Greg Abbott Silent as Electric Power Grid Operator Urges Texans To Turn Off Appliance

ExpressLane said:
The very fact that wind generatio has to be backed u means it’s expensive. Ou don’t HAVE to backup Fos cue with wind. Fossil fuel generation on is own is much more reliable than wind generation
Click to expand...

There is no fossil fuel generation. Fossils don't burn.

Are you talking about oil, natural gas, or coal?
 
Into the Night said:
False authority fallacies.
Coal is not a hydrocarbon.
Hydrocarbons are not the remains of any plant or animal.
Fossils are not a liquid or a gas.
Fossils don't burn.
Click to expand...

In general, coal can be considered a hydrogen-deficient hydrocarbon with a hydrogen-to-carbon ratio near 0.8, as compared with a liquid hydrocarbons ratio near 2 (for propane, ethane, butane, and other forms of natural gas) and a gaseous hydrocarbons ratio near 4 (for gasoline).
Click to expand...
https://www.britannica.com/science/coal-fossil-fuel
 
So its 106Degress outside and we have 4,025 MW of extra capacitance and out of 33,000 installed wind capacitance week are generating about 8,000 MW ....yeah? Sure would be nice to have the extra 25,000 MW of energy. Time stamp Today, 03:04 PM
 
I just want to know, "How did Greg Abbott let some tree fall on his Head and legs at the same time"?

It's sad when someone has to be crippled like that for life!
 
ExpressLane said:
The very fact that wind generatio has to be backed means it’s expensive. You don’t HAVE to backup like you do with wind. Fossil fuel generation on its own is much more reliable than wind generation on its own.
Click to expand...

LOL.. So let me see if I have this right..
If something costs .06 per kwh and it needs to be backed up with something that costs .12 kwh when it's needed, that is more expensive than something that always costs .12kwh? If you are an example of how Texans plan no wonder they keep having problems.

By the way.. how reliable was that fossil fuel generation a couple of winters ago?
 
ExpressLane said:
Fossil fuels is the industry accepted term for Gas, oil and coal. So deal with it. Or you can just sound dumb.
Click to expand...

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. There is no 'industry accepted term'. Natural gas, or methane, is the name of that fuel. Oil is the name of THAT fuel. Coal is the name of THAT fuel.
LIF. It is YOU insisting that fossils are a liquid or a gas. They aren't. It is YOU insisting that a chemical element is a fossil, it isn't. No amount of pointing to Wikipedia (which I don't accept as a reference of anything anyway) or Britannica is going to change that.

No amount of declaring 'Standard terms' is going to change that.

You are a victim of an incredibly poor school system, which taught you NOTHING about chemistry, fuel, or fossils.
 
ExpressLane said:
So its 106Degress outside and we have 4,025 MW of extra capacitance and out of 33,000 installed wind capacitance week are generating about 8,000 MW ....yeah? Sure would be nice to have the extra 25,000 MW of energy. Time stamp Today, 03:04 PM
Click to expand...

Watts is not Farads. Unit error.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
LOL.. So let me see if I have this right..
If something costs .06 per kwh and it needs to be backed up with something that costs .12 kwh when it's needed, that is more expensive than something that always costs .12kwh? If you are an example of how Texans plan no wonder they keep having problems.

By the way.. how reliable was that fossil fuel generation a couple of winters ago?
Click to expand...

There is no fossil fuel generation and never was. Fossils don't burn.
 
Into the Night said:
Coal is not a hydrocarbon. There is NO hydrogen in coal.
Click to expand...
Oh really? :laugh:

Hydrogen from coal: 7.6 kg of coal/kg hydrogen
Hydrogen from natural gas: 4.5 normal cubic meters/kg of hydrogen
Hydrogen from nuclear and hydro power: 58.8 kWh/kg of hydrogen
On average, about 3 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 kg of hydrogen
1 kg of hydrogen can potentially displace 4.35 kg or 1.58 gallons of gasoline

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/42773.pdf

Coal is a combustible black or brownish-black sedimentary rock, formed as rock strata called coal seams. Coal is mostly carbon with variable amounts of other elements, chiefly hydrogen, sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal

So how do we make hydrogen?
Now we know the key concepts, let’s start again at the start. To produce hydrogen from coal, the process begins with partial oxidation, which means some air is added to the coal, which generates carbon dioxide gas through traditional combustion. Not enough is added, though, to completely burn the coal – only enough to make some heat for the gasification reaction. The partial oxidation also makes its own gasification agent, carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide reacts with the rest of the carbon in the coal to form carbon monoxide (this is the endothermic gasification reaction, which needs heat input). No hydrogen yet.

Carbon monoxide in the gas stream is now further reacted with steam, generating hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Now we are making some hydrogen. The hydrogen can then be run through an on-site fuel cell to generate high-efficiency electricity, although the plan at Loy Yang A is to pressurise the hydrogen and ship it off to Japan for their Olympic showcase.
Click to expand...
https://theconversation.com/explain... from coal,heat for the gasification reaction.
 
Primavera said:
He means capacity, stop being so effing pedantic. Poor Dick is bad enough we don't need another anal retentive like him.
Click to expand...

Capacitance is not capacity.

However, making that substitution, his statement still doesn't make much sense. You can't claim power that isn't there, which kind of sounds like what he's trying to say...badly.

