• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Cap n Trade

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
The overwhelming majority of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emission reductions have come from power plants. Even a Maroon Like You knows this
Learn comprehension. Where did I say anything contrary? Here it is again:

Sulfur is not a product of combustion; it is merely along for the ride. It is external, a secondary pollutant, an undesirable contaminant. There are many ways we can eliminate it effectively with zero effect on combustion output, we don’t have to settle for “use less energy so you can burn less”.

However when you are talking about CO2 you are talking about the direct unavoidable byproduct of complete 100% clean perfect combustion. There is no scrubbing or capturing it or minimize it for a given amount of energy required. The only obvious solution everyone likes to gun for is "use less" which means weaker cars, smaller TVs, smaller houses to heat and cool, etc... eg: wealth and status equalization.


Get it? It's not like saying "take the lead out of gasoline", it's like saying "stop using gasoline period".

I can't wait for someone to invent a catalytic converter that converts CO2 to O2 or something silly (and does who knows what the carbon) so you people can then start screaming that high concentrations of O2 are going to kill the planet next (since we avoided having to give up cars and electricity, yet again…)

Whatever it is the goal is always the same, limit the material people can own and what they can consume to promote social and economic equality
.
 
Last edited:

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
if it were practical to enforce my private property rights when your pollution enters upon my land, that would be a fine system to use. problem is it simply isn't practical. pollution can be diffuse or can take a very long time to reach my property, my damages are up in the air (is it the clean up cost? is it the health cost? how certain can the health cost be if the ill effects can't be known for decades or maybe are borne by the next generation rather than myself?). on top of that you'll have up to 50 different schemes for it on just state law remedies.
Pollution? I thought we were talking about water vapor, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and oxygen, eg: greenhouse gasses. I mean, you breathing and sweating is "polluting" my land...
 
Last edited:

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,438
5,512
126
Pollution? I thought we were talking about water vapor, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and oxygen, eg: greenhouse gasses.
despite the title, the OP is referring to all pollution
Private property rights and no governmental environmental standards seem to be the best to me.

but you've highlighted another problem: what is pollution. there you really would have 50 different answers if it were state law private property rights.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
despite the title, the OP is referring to all pollution



but you've highlighted another problem: what is pollution. there you really would have 50 different answers if it were state law private property rights.
Exactly my point. I had thought for a while there things were doing pretty good... acid rain under control, smog, sulfer, lead in gasoline, etc, all cleaned up, all the hysteria of hydrocarbons and the ozone layer and how evil cars were completely behind us, cars now emitting nothing but pure harmless water and carbon dioxide same as we breath in and out all day while still making 400 horsepower, all the worlds problems solved. thanks to the wonders of science...

Then I wake up one morning and holy shit CO2 and H2O are now pollutants and are going to end life as we know it in the next 10 years!!!

The key difference between now and the last 50 years of the green movement? Before there was valid concern because we were burning bad stuff WITH OUR FUEL and giving ourselves cancer, etc. All of which was completely unnecessary in the primary pursuit of burning fuel to produce energy (eg: hydrocarbon + oxygen + catalyst = water + co2).

So we've taken out the sulfur, the lead, the nitrous oxides, the unburned hydrocarbons. Now we are pretty much at that perfect combustion equation and there is nothing left to get rid of or clean up. Now the very act of combustion itself is bad no mater how clean, no matter how natural the perfected byproducts.

Now we simply have to use less or give up entirely.

Not amused. At all.

My biggest concern... when we implement all this stuff and cut CO2 and continue to get warmer... is any of it going to be repealed and everyone is going to get the green light to drive whatever they want again? Or will we be stuck with it like it never happened... you know it's impossible to eliminate new sources of tax revenue even long after any legitimate purpose for them has been debunked or eliminated.
 
Last edited:

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,522
5,077
136
Learn comprehension. Where did I say anything contrary? Here it is again:

Sulfur is not a product of combustion; it is merely along for the ride. It is external, a secondary pollutant, an undesirable contaminant. There are many ways we can eliminate it effectively with zero effect on combustion output, we don’t have to settle for “use less energy so you can burn less”.

However when you are talking about CO2 you are talking about the direct unavoidable byproduct of complete 100% clean perfect combustion. There is no scrubbing or capturing it or minimize it for a given amount of energy required. The only obvious solution everyone likes to gun for is "use less" which means weaker cars, smaller TVs, smaller houses to heat and cool, etc... eg: wealth and status equalization.


Get it? It's not like saying "take the lead out of gasoline", it's like saying "stop using gasoline period".

