Відео

Sounds interesting. If you tether it to the ground you can maximise the relative wind velocity and thus the energy. I wonder what the net energy output will be (you're losing energy by keeping the air hot to keep the balloon in the air). When you pull together funding to test the concept, please let me know!

Thanks for the comment. Yes I have. I was thinking about solar water heating when making this video. Although additional energy is used to keep the water in the recirculation system hot, with practically infinite energy coming from the sun, it doesn't really matter. At my home, which runs 100% on solar power, the battery gets full by around 10am and my water heater starts heating the water. Once my water is hot, my house's load drops and I have an oversupply of power from the sun, so that power is throttled by my inverter. So, yes, if you're getting your energy from the sun, it doesn't really matter how much you use to keep your water hot for the sake of comfort and convenience. Great comment, thanks again.

Interesting perspective. I suppose you're right - all the water that exists on earth is all the water that has ever and will ever exist on earth. Although, water becomes unusable under some conditions. For example, when clean water goes down the drain with sewer water, that clean water becomes unusable, and requires inputs (natural or human) to become clean and usable again. So, when we talk about waste, we're not saying that the water no longer exists, we're just saying that the efforts taken to get it to a usable state were in vain and need to be repeated.

@@shanleylutchman Yes at 62 and being well educated, I understand these things. So your video presents, as is often seen in our modern world, the perception of THE WATER WILL NO LONGER EXISTS (Wasting water) as opposed to the water needs to be cleaned. It is very easy to scare people into thinking like CHICKEN LITTLE and THE SKY IS FALLING. It is not falling. So in fact there is no wasting going on other than the EXPENSE or time needed to clean the water. In your example there is only an expense of cleaning or the expense of time. The efforts to clean the water are all a part of the natural process of course. Humans can speed this up through waste water processing. I have appraised over 30 of these facilities in the former USA, and I know how the process works quite well. It is an imitation of the natural process of course. Gods plan.... For example: My house has a septic tank. The dirty water goes into the tank and the bacteria (which is provided naturally by God as it is everywhere) consumes and converts much of the toxins. The excess is slowly drained into the Drain Field and then filtered back through the soil as has been done for a millennia. Once filtered by the soil and rock strata it returns to the water table. This process is done all over the planet including in UN POPULATED AREAS like the Sahara or the Atacama deserts or the North and South Poles or the Ocean. Hence the process starts all over again. This is not even considerations the process of evaporation and precipitation. The problem is that humans are greedy and want it NOW! The other problem arises where there is a large amount of one mineral or chemical in one place. The myth is that this is always caused by HUMANS. Ask yourself .... where does lead come from? Where does Asbestos come from? Where does Uranium come from? Where does Sulfur come from? Where do ALL CHEMICALS come from? .... the moon? No the earth. Most in their natural state and often in very concentrated amounts that naturally occur. We would call it CONTAMINATION because in these places humans can not flourish. We chose to not live in contaminated areas of our naturally occurring world. There are many, many ways to make clean water. I know this well as a former Submariner. On the submarine we made all our air and water and much more. Matter is neither created or destroyed it is just converted. So, again, we are just talking about time or and expense. Never lose sight of the fact that for eons before man, God did all this on his own accord. Global Warming? Global Cooling? Rising and or lowering oceans? These are all scare science designed to control your mind and soul, nothing more. Most people can not lose weight on their own much less control the warming or cooling of the earth. We as man are not God. When we lose our understanding of this fact then we lose our hope. We are not in control (for the most part) and when we forget this then we try..... try unsuccessfully to raise ourselves to the level of God. Try to create a cell on your own from nothing. You can not. Try to make the sun come up at 4 in the morning. You can not. We are not God and you can not SAVE WATER. Jim in Chile

@@ChileExpatFamily I see where you're coming from. It makes sense what you're saying. I appreciate your perspective. For me, the position of "the world is ending" is not my main motivation for sustainable practice. For me, the motivation is stewardship. We have been given this earth as a gift, and we need to use its resources most efficiently, cause as little harm as possible to others, and make sure that we leave enough for others.

@@shanleylutchman I agree totally. I just do not use fear to get to the same conclusion. I personally do not mind the world ending. It is not in our hands either way. So let it be what will be. There are more important things to concern ourselves about. Cheers Jim.

@@ChileExpatFamily Thanks Jim, great chatting with you

@@realvanman1 Great comment, thanks. You're right, there is an increase in energy consumption. There's also times wasted waiting for water to get hot.

@@Czessiood Thanks, glad you like it. It really depends on the size of the home and the distance of the heater from the taps being opened.

@@ZEMPHYRRIANs420gaming-bl7wm Sure, but then you have to be outdoors, right?

