child’s “Animal Crossing” addiction, not the fact that the Thwaites Glacier could slide into the ocean during his lifetime, flooding coastal cities.

:}

Go there and read. Join up. More next week.

:}

The Future Is Built In Batteries – Where the structure becomes the storage device

While I have always said the storage is NOT the problem in renewable energy because you can always pump something like water or air during good times and discharge it in bad times. The storage of energy in moving things was always gonna be a problem and batteries were only an interim solution. Now some people are getting a handle on this problem, and I am supper EXCITED about it. This article is real techincal. Sorry.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210322091632.htm

Big breakthrough for ‘massless’ energy storage

Date:
March 22, 2021
Source:
Chalmers University of Technology
Summary:
Researchers have produced a structural battery that performs ten times better than all previous versions. It contains carbon fiber that serves simultaneously as an electrode, conductor, and load-bearing material. Their latest research breakthrough paves the way for essentially ‘massless’ energy storage in vehicles and other technology.

Researchers from Chalmers University of Technology have produced a structural battery that performs ten times better than all previous versions. It contains carbon fibre that serves simultaneously as an electrode, conductor, and load-bearing material. Their latest research breakthrough paves the way for essentially ‘massless’ energy storage in vehicles and other technology.

The batteries in today’s electric cars constitute a large part of the vehicles’ weight, without fulfilling any load-bearing function. A structural battery, on the other hand, is one that works as both a power source and as part of the structure — for example, in a car body. This is termed ‘massless’ energy storage, because in essence the battery’s weight vanishes when it becomes part of the load-bearing structure. Calculations show that this type of multifunctional battery could greatly reduce the weight of an electric vehicle.

The development of structural batteries at Chalmers University of Technology has proceeded through many years of research, including previous discoveries involving certain types of carbon fibre. In addition to being stiff and strong, they also have a good ability to store electrical energy chemically. This work was named by Physics World as one of 2018’s ten biggest scientific breakthroughs.

:}

Go there and read. It is kinda long too. More next week.

:}

We Are Living in a Climate Emergency – According to the f%$!ing Scientific American

This according to 13,000 scientists who think it is now or never for things to change. This is a stunning development. One I never thought would happen until the END. And I will be honest here, we are nowhere near the end. I think we have at least 20 years before things are completely out of control. I never thought I hear these kinds of statement until it was too late. Like hearing “the Titanic is sinking” when it is already half way down and there is no going back. But then again – maybe i better rethink. Anway:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-are-living-in-a-climate-emergency-and-were-going-to-say-so/

Climate | Opinion

We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So

It’s time to use a term that more than 13,000 scientists agree is needed

We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We're Going to Say So
Increasingly dangerous wildfires are just one consequence of climate change. Here, a man watches in 2013 as the Springs fire in California approaches. Credit: David McNew Getty Images

An emergency is a serious situation that requires immediate action. When someone calls 911 because they can’t breathe, that’s an emergency. When someone stumbles on the sidewalk because their chest is pounding and their lips are turning blue, that’s an emergency. Both people require help right away. Multiply those individuals by millions of people who have similar symptoms, and it constitutes the biggest global health emergency in a century: the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now consider the following scenarios: A hurricane blasts Florida. A California dam bursts because floods have piled water high up behind it. A sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas. These are also emergencies that require immediate action. Multiply these situations worldwide, and you have the biggest environmental emergency to beset the earth in millennia: climate change.

Given the circumstances, Scientific American has agreed with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term “climate emergency” in its coverage of climate change. An official statement about this decision, and the impact we hope it can have throughout the media landscape, is below.

The planet is heating up way too fast. It’s time for journalism to recognize that the climate emergency is here

:}

Go there and read. We will see if it catches on. More next week.

:}