Results 976 to 1,000 of 1770
Thread: Climate Change
-
09-25-2022, 07:15 PM #976
A 22 year megadrought fueled by climate change sure sounds like a good reason for a water shortage.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/pablo-ortiz/...rn-us-drought/
-
09-25-2022, 07:53 PM #977Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!
-
09-25-2022, 11:52 PM #978
-
09-26-2022, 09:17 AM #979Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Posts
- 817
-
09-26-2022, 11:29 AM #980
So now the climate thread is the place for biased jong trolls...
-
09-26-2022, 12:49 PM #981
Umm... no. Boiling occurs when the liquid vapor pressure reaches the ambient barometric pressure, but water evaporates at all temperatures above freezing. Otherwise, it would never dry after it rains.
But the chart of water evaporation vs temperature isn't a straight line, it's an upward curve.
-
09-26-2022, 12:51 PM #982
-
09-26-2022, 01:23 PM #983
I think the proper response to this moranity is:
-
09-26-2022, 03:56 PM #984
It can be true that both climate change and too much human consumption are contributing to the problem.
Re:consumption-
“In 1960, U.S. Supreme Court Special Master Simon Rifkind made a fundamental mistake in calculating how much water was then available in the Colorado River Basin, and how much might be available in the future. The court, in its ruling in the case of Arizona v. California, accepted Rifkind’s math. The consequence is a shortage on the Colorado River relative to the expectations of the nine states (seven in the U.S., two in Mexico) that share it.But it also was a fundamental mistake for the water users in the Lower Colorado River Basin to not recognize the flaw in Rifkind’s math and act accordingly. That second mistake, more than Rifkind’s, is the cause of our current troubles.”
https://www.inkstain.net/2013/11/sim...olorado-river/
And yeah, evaporation isn’t the same as boiling. Maybe read about sublimation - you’re mind will be blown!
-
09-26-2022, 04:03 PM #985
A common sense solution 🤪
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA
Although I guess you skipped earth science in school."It's only steep if you're backseat"
-
09-27-2022, 09:32 AM #986
If you read this sentence as "anyone who blames the river/lake drying up ONLY on carbon emissions or global warming and not on too many humans using the water as well is a moron" then it makes sense. Don't think that's what they meant though. And around here it's "moran", JONG.
-
09-27-2022, 11:03 AM #987Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,030
The first Colorado River basin users that should be allocated less are the users that draw water from outside the Colorado river basin.
I don't give a shit that they had a say back in 1922. Look at the map, its not their water.
These powerful groups should be the first to tighten their belts considering they aren't taking their native water, but rather stealing it from a basin over.
-Denver
-California Agriculture in the Imperial valley
-LA (desalination plants anyone???)
Why nobody singles out these users is odd to me.
-
09-27-2022, 06:16 PM #988
$200K? How much were the first Teslas? If this can be scaled up to demand and price cut in half, we've got something right??
Hydrogen-powered Ford Ranger hits the roadGo that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!
-
09-27-2022, 10:57 PM #989
-
09-28-2022, 12:25 AM #990
Don’t forget MX
-
09-28-2022, 08:46 AM #991
Seems to me that hydrogen fuel cells are a much better solution than batteries. You would be able to refuel the way you refuel with gasoline. A lot of infrastructure would have to be built. Probably a good solution for large scale solar/wind back up as well. For solar backup for individual houses batteries still seem more practical.
Unlike with batteries there is no need for unsustainable minerals. Fortunately, water is easy to obtain and there is plenty of it.
Oh, wait.
But seriously, currently most hydrogen comes from natural gas, which means you have to do something with the CO2 that results. Eventually it needs to be produced by solar powered electrolysis and doing that on a large scale is a ways off.
-
09-28-2022, 09:17 AM #992Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,030
Playing god and physically moving water out of its native watershed effects the local environment in a multitude of negative ways, and since this entire thread is about climate change and the environment, I'm here to say that due to those negative effects, these should be the first user groups to tighten their belts.
Now that you mention it though, we do need a complete rework of the water rights in the American Southwest as the current agreement is clearly not working.
-
09-28-2022, 09:27 AM #993Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!
-
09-28-2022, 09:48 AM #994
I don't know enough about this stuff, but I was wondering if you could build a potential energy system to store power in your home. Get like 500 gallons of water, or a bunch of lead, or something, hook it up to a motor and when you have extra power, crank it up off the ground. When you need power, let the weight down and spin some sort of generator. In theory, if things got bad, you could hand crank the weight up and have more power for your house. Hell if you used water, you could drink it in a pinch, too.
i have no idea how high/how much weight you'd need to make this practical.
-
09-28-2022, 10:01 AM #995Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Posts
- 1,678
That reminds me of this power generation facility in Michigan. My daughter interned for the company that ran it and got the tour. Pretty cool concept to use the excess nighttime power to refill the pond for daily generation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludi...ge_Power_Plant
Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk
-
09-28-2022, 10:21 AM #996Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,030
-
09-28-2022, 10:31 AM #997Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Location
- On the beach somewhere
- Posts
- 635
I firmly believe that mechanical storage is part of the solution. Examples include: pumped hydroelectric (your idea,) compressed air energy storage, flywheels, and ideas like - cranes lifting up heavy objects, then letting them down. The benefit versus chemical battery storage is longer life, more cycles in lifetime, and - as a result - better "energy stored over energy invested." See chart from this study
Note the massive size of lowagriz's example. You need a lot of water and a good height difference.
Let's explore your example. This is basic kinematics:
- 500 gallons = 500 gal x 8.3 lbs/gal x 2.2 kg/lb = 9,130 kg
- say, 20 feet high = 6 meters
- Pumped hydro typically has a round-trip efficiency of 70%.
Potential Energy equals mass x gravitational constant x height (PE = mgh).
PE = 9,130 x 9.8 x 6 = 536,844 joules = 0.15 kWh x 70% = 0.105 kWh
While this is not a ton of energy, water towers used for multiple reasons can be interesting. The idea here is to de-couple the use of our reserviors. Right now, our reservoirs are deployed based on a variety of reasons - energy demand, water demand, river flows, etc. These are not time coincident. By having water towers downstream of reservoirs, it may be possible to de-couple two of those uses. I had hears there is a paper on something like this somewhere. I will see if I can dig it up.
-
09-28-2022, 10:38 AM #998Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Location
- On the beach somewhere
- Posts
- 635
I firmly believe that mechanical storage is part of the solution. Examples include: pumped hydroelectric (your idea,) compressed air energy storage, flywheels, and ideas like - cranes lifting up heavy objects, then letting them down. The benefit versus chemical battery storage is longer life, more cycles in lifetime, and - as a result - better "energy stored over energy invested." See chart from this study
Note the massive size of lowagriz's example. You need a lot of water and a good height difference.
Let's explore your example. This is basic kinematics:
- 500 gallons = 500 gal x 8.3 lbs/gal x 2.2 kg/lb = 9,130 kg
- say, 20 feet high = 6 meters
- Pumped hydro typically has a round-trip efficiency of 70%.
Potential Energy equals mass x gravitational constant x height (PE = mgh).
PE = 9,130 x 9.8 x 6 = 536,844 joules = 0.15 kWh x 70% = 0.105 kWh per cycle
While this is not a ton of energy, water towers used for multiple reasons can be interesting. The idea here is to de-couple the use of our reserviors. Right now, our reservoirs are deployed based on a variety of reasons - energy demand, water demand, river flows, etc. These are not time coincident. By having water towers downstream of reservoirs, it may be possible to de-couple two of those uses. I had hears there is a paper on something like this somewhere. I will see if I can dig it up.
-
09-28-2022, 10:46 AM #999
-
09-28-2022, 11:03 AM #1000
Bookmarks