Base load power is not a necessity. The power system can run effectively with a combination of variable generation (solar and wind) and flexible generation (gas, hydrogen, pumped storage), with the bulk of supply (as much as 70%) coming from solar and wind. Nuclear and coal will be part of the mix for the life of the current plants. But no new nuclear or coal are needed in the energy system. Agreed, let's avoid imports. Renewables provides the greatest opportunity for local production and using local expertise.

Thanks for the comment. Comparing levelized cost of energy (LCOE), which accounts for total production, fuel costs, maintenance costs, interest on debt, and life of the plant, solar and wind are cheaper than every other technology.

@@shanleylutchman The problem is not just cost of operating, but capacity to deliver power withsolar and wind. The energy capacity is bad for developing nations, since manufacturing/resources extraction depend on that

@@shanleylutchman solar and wind take up more surface area , for energy that isn't dependable 💁🏿‍♂️

​@@mrmusanda3576 I understand that solar and wind take up more space per kWp installed. However, even at that reduced "power density" the cost per unit of electricity produced (including capital costs) is still less than coal and nuclear. Regarding dependability, we can predict with reasonable certainty what the wind and sun will do using weather models. Decentralized solar and wind can provide us with about 70% of our needs (e.g. the wind is always blowing somewhere). For the times with this composite of decentralized plants do not produce enough (low sun and low wind), which would be about 30% of the time, we can use flexible generation, like gas and pumped storage. This arrangement (even with high gas prices) would still work out cheaper than building more coal and nuclear. Additionally, implementation of solar and wind are much quicker and they allow for all South Africans to participate, and close to their location, as opposed to a select few who have the right connections and access to capital.

@@shanleylutchman cost of unit of electricity is relative to the capacity of the Plant, not the technology in use. Nuclear could even make electricity free, but tenderpreneur can't eat in such a system, hence why most nations stick with Coal and Gas with it (politicians get their money from Oil and Gas donations). Maintenance is even cheaper due to lack of moving components Yes, installation prices is high for nuclear, but on a long term basis it is cheaper for the nations (manufacturing and other industrial companies taxes will by default pay back the debt) To make matters worse, solar and wind use (for now) lithium ion battery, which weren't made for constant usage and depletion 24/7. And as time goes, the discharge rate gets less. You can't have such problems when you are talking about grid transmissions

Absolutely

Great comment, thanks! So true, our need for power stations is radically changing.

Hi Morgan!

:-D

My source : ua-cam.com/video/wFdc-knyig8/v-deo.html

And what about the fact that renewable energy transmission is useless on transmission line, and is dumped ones it is bought. Why do we have to change when coal is so readily availability and cheap to use. Africa needs cheap and realisable electricity, which renewable can't guarantee

My conclusion is renewable energy will destroy this nation, and give South Africa no hope on industrializing , and for that Africa will fail

Wind costs 40c/kWh. Coal and nuclear cost close to R1/kWh. Wind is cheaper than coal and nuclear.

I don't know who owns them but there are already wind turbines that have been spinning for 5 or 6yrs on the N2 when traveling between Kie Bridge and East London. So there will be real live data to draw information from.

I hear you. Though, pumped storage is not technically renewable energy (it's not hydro as such). It's just storage, it's equivalent to batteries, and can store renewable power or fossil fuel power

@@shanleylutchman But using the excess solar power generated during the day to drive the pumps to pump water up the hill is technically using renewable power to store water power that can drive the evening peak. If that's not storing and using renewable power to lighten the grid then I'm not understanding the mechanism. I'm more interested in solving our load-shedding problem than moving our country to renewable energy, one step at a time, when we have excess power we can focus on making our power cleaner (yes I know...when the fire is out the drive to switch to renewables will dissipate). Anyway...I was just commenting. Thanks for your insights 👍

@@2claverton Yes, you're right, it would be renewables. Thank you for the comment. At the moment the cheapest and quickest way to solve our energy problems is renewables which happens to be the cleanest route as well. It's a win win, but many of the guys in power struggle to grasp that fact

Yes, that's true. But it appears as though we're going that route

Hi!

At what cost? It would take 10-15 years to build new coal-fired power stations. Will the economy survive 10-15 of ever-increasing load shedding? SA has a billion years worth of solar and wind, we should use that. We can get solar plant and wind farms up and running in two years or less.

@@shanleylutchman fix the existing fleet, just like what "matshela koko" and "brain molefe" did. Most South Africans are now convinced that this problem is man-made .

Would you agree that a cost comparison is needed? The Minister should provide us with details on how much it would cost to fix the existing fleet, how long it would take, how much longer the fleet could last, and whether there will be O&M support from OEMs. If this approach is cheaper and quicker than a full-on renewables and flex-gen procurement program, then we can have that conversation. The only drawback of this approach, though, is the climate commitments we've made. Also, if our economy is still powered by fossil fuels, our export products will become less and less desirable to the international market.

Hey Carlington! When we say that the success is shared, we mean that we do business together and we share the profits of the business undertaking as opposed to working by yourself and keeping the profits to yourself. You work as a team and the team wins together.

Yes I am :)

@@shanleylutchman Aweh my Bru

@@escalatorjourney3458 Aweh 😄

As individual South Africans, we can each contribute to the solution by getting our own panels for home or business, if we can afford them. In most cases, getting solar panels is a very good investment and can be purchased under finance.

A solar power system can work without batteries, but it needs to be connected to the grid to provide power when the sun is not shining. This type of system is known as a "grid-tied" system. When the sun is not shining or the demand for electricity is greater than what the solar panels produce, the home or building will draw electricity from the grid. Grid-tied systems are a good option for money-saving, and many businesses opt for this. Battery-inverter systems can work without solar panels. This system is just batteries and an inverter, with no solar panels. When the grid is up, the batteries are charged. When the grid is down, the batteries power the building. This is a good option for load shedding and is cheaper than going off-grid or a hybrid system. It is more expensive than generators, even with the high price of fuel.

That would work as well, thanks for the comment!

@@shanleylutchman this was before I found out how the rechargable globes work even when the switch is off there is still little current on the neutral wire. If it is a blackout there is no power wat so ever.

I don't know enough about Sodium Ion Batteries to give an opinion. That's the first I hear about Tesla batteries burning up. I will investigate that - wow!

Gone too soon.

Luntha, thank you so much for taking the time to write a lengthy and detailed response. Personally, I'm not convinced by the climate change and global warming arguments. Yes, there may be a political push for renewables. But for me, it's about sustainability and it's about economics. SA has some of the best renewable resources in the world. The global push for renewables (whether we agree with it or not) has also brought down the price for capturing energy from the sun and wind to the point where it is significantly cheaper than coal and nuclear. Again, the studies showed that we could be saving R90billion per year by building renewables rather than coal and nuclear. The additional advantage of renewables is that we will never run out of sunlight and wind (not so with coal and uranium). This is one of the greatest economical opportunities for South Africa. So for me, we have two options: 1. Trust Eskom to build more coal and nuclear (given the bad track record in Medupi and Kusile). This option keeps our economy at the mercy of loadshedding for the next to10-15 years (depending on how long Eskom takes to build the plants). 2. Trust scores of independent power producers to build renewables, end load-shedding in to 2-5 years, and save the country R90billion per annum in process.

Are you saying the pedo elites are destroying the world because they don't want to move to renewables?

Absolutely. I believe that people don't leave bad jobs, they leave bad bosses. And the funny thing is, when you do this "anything" for a good boss, you actually develop and grow in the process, setting yourself up for better opportunities.

Right, I suppose you could look at it that way. But my thinking is that the "extra" that you do for free, while it may seem like it's just benefiting your employer in the short term, may actually be of benefit to the employee setting them up to either (1) ask for more, (2) become more valuable personally, (3) get a better job with more money and responsibility

Either way, there may be times when a bit extra is required. It's better for you as a person, for your personal growth, to get it done than to "walk away"

Blatt?

That's true. It's new buzzword, but it's not a new trend

@@benjordan1971 black. But you can't type the word most times without yt deleting the comment.

@@DaleSandusky I mean if I'm getting paid to do a job I'm doing the job I'm paid to do unless I'm getting paid more

@@benjordan1971 Yes, I hear you. But there may be personal benefits to you in doing extra that are not necessarily quantifiable.

I agree, you shouldn't over work yourself. But sometimes there are situations that require a bit extra, and it's better to get it done than to "walk away"

@@shanleylutchman I mean I suppose that is fair, if it is really limited to rare situations. However, the buzzword discussed here "quiet quitting" implies that simply doing the amount of work you are paid for is far below expectations. Personally, if an employer used that term around me, that would be a red flag for me as employee!

@@shanleylutchman as long as my paycheck gets a bit extra the extra situation can be handled

@@randomdeutsch5489 I see what you mean. It's kind of like saying, "I hired you to do this job, but I expect more" and if you don't do more I'm going to give you a label. I suppose it depends on job, but I think that putting in a bit extra from time to time sets a person up to ask for more, to develop more, and/or set themselves up for a better job, even though the employer may be appear to be getting a bargain in the short term. I also think that if one never puts in "extra" it might limit development and future opportunities.