I point this out because he is playing word games. I suspect it's because he does not know the technology or the chemistry. School taught him some bad jargon that's quite meaningless. He then points to various references that claim carbon is a hydrocarbon (it isn't), or that hydrogen is a hydrocarbon (it isn't). He then claims to know the origin of coal (which is carbon, not a hydrocarbon), which no one knows. He is also claiming a fossil to be a liquid or a gas, apparently not realizing what the word 'fossil' even means. Perhaps school failed him there as well.

He is also claiming oil and natural gas to be limited resources, even though they are both renewable forms of energy.
 
Last edited:
ExpressLane said:
Hydrogen from coal: 7.6 kg of coal/kg hydrogen
Hydrogen from natural gas: 4.5 normal cubic meters/kg of hydrogen
Hydrogen from nuclear and hydro power: 58.8 kWh/kg of hydrogen
On average, about 3 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 kg of hydrogen
1 kg of hydrogen can potentially displace 4.35 kg or 1.58 gallons of gasoline

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/42773.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
https://theconversation.com/explain... from coal,heat for the gasification reaction.
Click to expand...

There is no hydrogen in coal. Coal is carbon.

You are describing electrolysis, not coal.

Hydrogen is not a hydrocarbon either.

You are trying to pivot away from the topic to justify burning fossils for fuel (but of course fossils don't burn).

Word games will not help you. Neither will Wikipedia. You cannot use it as a reference with me. You cannot change a substance with any reference either.

Hydrocarbons are not fossils, do not come from fossils, and have nothing to do with fossils. They are a renewable fuel.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
Capacitance is not capacity.

However, making that substitution, his statement still doesn't make much sense. You can't claim power that isn't there, which kind of sounds like what he's trying to say...badly.

I point this out because he is playing word games. I suspect it's because he does not know the technology or the chemistry. School taught him some bad jargon that's quite meaningless. He then points to various references that claim carbon is a hydrocarbon (it isn't), or that hydrogen is a hydrocarbon (it isn't). He then claims to know the origin of coal (which is carbon, not a hydrocarbon), which no one knows. He is also claiming a fossil to be a liquid or a gas, apparently not realizing what the word 'fossil' even means. Perhaps school failed him there as well.

He is also claiming oil and natural gas to be limited resources, even though they are both renewable forms of energy.
Click to expand...

I give up, you're just as bad as Poor Dick!

Coal is a combustible black or brownish-black sedimentary rock with a high amount of carbon and hydrocarbons. Coal is classified as a nonrenewable energy source because it takes millions of years to form as indeed do crude oil and natural gas.
 
Here's an interesting factoid... The hotter it gets, the worst solar panels perform.

Yep folks, solar panels are optimized to operate at 20 to 25 C. For every degree above 25 C, they lose one-half percent efficiency due to the heat they are subjected to. Given that the best PV solar panels are on the order of 20% efficient at best, losing 5 to 10% of their generating capacity is significant. An already horribly inefficient generation system becomes far less efficient.
 
Primavera said:
I give up, you're just as bad as Poor Dick!

Coal is a combustible black or brownish-black sedimentary rock with a high amount of carbon and hydrocarbons. Coal is classified as a nonrenewable energy source because it takes millions of years to form as indeed do crude oil and natural gas.
Click to expand...

Coal is not a hydrocarbon. It is carbon. The origin of coal is unknown, but there is plenty of it.
Oil and natural gas do not take millions of years to form. We can make it ourselves in about an hour, using conditions naturally found underground.

How do you know coal takes millions of years to form? Were you around for millions of years to witness it???
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Here's an interesting factoid... The hotter it gets, the worst solar panels perform.

Yep folks, solar panels are optimized to operate at 20 to 25 C. For every degree above 25 C, they lose one-half percent efficiency due to the heat they are subjected to. Given that the best PV solar panels are on the order of 20% efficient at best, losing 5 to 10% of their generating capacity is significant. An already horribly inefficient generation system becomes far less efficient.
Click to expand...

An interesting point to bring up. Solar panels have other disadvantages as well:

* They begin to degrade as soon as you expose them to sunlight.
* They are subject to damage from sand, wind, insects, leaves, mold, moss, ice, snow, hail, and even heavy rain.
* They are expensive.
* They don't produce much power.
* They don't produce ANY power at night.

Watt for watt, they are the most expensive method of generating electricity.

Their only useful purpose is for remote and lower power applications, such as auxiliary power for camping, remote locations, road sign beacons, etc.

As far as the 'best' power source, there isn't one. Each source of electricity has it's own advantages and disadvantages. Let the market decide what people want to buy for their power. Government has no place here. That's fascism.
 
Into the Night said:
Coal is not a hydrocarbon. It is carbon. The origin of coal is unknown, but there is plenty of it.
Oil and natural gas do not take millions of years to form. We can make it ourselves in about an hour, using conditions naturally found underground.

How do you know coal takes millions of years to form? Were you around for millions of years to witness it???
Click to expand...

Coal is too a hydrocarbon. It is formed from the detritus of plants in places like swamps and forests initially as peat or chernozem and when compressed under heat and pressure deeper in the Earth it becomes coal.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/1organic/coal.html

Coal exposed to water (mainly in the form of steam) at high temperatures can be melted down into petroleum products as in the Fischer-Tropsch process

https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/ftsynthesis
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/dodaro1/
 
Into the Night said:
Coal is not a hydrocarbon. It is carbon. The origin of coal is unknown, but there is plenty of it.
Oil and natural gas do not take millions of years to form. We can make it ourselves in about an hour, using conditions naturally found underground.

How do you know coal takes millions of years to form? Were you around for millions of years to witness it???
Click to expand...

When you deny something as basic as the composition of coal, it's nigh impossible to take you seriously about anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top