I can't wait for someone to invent a catalytic converter that converts CO2 to O2 or something silly (and does who knows what the carbon) so you people can then start screaming that high concentrations of O2 are going to kill the planet next (since we avoided having to give up cars and electricity, yet again…)

Whatever it is the goal is always the same, limit the material people can own and what they can consume to promote social and economic equality
.
I guess you've never heard of sequestration. I still think it's part of the pie in the sky "Clean Coal" fantasy.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,990
2
81
How about that DC power being more efficient than AC over long distance eh?
Yep, them pesky electrical engineers (me) and their stupid science. Grrr!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance
Electrical impedance, or simply impedance, describes a measure of opposition to alternating current (AC). Electrical impedance extends the concept of resistance to AC circuits, describing not only the relative amplitudes of the voltage and current, but also the relative phases. When the circuit is driven with direct current (DC) there is no distinction between impedance and resistance; the latter can be thought of as impedance with zero phase angle.
DC always runs at unity power factor? No shit. Anyone who actually went to high school could tell you that.


http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Multiple-Uses-of-DC-Motors&id=2482429
High Power DC Motors

Arguably the most common and useful motors are High Power DC Motors. These motors are generally used in open systems, and generally used in systems were torque and power, as well as drive are paramount. Examples of such systems include electric wheelchairs, electric scooters, Segways, hybrid cars, as well as in elevators.
Man those electrical engineers are such idiots. Why would they use a high torque DC motor when the hobo on the bus says AC is better!?!?!
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Yep, them pesky electrical engineers (me) and their stupid science. Grrr!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_reactance

DC always runs at unity power factor? No shit. Anyone who actually went to high school could tell you that.


http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Multiple-Uses-of-DC-Motors&id=2482429


Man those electrical engineers are such idiots. Why would they use a high torque DC motor when the hobo on the bus says AC is better!?!?!
Because you weren't talking about high torque DC motors, you were talking about the most efficient method of transmitting electrical power over wires thousands of miles long, something that your random bits of electrical theory you dug up on wikipedia have nothing to do with.

Go ahead and say DC power is better for transmitting power over long distances so we can keep laughing at you.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,990
2
81
Go ahead and say DC power is better for transmitting power over long distances so we can keep laughing at you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
A high-voltage, direct current (HVDC) electric power transmission system uses direct current for the bulk transmission of electrical power, in contrast with the more common alternating current systems. For long-distance distribution, HVDC systems are less expensive and suffer lower electrical losses
You don't even need to admit you're wrong. Just stop spreading stupid shit and I'll drop this.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current


You don't even need to admit you're wrong. Just stop spreading stupid shit and I'll drop this.
The modern form of HVDC transmission uses technology developed extensively in the 1930s in Sweden at ASEA. Early commercial installations included one in the Soviet Union in 1951 between Moscow and Kashira, and a 10-20 MW system between Gotland and mainland Sweden in 1954.[1] The longest HVDC link in the world is currently the Inga-Shaba 1,700 km (1,100 mi) 600 MW link connecting the Inga Dam to the Shaba copper mine, in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Snicker snicker

Do you even know WHY we use AC and not DC?
 
Last edited:

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,990
2
81
Snicker snicker

Do you even know WHY we use AC and not DC?
It's because it's easier to change AC voltage by a large amount (ie 5000V to 120V). That's basically the only reason anyone picks AC.

AC has significant issues with voltage regulation. Connecting a highly inductive load to a synchronous generator causes the voltage to drop incredibly fast as the load increases. Connecting a highly capacitive load causes the voltage to increase as the load increases, and this can damage other things on the line. This is actually the reason it's illegal in Canada to correct the power factor of a motor to the point that current leads voltage. This effect is called armature reaction. DC does not suffer from this problem because one can add capacitors until the cows come home and it will never have negative voltage regulation.

Protective relaying on an AC system is more complicated because of frequency and phase. If frequency drops below 59.6 Hz, the power company will start rolling blackouts because the frequency is that important. DC doesn't need any of this. It has no frequency; all you look at is voltage. Directional relaying on a DC system is easier because it's simply asking if current is going left or right whereas AC looks at negative sequence, torque angles, and harmonics.

Not only does AC suffer from inductive impedance, but it has higher resistance than DC when using the exact same conductors. This is because alternating current tends to travel along the outside of the conductor. This is called the skin effect.

AC wires require thicker insulation. This is because dielectrics break down based on peak voltage whereas effective power of AC is measured in RMS. RMS of a sine wave is roughly 0.707 of the peak value. That means if you want to put 70V through an AC wire, you need at least 100V (peak) insulation. DC doesn't have this problem because the peak voltage and RMS voltage are basically the same, so you can put 100V RMS DC on that same 70V RMS AC wire.

DC does not have negative sequence current from either unbalance or harmonics. Unbalancing an AC 3-phase motor by 1% can increase the current by as much as 4%. DC doesn't need balance since it's just 1 phase and it doesn't have harmonics because it has no frequency.

AC hates electrolytic capacitors. Electrolytic capacitors have very high capacitance for their size, but they are not well liked by AC because they are polarity dependant. When starting a cap-start cap-run single phase AC air compressor, the starting capacitor must be removed from the circuit once the motor is started or else it will explode. DC doesn't have this problem because the electrolytic capacitor is similar to your car battery; it just charges and stays charged with that particular polarity. As a result of this, we need to use oil-filled capacitors for AC, which work great but are much larger.

