5 ms·

So 39.87%? In favor of supplies for renewables that are significantly lower volume & frequency? The number 39.87 is what you might get replacing coal with wind

by dahart 4y ago

So 39.87%? In favor of supplies for renewables that are significantly lower volume & frequency? The number 39.87 is what you might get replacing coal with wind turbines, based on Googled stats for avg turbine weight (165 tons), avg lifetime (20 years) avg achieved efficiency (42%) avg capacity (1.5MW) coal weight per MW (1100 lbs) ... If my calculations are right this means turbines are 300x more efficient per pound of resources than coal, which directly translates into 300x less shipping for those resources.

hammock 4y ago
> renewables that are significantly lower volume & frequency What is the volume difference of LNG versus nickel ore or copper ore (which are less than 1% nickel or copper, and are mostly rock), which is extracted with diesel-powered mining equipment before being shipped halfway around the globe to be smelted - at great energy cost, which is only sometimes renewable - and then shipped halfway around the globe again to begin manufacturing?
- dahart 4y ago
  Energy of smelting, as you point out, can be renewable, if we want, and it increasingly is, which makes it irrelevant here, no? A quarter of the world’s copper is mined at a mine I can see from my window, and it is concentrated, smelted, and refined on site. I don’t know for certain, but have some doubt about your claim that much rock is being shipped around the world just to get smelted, can you source that? It doesn’t seem like a very cost effective idea. It seems like you’re trying to suggest we can’t do any better by citing today’s inefficiencies. But we know for a fact we can do better, that there is a lot of room for improvement, so why the resistance? Does mining with Diesel engines today mean we have to keep doing that? If we are shipping rock around, which I doubt, does that mean we have to keep doing it?

by dahart 4y ago

hammock 4y ago

> renewables that are significantly lower volume & frequency What is the volume difference of LNG versus nickel ore or copper ore (which are less than 1% nickel or copper, and are mostly rock), which is extracted with diesel-powered mining equipment before being shipped halfway around the globe to be smelted - at great energy cost, which is only sometimes renewable - and then shipped halfway around the globe again to begin manufacturing?

dahart 4y ago
Energy of smelting, as you point out, can be renewable, if we want, and it increasingly is, which makes it irrelevant here, no? A quarter of the world’s copper is mined at a mine I can see from my window, and it is concentrated, smelted, and refined on site. I don’t know for certain, but have some doubt about your claim that much rock is being shipped around the world just to get smelted, can you source that? It doesn’t seem like a very cost effective idea. It seems like you’re trying to suggest we can’t do any better by citing today’s inefficiencies. But we know for a fact we can do better, that there is a lot of room for improvement, so why the resistance? Does mining with Diesel engines today mean we have to keep doing that? If we are shipping rock around, which I doubt, does that mean we have to keep doing it?