Recent Comments

Prev  1586  1587  1588  1589  1590  1591  1592  1593  1594  1595  1596  1597  1598  1599  1600  1601  Next

Comments 79651 to 79700:

79651. BBD at 03:51 AM on 11 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Also please respond to #231, which is the heart of it. If one of us is mistaken, it is presumably about this.
79652. RW1 at 03:46 AM on 11 July 2011
       Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
       Tom, I'm just asking for an explanation of where the +12.9 W/m^2 flux needed at the surface is coming from, or specifically how the 'feedback' will cause this much response? So far you haven't provided an answer to this. Now, I've also asked why the feedback doesn't cause this much response on solar forcing, but I'm willing to overlook that for now. Furthermore, I presume you understand that if the surface is to warm by 3 C then it must also emit 406.6 W/m^2 (16.6 W/m^2 more) and that COE dictates that this +16.6 flux at the surface has to be coming from somewhere? If 3.7 W/m^2 are provided directly from 2xCO2 and another 2.3 W/m^2 are provided from the atmosphere's the net transmittance of of 0.62 (3.7 x 0.62 = 2.3 W/m^2) to allow the 3.7 W/m^2 to leave the system to restore equilibrium (240 W/m^2 in and out), where is the additional 10.6 W/m^2 flux coming from? There are only two possible sources for this flux. Either from the Sun via a reduced albedo of about 6.5 W/m^2 (6.5 x 1.62 = 10.6) or from increased atmosphere absorption of about 13 W/m^2 (13/2 = 6.5; 6.5 x 1.62 = 10.6).
79653. BBD at 03:42 AM on 11 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Tom #232 Please show your workings - thanks.
79654. BBD at 03:41 AM on 11 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       And Tom, let's keep it polite. One of us is mistaken. We can reason together and work out who it is without the personal stuff.
79655. Tom Curtis at 03:41 AM on 11 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       BBD @229, doing the maths on David Mackay's formula, a 500,000 km^2 area (the area proposed by LAGI) would provide 25 terawatts of power on average over the year, 2 terawatts more than is calculated by LAGI. So, again, LAGI is more conservative than David Mackay (and don't site any of their generating capacity in England).
79656. BBD at 03:40 AM on 11 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Tom The basic calculation of capacity needs: 1) Energy density of the renewable resource 2) Conversion efficiency of the generation technology LAGI gives (1) as .2kW/m2, correctly IMO. But for clarity, let's write it as 200W/m2. The missing step is that (2) conversion efficiency is not calculated. Instead LAGI uses the value of (1) 200W/m2:

       We have our capacity in KW so in order to figure out how much area we’ll need, we have to multiply it by the number of hours that we can expect each of those square meters of photovoltaic panel to be outputting the .2KW capacity (kilowatts x hours = kW•h).

       In the real world, large-scale SPV is doing well to achieve a 10% conversion efficiency. CSP is often claimed to do better, but may not because of packing density issues. These are most pronounced with solartropic arrays. And yes, these do become significant to footprint as you scale up (see #219).
79657. Tom Curtis at 03:32 AM on 11 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       From LAGI:

       "We can figure a capacity of .2KW per SM of land (an efficiency of 20% of the 1000 watts that strikes the surface in each SM of land).">

       (My emphasis) From BBD:

       "The LAGI stuff is wrong. It assumes a 100% panel efficiency."

       So we determine that in BBD world 3 = 10 (see above about order of magnitude) and 20% = 100%. Perhaps this will convince him:

       "The combined effect of these three factors and the additional complication of the wobble of the seasons is that the average raw power of sunshine per square metre of south-facing roof in Britain is roughly 110 W/m2, and the average raw power of sunshine per square metre of flat ground is roughly 100 W/m2."

       (quoted from BBD) Watts per meter squared of sunshine * efficienncy * 1 million = Watts accumulated per km squared = 100 *0.15 * 10^6 = 15 MW/km^2 23 terawatts/15 mw = approx 1.55 million square kilometers of 15% efficient solar panels laid flat, in England to produce 23 terawatts, ie, the equivalent amount as for BBD's supposedly accurate calculation for subtropical deserts. And from BBD again:

       "It is disturbing that no-one noticed this fundamental error in the LAGI artwork. There are many evidently knowledgable commenters here. So this is suggestive of a strong confirmation bias at work."

       Which is very interesting, except that the fundamental errors are his, with LAGI not differing greatly in their calculations from equivalent calculations by his preferred experts. This probably is suggestive of "a strong confirmation bias", but in looking for it, it is about time BBD looked in a mirror.
79658. BBD at 03:17 AM on 11 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Tom If I'm so wrong about LAGI, how do you explain this? The erratum is that the square should be half-filled, not one third filled with CSP.
79659. Patrick 027 at 03:15 AM on 11 July 2011
       OA not OK part 3: Wherever I lay my shell, that's my home
       Re Doug Mackie - okay, thank you.
79660. actually thoughtful at 02:53 AM on 11 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Mark Harrigan - We couldn't fly before the Wright Brothers. No one understood relativity before Einstein. Not many people were even thinking about it. Going to the moon was a dream for thousands of years. You severely underestimate what humanity can do. And, with respect, it is a form of denial. It is a way to take the pressure of responsibility off of collective humanity. I, for one, reject it.
79661. Tom Curtis at 02:48 AM on 11 July 2011
       Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
       RW! @463: RE 2) I used 4 as a convenient approximation. A 2% increase in TSI results in approx 4.8 increase in TSI. A 1.6% results in a 3.8 W/m^2 increase. So us 1.6% instead. Regardless, for a 3.7 W/m^2 increase in solar forcing, the expected temperature increase is within around 10% of the increase for CO2. The slight difference is because differences is the region of greatest relative warming. RE 3) The 3.7 W/m^2 increase in TOA forcing results in approximately an approximately 16.6 W/m^2 increase in surface radiation, regardless of the forcing agent. If the surface temperature were held constant, but the feedbacks still applied, the 3.7 W/m^2 increase in TOA forcing would result in a TOA energy imbalance of approximately 11 W/m^2, again regardless of the forcing agent. Of course, Earth the feedbacks are a consequence of the warming, so that 11 W/m^2 is theoretical. Another way of looking at your error is that you compared the 3.7 to the 16.6 for CO2, but the 11 to the 16.6 for Solar. (I know that is not what you did, but it is theoretically equivalent.) However, my approach in 459 is more informative about the nature of your error. RE 4) The laws of physics do not dictate any terms - they just are. We choose which terms we will use in describing them, and the difference between a marginal and average rate is a good way to understand the reason for your error. The crucial thing you need to understand is that the temperature response to an equivalent solar and GHG forcing under current circumstances are expected to be very similar in magnitude though different in spatial and temporal structure. This is easily seen in the following two modelled temperature patterns for a doubling of CO2 (first) and a 2% increase in insolation (second): There is a genuine difference between the expected climate sensitivity for marginal changes in solar and CO2 forcing, but it is small. If you look up the relevant values you can try to run your argument again in a coherent manner, but I warn you the figures won't impress anyone, including you. Alternatively you can ignore the evidence above that climate science expects similar responses for similar forcings from solar or CO2 concentrations and keep on running your apples and oranges comparison. That will convincingly show that you are only here to spread confusion. (PS: I thought I had posted this, but it has not appeared. If this is a duplicate, please remove.)
79662. Steve Brown at 02:44 AM on 11 July 2011
       The Last Interglacial Part Two - Why was it so warm?
       #13 - The insolation peak at 65N during the Last Interglacial occurred at around the termination from the previous glaciation. By the time that the warmest period occured (Eemian Climatic Optimum), the insolation was heading towards a minumim. A good analogy is that the warmest month in the NH is August, which is a couple of months after the Summer Solstice when insolation peaks at high northern latitudes. The climate system has the same inertia.
79663. BBD at 02:43 AM on 11 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       In your haste, you have misread my post. I calculate only for a maximum of 16TW. That makes the scale of the error in LAGI significantly worse, of course.
79664. BBD at 02:38 AM on 11 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       Tom The LAGI stuff is wrong. It assumes a 100% panel efficiency. This is absolutely clear from my post above. Nothing else is terribly relevant. Let's stick to the facts. LAGI is wrong, as described. Your response to that fact is all that is necessary here. Anything else might be seen as an attempt to obfuscate and distract.
79665. BBD at 02:34 AM on 11 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Rob Thanks for prompting me to learn how to post images here ;-)
79666. RW1 at 02:31 AM on 11 July 2011
       Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
       My main point here is how can a negative feedback reduction of about 25-40% from L&C be considered so unreasonable even though it is well within the measured bounds of the system from solar forcing, yet an amplification of 300% is considered so reasonable when it is so far outside the measured bounds?
79667. BBD at 02:27 AM on 11 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Rob Honeycutt #84 China is the largest CO2 emitter in the world (23.33% CDIAC figures). I don't care any more about the per capita arguments than the atmosphere does. The Chinese economy is almost entirely powered by coal. Rhetoric from Beijing about smart grids and renewables is intended to distract from this. Unfortunately, it works quite well in some quarters. Here are the facts: CDIAC analysis:

       According to reported energy statistics, coal production and use in China has increased ten-fold since the 1960s. As a result, Chinese fossil-fuel CO2 emissions have grown a remarkable 92.0% since 2000 alone. At 1.78 billion metric tons of carbon in 2007, the People's Republic of China is the world's largest emitter of CO2 due to fossil-fuel use and cement production. Even with the reported decline in Chinese emissions from 1997 to 2000, China's industrial emissions of CO2 have grown phenomenally since 1950, when China stood tenth among nations based on annual fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. From 1970 to 1997, China's fossil-fuel CO2 emissions grew at an annual rate of 5.4%. Growth has occurred largely in the use of coal, not surprising given China is the world's largest coal producer, which accounted for 98.7% of the emissions total in 1950 and 72.0% in 2007. Liquid fuels now contribute 15.5% of emissions and have grown appreciably over the past decade. The anomalous peak for 1958-61 is common in Chinese data. These years are part of the period "The Great Leap Forward," and whether the anomaly represents a real event in CO2 emissions or a data residual is not clear. China is the world's largest hydraulic cement producer. In 2007 China produced over 1.35 billion metric tons of hydraulic cement, almost half of the world's production. Emissions from cement production account for 10.3% of China's 2007 total industrial CO2 emissions. China's population has doubled over the past four decades and now exceeds 1.3 billion people. Per capita emissions increased considerably over this period and 2006 marked the first year China's per capita emission rate (1.27 metric tons of carbon) exceeded the global average (1.25 metric tons of carbon).

       [Emphasis added.] EIA region analysis. (Please scroll down for Coal. Note the graphs for China's coal production and consumption 1999 - 2009 and China's electricity generation by fuel type, 1999 - 2009. They summarise it all neatly).

       According to the World Energy Council, China held an estimated 114.5 billion short tons of recoverable coal reserves in 2009, the third-largest in the world behind the United States and Russia, and equivalent to about 14 percent of the world's total reserves. Coal production rose to almost 3.4 billion short tons in 2009, making China the largest coal producer in the world. There are 27 provinces in China that produce coal, and slightly greater than half of China's coal is used for power generation. Northern China, especially the Shanxi and Inner Mongolia Provinces, contains most of China's easily accessible coal and virtually all of the large state-owned mines. Coal makes up 71 percent of China's total primary energy consumption, and in 2009, China consumed an estimated 3.5 billion short tons of coal, representing over 46 percent of the world total and a 180 percent increase since 2000. Coal consumption has been on the rise in China over the last nine years, reversing the decline seen from 1996 to 2000. China's coal imports started growing after 2002 because the cost of importing coal became competitive with domestic production. China, typically a net coal exporter, became a net coal importer in 2009, importing from Indonesia, Australia, Vietnam, and Russia. In September 2009, the China Coal Transportation and Distribution Association stated that China signed a $6 billion loan-for-coal agreement with Russia for 15 to 20 million tons of coal for 25 years.

       [Emphasis added.]
79668. desertphile at 02:25 AM on 11 July 2011
       Humlum is at it again
       "You can cite papers showing it is rising, I can cite papers showing it is cooling." --- Camburn at 05:33 AM on 23 May, 2011 So, ISIWoK lists =ZERO= papers that even suggest global warming has ceased, let alone stopped, let alone are cooling. Camburn appears to know something no scientist on the planet does.
79669. Paul D at 02:19 AM on 11 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
       Actually there is some advice from me. 1. Spend some time when shopping, to buy products with packaging that is recyclable, once you get in the habit, you can cut waste down a lot. This has to be combined with buying local/organic etc. where possible. 2. Take a bag with you to shops and don't accept disposable carrier bags that are offered (many are just advertising the shop in any case). 3. Cycle more. Actually bicycle sells in the UK have gone up significantly and the increase in the number of people cycling is noticeable. 4. Make do with what you have and repair anything if you can. Reuse if possible. Don't be drawn into any fads and trends, wait until what you have can no longer be used.
79670. Byron Smith at 02:12 AM on 11 July 2011
       OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
       (Just to be clear, I get 28.8% for this second calculation.)
79671. Byron Smith at 02:09 AM on 11 July 2011
       OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
       Can I check a calculation? First you say that the pH has declined from 8.25 to 8.14 (i.e. a difference of 0.11), but then when you say that acidity has increased by 26%, you use the comparison of 8.2 to 8.1 (i.e. a difference of 0.1). Wouldn't a difference of 0.11 on a log scale be closer to the widely quoted 30% than 26%? Or am I missing something obvious here?
79672. Paul D at 02:09 AM on 11 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
       It is interesting how different people from around the world are doing very similar things. Of the pool of advice given here I don't think I can add a lot.
79673. RW1 at 02:08 AM on 11 July 2011
       Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
       All I'm asking is for an explaination where the additional 12.9 W/m^2 is coming from to cause the 3 C rise (16.6 - 3.7 = 12.9). If the current atmosphere only provides an additional 2.3 W/m^2 (6 - 3.7 = 2.3), where specifically is the remaining +10.6 W/m^2 incoming flux required at the surface coming from?
79674. Paul D at 01:47 AM on 11 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       BBD@79 "the issue involved 'gadgets' as much as cultural attitudes to women in the workplace. These were changed by the wartime experience, and post-war, women began to achieve their potential. It took decades, and would not have been possible without time reallocation thanks to labour-saving devices. Sorry, gadgets." Do not repeat misleading facts and ignore my rebuttals. All you have proven here is what I already stated in my comment number 76. That culturally, in the past, men basically refused to be house husbands and woman were expected to stay at home. Given that in WWII a lot of farm and industrial work was done by women because men were not available, your argument that it was gadgets that allowed woman to work is misleading. Clearly if gadgets were the only way women could leave the home then it just re-enforces the idea that there was/is a lack of equality between men and women. If you look at adverts for vacuum cleaners and other devices of the period, they are deeply patronising by today's standards.
       Response:

       [DB] We are getting a little far off-topic here.

79675. RW1 at 01:45 AM on 11 July 2011
       Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
       Tom, RE: 2) You said that a doubling of CO2 was equal to about a 4 W/m^2 increase in solar irradiance, which is why I used those numbers. I always assumed the 3.7 W/m^2 was equal to post albedo solar power, which is amplified by about 63% (390/240 = 1.63) even though the IPCC doesn't even really even make any such distinction (to my knowledge, at least). RE: 3) The 1.63 applies to the power of 3.7 W/m^2 from 2xCO2 - not the 1.1 C in temperature, which has already been multiplied by 1.63 (3.7 x 1.63 = 6 W/m^2, which equals +1.1 C). RE: 4) I'm well aware of the difference between marginal and average rate; however, neither term is dictated by the laws of physics that govern the processes of energy flow in and out of the climate system.
79676. Paul D at 01:28 AM on 11 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       BBD@79: "the consequence has had no meaningful demographic impact (your statement about women in the workforce during WWII is beside the point). It is post-war peacetime economics we are discussing here" Well you can't cherry pick a point in history and pretend that periods before and after were some sort of islands of isolation. WWII had a big impact in British politics. We aren't actually discussing economics, we are discussing British history, politics and culture. You may want to discuss a subject, but you are not the judge here.
79677. Paul D at 01:23 AM on 11 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       BBD@79 "all infrastructure development post-1945 to be 'bad' capitalism" You are a strange person BBD (an American ideologist??). I suggest you actually read my posts. Post war, the UK was deeply socialist, so I don't know where you get the idea that being critical of post war British policies is a critique of capitalism??? Most of big UK industry was nationalised after WWII. That includes energy production.
79678. Tom Curtis at 01:09 AM on 11 July 2011
       Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
       RW1, 1) I really don't care what Lindzen and Choi have to say. They have amply proved that what ever it is that they are doing, it is not science. 2) The total insolation is reduced by albedo, so the "amplification factor" (aka, the greenhouse effect) is 62.5% at the surface, not 14%. 3) Given that you wish to run your specious argument, one wonders why you don't run it with regard to Lindzen and Choi's paper. On that basis you would expect a climate response to doubling of CO2 of at least 1.2 *1.625 = 1.95 degrees, which is close enough to the IPCC range, and large enough to mean that anthropogenic emissions are dangerous. In fact, that you do not apply it in that way suggest that you are either disingenuous in presenting the argument, or disingenuous in insisting on a low climate sensitivity. 4) Finally, I have already answered your question in 461, or are you also going to pretend that you cannot understand the difference between a marginal and an average rate?
79679. Rob Honeycutt at 01:04 AM on 11 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       BBD @ 83... I would say that remains to be seen how China's impact on CO2 plays out. They are certainly out pacing the US on nearly every front related to renewables. They're investing heavily in their own smart grid. The average middle class Chinese person still has a carbon footprint that is a fraction of any western country.
79680. Tom Curtis at 00:51 AM on 11 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       BBD seems intent on making a fool of himself over treehugger's figures. To be quite clear, LAGI as quoted by tree hugger uses a conservative calculation to determine that appropriately located, approximately 500,000 square kilometers could supply the worlds estimated total energy needs by 2030. They rely on a US Department of Energy estimate that 678 quadrillion BTU's, or approximately 23 terawatts, averaged over the whole year. To put that into perspective, BBD's much quoted Griffiths quotes 15,000 square miles or approx 40,000 square kilometers of CSP being able to produce 2 terawatts, or 460,000 square kilometers to produce 23 terawatts. In other words, his own source produces a figure 8% more optimistic than LAGI. Despite this, in BBD's opinion, Griffith's estimate is "far more realistic" while LAGI's is "seriously amiss" and "out by an order of magnitude". To compound the confusion, BBD himself calculates, by "generous[ly] assum[ing]" a 15% efficiency, efficiency rates already being exceeded, he calculates that 400,000 km^2 is required for 6 terawatts, or over 1.5 million square kilometers for 23 terawatts, more than three times LAGI's and the "far more realistic" Griffith's figures. I'm not sure how he turns three times greater into a order of magnitude, so I'll leave that for him to explain. I'll take a different approach. Consider the annual average surface insolation of Europe: This chart shows insolation after seasonal averaging, after adjustment for latitude, and after the effects of the diurnal cycle, and of local weather including clouds. So, let's consider the south of Spain, which receives 1800 plus kWh/annum, or 205 Watts averaged over the year. Therefore, if all our solar power plants were located in similar conditions, with 15% efficiency, we would require 750,000 square kilometers to provide 23 terawatts of electricity. Indeed, even at Berlin (or London) with 1000 plus kWh/annum, at 15% efficiency, it would only take 1.35 million square kilometers or 10% less than BBD's estimate for deserts. Of course, these figures as calculated are no more an endorsement of the LAGI figures than of BBD's. But nor would I expect them to be. The insolation figures used are for a flat plate laid horizontal to the ground. If we, for example, align our trough collectors on a north-south axis, and than rotate them to track the sun during the day, loss of insolation due to solar altitude is largely eliminated except near dawn and dusk. Alternatively, we can angle flat mirrors to be perpendicular to the suns rays eliminating the geometric effects of latitude and time of day during daylight, again greatly increasing efficiency. In other words, LAGI's figures are very reasonable, and in fact, conservatively calculated. BBD will no doubt now accuse me of renewables boosterism and of not know the difference between relative and absolute solar energy. After all, he made the same accusation against LAGI even though they explicitly accounted for all relevant factors. But that is not enough for BBD. You have to also assume that you cannot angle collectors for solar angle your else, in his opinion, your maths is just not up to scratch.
79681. RW1 at 00:40 AM on 11 July 2011
       Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
       Tom, "RW1 @458 the first thing that needs explaining is that your statement is simply false. The expected change in mean global surface temperature from a 2% change in total solar irradiance (an approx 4 W/m^2 change in solar forcing) is about 3 degrees C, just as with the approx 4 W/m^2 change in forcing from doubling CO2. The second thing that needs explaining is the nature of your error. It is very simple, you are comparing the marginal climate feedback of CO2 forcing, ie, the incremental change in net Top of Atmosphere Irradiance given current temperatures and conditions with the average climate feedback of solar forcing, ie, the integral of the marginal climate feedback over the whole range of TSI values, from 0 to approx 1366." What is so unique about the next 3.7 W/m^2 that it is reasonable to think the system will respond to it so much greater than the original 342 W/m^2 from the Sun, which is only amplified by about 14% at the surface (390/342 = 1.14)? You should also explain why it doesn't take more like 1534 W/m^2 at the surface to offset the 342 W/m^2 from the Sun (16.6/3.7)*342 = 1534.
79682. BBD at 00:36 AM on 11 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Rob Honeycutt #81 Thanks for the US perspective. Paul D and I were discussing the UK, but broadly similar development took place in all industrialised economies. Agree wrt the creation of a Chinese (consumer) middle class. Which will of course help to propel global CO2 ppmv to new heights irrespective of treaty/tax/cap policy measures taken by the West. Same applies to India. It just isn't as far along the road as China.
79683. Ed Davies at 00:24 AM on 11 July 2011
       OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
       Mathew, you answered your own question while I composing a longer reply but a link to Wikipedia might help anyway: Atomic_mass_unit#Relationship_to_SI.
79684. BBD at 00:20 AM on 11 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Marcus #73 Do you have grid load curves to support this? Standard grid balancing uses intermediate and peaking plant to deal with variability. Baseload is not usually under-utilised. 'Off peak' incentives are targeted at keeping intermediate plant within optimum output parameters. I'm very interested where you get this. Can you provide more information? Thanks
79685. Mathew Varidel at 00:17 AM on 11 July 2011
       OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
       Oh, wait, I get it. It's a counting unit - not for weight. So 1 molar of hydrogren is just 6.022 x 10^23 of hydrogen atoms. The weight of that would obviously be n(6.022 x 10^23), where n = the average weight of hydrogen atoms. I hope I just answered my own question.
79686. RW1 at 00:14 AM on 11 July 2011
       Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
       Tom, I didn't know you were still talking to me. Actually though, L&C is operating under the assumption of an 'intrinsic' 2xCO2 temperature increase of 1.1 C with the negative feedback reducing this to about 0.6-0.8 C. I was referring to the direct warming of 3.7 W/m^2 from S-B of 0.7 C, which if it were to become 3 C needs to be increased by over 400% (3.0/0.7 = 4.28).
79687. Eric (skeptic) at 23:58 PM on 10 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
       Re #20, I had the same question, do you drink your beer warm? Are you sure you are from Australia? On a previous thread I posted my electric bill of $30/month. Turns out that was for 9 kWh per day, so my electricity (rural Virginia) is very very cheap. My highest usage was last summer at 14 kWh per day average since it was so ridiculously hot. Total for year: 3000 kWh. Obviously I should do better.
79688. Mathew Varidel at 23:23 PM on 10 July 2011
       OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
       Can you clarify something for me. Is the Atomic Mass Unit the same as a Mole? Therefore, the amount of Moles in a certain element is the same as the average amount of Moles/AMUs found given the abundance of isotopes measured?
79689. Rob Honeycutt at 23:19 PM on 10 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       BBD @ 79... Had to chuckle a bit at your comment on post-war baseload expansion. Hell, by today's extremist rhetoric that expansion was pure socialism, not capitalism. Post WW2 had top tax brackets hit with a 90% tax rate. Immediately following WW2 was a period known as "The Great Compression" where massive amounts of wealth basically was redistributed to the middle class over the course of a decade. The development during that period was the government spending those tax dollars creating, what was at the time, state of the art infrastructure. I'm on kind of a theme right now since I'm visiting family in China... but what you saw in the US after WW2 was almost exactly what you see going on today in China. A government with lots of capital and a clear purpose to build out a broad middle class. (Feel free to delete this comment if it's too far off topic or too political in nature.)
79690. Tom Curtis at 23:08 PM on 10 July 2011
       Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
       RW1 @458 the first thing that needs explaining is that your statement is simply false. The expected change in mean global surface temperature from a 2% change in total solar irradiance (an approx 4 W/m^2 change in solar forcing) is about 3 degrees C, just as with the approx 4 W/m^2 change in forcing from doubling CO2. The second thing that needs explaining is the nature of your error. It is very simple, you are comparing the marginal climate feedback of CO2 forcing, ie, the incremental change in net Top of Atmosphere Irradiance given current temperatures and conditions with the average climate feedback of solar forcing, ie, the integral of the marginal climate feedback over the whole range of TSI values, from 0 to approx 1366. If we were to perform an impossible experiment and set TSI to zero and allow the temperature of the Earth to reach equilibrium, the equilibrium temperature would be approximately 4 degrees K. The Earth would have no atmosphere, for it would have condensed and frozen on the surface, hence it would have no greenhouse effect. Increasing TSE gradually, for a long time the surface radiation would rise proportionally to the change in TSI, as the Earth would not be warm enough for ice to melt and atmosphere to form. Hence there would be no feedbacks. After a while a thin atmosphere would form, but an atmosphere without any CO2. The albedo would probably start to rise at this time as the sun started producing visible radiation (which is reflected by ice) rather than just radio an IR radiation (which is not). Whether the net feedback would be positive (because of atmospheric redistribution of heat) or negative (because of the increasing albedo) would not be determinable without detailed modelling. Regardless. over this period the net feedback would be close to zero, so surface radiation would rise approximately with increasing TSI. As the TSI increases still further, till it approaches more modern values (and reaches values it has never been lower than in the last 4.5 billion years), CO2 will enter the atmosphere and the surface radiation will finally start increasing faster than the increase in TSI. (The OLR at the TOA of course, will continue to increase with TSI). Eventually, the equatorial snow and ice will start to melt, and with a declining albedo, surface radiation will rise still faster relative to TSI. When the Earth reaches that stage, it will flip from the snowball Earth configuration, and for the first time climate sensitivity will approximate to modern values, as it has for the last 500 million years. Because you are comparing the modern feedback factor (for both solar and GHG forcings) with the average of the solar forcings for all values of TSI, you claim an inconsistency - but the only inconsistency is yours. It is the same inconsistency found any those fool enough to claim that somebody else on the same income is getting a special deal from the tax office because that persons average tax rate is less than their own marginal tax rate.
79691. BBD at 23:01 PM on 10 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Paul D Sorry - meant to ask: have you ever used a solid-fuel range for cooking? It's not much fun. And you have to get up at the crack of dawn to get the wretched thing going so you can heat your passive kettle and cook breakfast.
79692. BBD at 22:55 PM on 10 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       Paul D

       What you have stated is that instead of dealing with the problem, technology has been used to mask it.

       Astonishing. In summary, you appear to believe that - all infrastructure development post-1945 to be 'bad' capitalism - the consequence has had no meaningful demographic impact (your statement about women in the workforce during WWII is beside the point). It is post-war peacetime economics we are discussing here - you must ask: why did the post-war expansion in baseload occur? Was it an evil capitalist plot or a rational response to development, ongoing electrification of the housing stock, plans for new-build to accommodate a growing population etc? - the issue involved 'gadgets' as much as cultural attitudes to women in the workplace. These were changed by the wartime experience, and post-war, women began to achieve their potential. It took decades, and would not have been possible without time reallocation thanks to labour-saving devices. Sorry, gadgets. BTW you're lucky Mrs BBD is out ;-)
79693. BBD at 22:41 PM on 10 July 2011
       A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
       KR Thanks for your response. Agree wrt 'enlightened' leaders. They have much to learn. Wind - Fully-referenced data on 2010 wind output here. The big picture is clear. Please do not cherry pick ;-) A word to the wise. DECC is politically (and ideologically) committed to an expansion of wind that was formulated by the previous New Labour government. It is the Big Project. You must treat its presentation of 'supporting' data with caution ;-) Also, I did not quote the Muir report as it is in contention. Why do you bring it up? Your attitude to LAGI is vexing. - It is not an 'estimate', it is a misrepresentation - The error involved is of an order of magnitude - It is so elementary I suspect intent to mislead - I do not discuss LAGI using UK weather and insolation - See #219 - The calculation error in LAGI is as follows: This is the relevant section of the original LAGI article, which Treehugger does not quote in full. The error and its propagation are highlighted:

       We can figure a capacity of .2KW per SM of land (an efficiency of 20% of the 1000 watts that strikes the surface in each SM of land). So now we know the capacity of each square meter and what our goal is. We have our capacity in KW so in order to figure out how much area we’ll need, we have to multiply it by the number of hours that we can expect each of those square meters of photovoltaic panel to be outputting the .2KW capacity (kilowatts x hours = kW•h). Using 70% as the average sunshine days per year (large parts of the world like upper Africa and the Arabian peninsula see 90-95% – so this number is more than fair), we can say that there will be 250 sun days per year at 8 hours of daylight on average. That’s 2,000 hours per year of direct sunlight. Therefore, we can multiply each square meter by 2,000 to arrive at a yearly kW•h capacity per square meter of 400 kW•h. Dividing the global yearly demand by 400 kW•h per square meter (198,721,800,000,000 / 400) and we arrive at 496,804,500,000 square meters or 496,805 square kilometers (191,817 square miles) as the area required to power the world with solar panels. This is roughly equal to the area of Spain.

       The assumption is that 200W/m2 insolation (correct for desert-sited solar plant) is converted with 100% efficiency by the panels 10% is a reasonable average. If we calculate correctly: 10,000km2 = 100GW 400,000km2 = 4TW To achieve 16TW would require 1,600,000km2. With a generous assumption of 15%: 10,000km2 = 150GW 400,000km2 = 6TW To achieve 16TW would require 1,066,666km2. The LAGI solar map should be withdrawn. Imagine if it was a climate graph, created by some outfit somewhere and then broadcast far and wide by WUWT. What would the reaction be on this site? In fact, what is this site supposed to be for? Frankly, I'm not impressed. Why wasn't the error spotted by the 'science editor' at Treehugger (it took me a couple of minutes)? And why does no-one here acknowledge the fault instead of defending this stuff? Which, I note, is in wide circulation now.
79694. quokka at 22:20 PM on 10 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       #71 Marcus, How about some sort of reference to back up your claims about uranium supply limitations? From the MIT 2010 Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle report:

       Uranium resources will not be a constraint for a long time. The cost of uranium today is 2 to 4% of the cost of electricity. Our analysis of uranium mining costs versus cumulative production in a world with ten times as many LWRs [my emphasis] and each LWR operating for 60 years indicates a probable 50% increase in uranium costs. Such a modest increase in uranium costs would not significantly impact nuclear power economics.

       This is for a once through fuel cycle. Development of advanced closed fuel cycle technologies vastly increase the nuclear fuel resource over and above this assessment. There is ongoing R&D into the latter is several nuclear nations. Further, I hardly think that a threefold expansion of world nuclear capacity is something to be sniffed at, as you do. Such an expansion would see nuclear producing 40% of current world electricity supply and displacing rather a lot of coal burners. We could really do with comments falsely attributing statements or claims to "those who spruik Nuclear Power" or those who "spruik" anything else, and then declaring those made up claims to be fact.
79695. Mark Harrigan at 21:52 PM on 10 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       @ Marcus #72 - you make some good points but your figures are a little misleading. Australia's generation was actually 230TWh in 08/09 of which roughly 7% was renewables - so roughly 16THw - but by far the bulk of this Hydro (5% of the 7%) which doesn't have much capacity to scale much further. That's about 4.6TWh from "new" renewables so I presume that's the 5 you are talking about. So we have a long way to go Your figure for Germany's 101Twh in 2010 is correct but it INCLUDES nearly 20 hydro and 34 biomass (which doesn't cut it as a CO2 emssions free technology). So the real comparison figure is less than 50TWh from comparable technologies. (see Wikipedia) German Renewables But I agree with the overall thrust of your point - we could do a whole lot better and if Germany can do 50TWh using Wind, Solar and Geothermal then why can't we? Well, price is one (see below) As for your statement about renewables costs - sorry but that's boosterism. If you are going to assert someone else's statement is rubbish as you did to me then you need to back it up with evidence. My evidence below says you are wrong. I agree renewables are getting cheaper all the time - which is encouragning - and wind is getting competitive (if only it were more reliable?) but solar still has a LONG way to go - especially CST which is by far the most promising alternative for baseload. It is also an entirely false assumption to assume that reductions achieved over the last 30 years can actually continue - Solar PV is already close to the limits of physical efficiency today - so the evidence is not nearly so strong that it will keep getting cheaper. Relative Energy Costs Please don't misunderstand me. I am in favour of renewables but argue that over stating their case or understanding their costs actually harms the cause. We have to deal with what's real. The other factor you're missing is costs of electricty and the impacts this has on industry. The average consumer tariff in Australia is about 18c/KWh - In Germany its over 25 euso cents per KWh or more than 33c/KWh on current exchange. Of course Industry pays a lot less. So Australia enjoys a low price for electricty as part of it's economic structure. Germany can (apparently) afford a higher tariff because it has other industrial structural advantages. I find it telling that they are choosing to phase out nuclear ahead of coal right now so maybe things there aren't quite what they seem? So all that also places some economic limits on what can be done in Australia - or at least how fast we can afford to move. The Carbon Tax announcement today and the plans to fund/finance more investment in renewables is however a positive step forwards. I hope it will lead to actions that will continue to advance the relaibility of CO2 free alternatives as well as reduce their overall costs AND in a managed transition that sees us gradually wean ourslevs off coal without the lights going out.
79696. Rob Painting at 21:05 PM on 10 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
       African style eh? Don't expect my wife would be too keen on that idea.
79697. Paul D at 20:56 PM on 10 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
       Rob@20 "Actually you can make a 'fridge' or 'cooler' with two plant pots, some sand, a cloth and some water. One pot has to be bigger than the other. You place the smaller pot in the larger one and fill the gap with the sand (or similar material). Damp the sand between the two pots with water and place the food inside the inner smaller pot. Then place the damp cloth over the top. The evaporating water keeps the contents cool.
79698. Rob Painting at 20:47 PM on 10 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
       All the efforts readers are making are fantastic! Hat's off to ya!. One thing stood out for me though: Ranyl - how do you make do without a fridge?
79699. Doug Mackie at 20:21 PM on 10 July 2011
       OA not OK part 4: The f-word: pH
       fixed
79700. Paul D at 20:15 PM on 10 July 2011
       Climate Solutions by dana1981
       BBD: "The post-war enconomy in the industrialised West has benefitted (and will continue to benefit) from an influx of women freed from time-intensive domestic labour by what you call 'gadgets'." Actually you are just stating that sexism exists and that men are incapable of doing house work! Although domestic gadgets are credited as allowing women to work. In the UK women did all types of jobs during WWII including flying bombers and fighters from factories to airfields. So the issue wasn't about gadgets, it was about cultural attitudes to work and place in society. What you have stated is that instead of dealing with the problem, technology has been used to mask it.

Prev  1586  1587  1588  1589  1590  1591  1592  1593  1594  1595  1596  1597  1598  1599  1600  1601  Next