Asynchronous AC power grids cannot be tied together because they are not in phase, but DC systems of the same voltage can always be tied together. The AC power grid in Alberta, Canada cannot be tied to the AC power grid in Saskatchewan, Canada because the two are out of phase. As a result of phase differences, BC and Alberta can share AC but power going anywhere else can only be tied through DC. This is why there are so many DC connections on that wiki grid; the systems would be tied with AC if they were in phase, but they are not in phase.

AC is almost worthless in motors unless you have 3 phases to work with. Without having an expensive cap-start cap-run system, the starting torque is painfullly low. This is why things like electric drills and blenders have rectifiers in them and use DC motors. If you have an old drill like I do, you can actually look inside it and see sparks; that's caused by the DC brushes. Newer and better DC motors, like one in a Toyota Prius, uses brushless DC and will never spark like that.

3-phase AC induction motors suck when they use straight AC. They have almost no speed control. Because of this, industry is moving to Variable Frequency Drives (VFD) which convert 3-phase AC to DC then back to a variable AC via PWM. Since DC doesn't have any inherent frequency, the frequency can be adjusted on the fly simply by switching IGBTs on and off. If you want to control the speed of a a motor, you'll want DC power.

AC systems cannot use batteries. My computer's UPS is a DC system because batteries are DC, so any batteries provided to AC must be converted from DC to AC. At this time, there is no such thing as an AC battery.




tl;dr:
DC is superior to AC is almost every way. It can use less copper, less insulation, has better voltage regulation, lower impedance, lower resistance, higher starting torque motors, PWM speed control, electrolytic capacitors, and almost every device in your house uses DC power. What's the first thing your computer does to the power it gets from the wall? Convert it to DC. AC's only advantage is the ability to use transformers.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
tl;dr:
DC is superior to AC is almost every way. It can use less copper, less insulation, has better voltage regulation, lower impedance, lower resistance, higher starting torque motors, PWM speed control, electrolytic capacitors, and almost every device in your house uses DC power. What's the first thing your computer does to the power it gets from the wall? Convert it to DC. AC's only advantage is the ability to use transformers.


Did you miss this section of the article you posted?
Disadvantages

The disadvantages of HVDC are in conversion, switching, control, availability and maintenance.

The required static inverters are expensive and have limited overload capacity. At smaller transmission distances the losses in the static inverters may be bigger than in an AC transmission line. The cost of the inverters may not be offset by reductions in line construction cost and lower line loss. With two exceptions, all former mercury rectifiers worldwide have been dismantled or replaced by thyristor units. Pole 1 of the HVDC scheme between the North and South Islands of New Zealand still uses mercury arc rectifiers, as does Pole 1 of the Vancouver Island link in Canada.

In contrast to AC systems[citation needed], realizing multiterminal systems is complex, as is expanding existing schemes to multiterminal systems. Controlling power flow in a multiterminal DC system requires good communication between all the terminals; power flow must be actively regulated by the inverter control system instead of the inherent impedance and phase angle properties of the transmission line.[13] Multi-terminal lines are rare. One is in operation at the Hydro Québec - New England transmission from Radisson to Sandy Pond.[14] Another example is the Sardinia-mainland Italy link which was modified in 1989 to also provide power to the island of Corsica.[15]

HVDC is less reliable and has lower availability than AC systems, mainly due to the extra conversion equipment. Single pole systems have availability of about 98.5%, with about a third of the downtime unscheduled due to faults. Fault redundant bipole systems provide high availability for 50% of the link capacity, but availability of the full capacity is about 97% to 98%.[16]

High voltage DC circuit breakers are difficult to build because some mechanism must be included in the circuit breaker to force current to zero, otherwise arcing and contact wear would be too great to allow reliable switching.

Operating a HVDC scheme requires many spare parts to be kept, often exclusively for one system as HVDC systems are less standardized than AC systems and technology changes faster.
Not to mention the fact that the decision was made 100 years ago when none of the technology to facilitate HVDC even existed. AC worked just fine though.
 
Last edited:

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
It's because it's easier to change AC voltage by a large amount (ie 5000V to 120V). That's basically the only reason anyone picks AC.
It was chosen a hundred years ago, some history might do you good.


tl;dr:
DC is superior to AC is almost every way. It can use less copper, less insulation, has better voltage regulation, lower impedance, lower resistance, higher starting torque motors, PWM speed control, electrolytic capacitors, and almost every device in your house uses DC power. What's the first thing your computer does to the power it gets from the wall? Convert it to DC. AC's only advantage is the ability to use transformers.
Read what Ebaycj posted from your own article. It's end use is only a small part of it's(power) use and transmission to people for use.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,992
96
91
The scientific community thought it would be a good idea to put MTBE in California's gas...

How did that work out?
So lets just ignore scientific consensus and see how that works out. You quote one example of where they did not see the complete picture and screwed up. You know how we know that it was indeed a screwup? Science. But lets put the lead back in our gasoline and paint, abandon all modern conveniences, and revert back to the days when 'here be dragons' was written near the edges of maps. It is simply stupid to say that we don't or shouldn't trust science anymore. Clearly you don't understand what the scientific method is in the first place.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY