Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 Next
Comments 90751 to 90800:
-
Eric (skeptic) at 23:21 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
On J&D's suggestion #4 "Use energy storage technologies", hopefully that includes thermal storage. I think techniques like vehicle battery storage might help with a little marginal power, but thermal masses can store lots more heat energy if properly designed. Here in Virginia (where it still seems to be winter), the majority of energy is used to keep warm and for transportation. Rather than use up vehicle batteries on any aspect of keeping warm, we need to improve passive solar (plus the active solar and heat pumps mentioned above). It is probably the case that 99.9% of houses are suboptimal or very suboptimal in terms of passive solar (which includes summer cooling). -
Marcus at 23:14 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Its worth noting that, after California, the biggest US investor in Wind Power is Texas-hardly a State I'd associate with being keen on protecting the environment. I can only guess that they see the value of investing for future energy needs *now*-rather than when its too late. Texas, as I understand it, are also looking at Compressed Air as a storage mechanism. The Germans, meanwhile, have pumped storage. Either one of the 3 options I've mentioned can all but eliminate the variability of supply-especially if coupled with a decent distribution of individual turbines. -
Marcus at 23:10 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
John D, it is a very easy thing to change Wind Farms from being variable to being a fixed supply-I suggest you look into Vanadium Redox Batteries, which are making great strides with every passing year. Not that Wind Power is nearly as variable as the knockers claim it is-with or without storage. Lastly, with storage it will be much easier to adjust the energy output of wind farms than is currently the case with coal or nuclear power. -
johnd at 23:00 PM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Alexandre at 22:16 PM, checking the trends is fine, but the problem for all models, be they climate or economic, is that ultimately,and always, the trend is your friend until the bend at the end. -
johnd at 22:55 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
The Ville at 22:01 PM, but also do not overlook the fact that windfarms change the system from one with a fixed supply and a variable demand to a system with a variable demand and supply, perhaps even an erratic supply. It's a lot harder, and costlier, to accommodate two variables. -
Alexandre at 22:16 PM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
batsvensson #57 Of course I do not agree with that. Theories are based on cause and effect, but that effect is not what is predicted by that theory (allowing for the broader sense of "theory" here). It's like saying "if you can't predict the next 6 you cannot say the dice is loaded". Check the trends, not events. Gilles #58 Who's saying no doubt is allowed? Models are limited approximations of the real world. Any law of physics is a limited approximation of the real world. That is not to say they are useless pieces of fiction. Would you go so far as to say that? Or would you recognize its share of accurate predictions? -
Paul D at 22:01 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
rhjames: "They also pay the windfarms to shut down when they supply power when it's not needed. All false economy." Cherry picking. All power stations are paid money for being idle when to much is being generated or there is not enough demand. Please do not distort the facts for political and prejudiced reasons. -
michael sweet at 21:56 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Rhjames: Spain got 16% of its electricity in 2010 from wind see this Wikipedia article. As FF get more expensive their wind will be free. The fuel is one of the biggest costs of a FF power plant. I find it hard to believe that wind farms in the UK cannot be accomodated when Spain has done it. Perhaps the Spainish are smarter. Please provide references. On the other hand, I expect that when new technology is introduced there will be a learning curve. As we learn more these issues will go away. I note that you have not pointed out a single item in the posted article that you find incorrect, you just wave your hand and say "I don't believe". Not very convincing. People who have carefully thought about this problem believe it can be solved. The article discussed cost. Where is the problem that you have found with their calculations? -
Paul D at 21:55 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
rhjames: The fact that wind turbines can be easily disengaged and the fact they are well distribruted is a positive attribute not a negative one. Power stations are taken off line and put on line and they make a much bigger impact to the grid than a few smaller wind turbines going on and offline. When you take a power station off line you have to be much more careful (take a look at Fukushima and the impact large powers stations have on grid stability). How do you solve these issues? You do it by managing the resources you have so that the grid frequency doesn't fluctuate to much. Whatever mix you have, you are going to have problems to manage. The fact that for years we have had one type of source (large powers stations) just means that we have developed grid management systems for that specific scenario. That isn't practical for future scenarios so new ways of managing renewables connect6ed to the grid are being developed. That's what engineers do, solve problems. -
TimTheToolMan at 21:50 PM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Weather" in the skeptic's sense doesn't have to be day to day though. "Weather" can mean a few years of ENSO events for example. Since we cant predict whether El Nino or La Nina (or neither for status quo) will become predominant in the future, we cant predict "global" climate either. ENSO is just one of many potential long term changable effects that will determine global average temperatures. Cloud cover is another major one. The view that CO2's effect as a GHG will necessarily dominate over any timescales that we care about is a naive one. -
rhjames at 21:15 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Michael - how do you expect Spain to have cheaper electricity (assuming no government subsidy?) Wind is bad news. Wind farms in the UK have been turned off because they caused havoc with the main grid supply as the supply fluctuated with wind changes. They also pay the windfarms to shut down when they supply power when it's not needed. All false economy. I think this is all fantasy, supplying all power from such variable sources. Of course, it can work, but the cost will be mind blowing. Imagine a fortnight of rain and no wind - where does the power come from? How would it be realistically stored? I can remember over a month of wind free rainy days. -
batsvensson at 20:57 PM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"to qualify a good theory as one which predicts unlikely events is tricky when we look at climate change." Nobody said it will or is easy, but what I think irritates or annoy a lot of people is when pro AGW people goes public and make dead sure "predictions". No such thing can be said to be sure. What we have is likely and unlikely scenarios and these are covered by the error ranges in the models - then of course some stupid journalist must hock onto this and blow things out of proportion with the worst case, which is also the most unlikely scenario, with a "what will happen if we continue as we do" story. -
Gilles at 20:49 PM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Back to an “unlikely” event that has been predicted by climate models, if we look at Hansens model from 1988, I repeat what I’ve said on the models are unreliable thread, the global average surface temperature has risen. " the question is : has the rise been unlikely close to Hansen's predictions, or not ? a simple visual inspection of figures concluding that "it matches approximately" is obviously not enough to say that. Alexandre#56 : you cannot always find clear validations of theories. That's unfortunate, but you know, life is not a fairy tale; for instance we don't have yet clear predictions of supersymmetry or worse, brane theories. That's life. The only thing is that before claiming that things are settled and that no doubt is allowed, you need such facts. If you don't have them, you're not allowed - in principle- to make such claims. And the burden of proof is for this who claims he believes in a model - not for this who doubts. -
batsvensson at 20:49 PM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
@Alexandra - that's part of the assumption that a theory is based on cause and effect. Do you agree to this? -
Alexandre at 20:43 PM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Gilles and batsvensson How can an event be a test of a climate prediction? -
johnd at 20:38 PM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Gilles at 18:33 PM, "unlikely" unfortunately is something subjective, and we see this in action quite frequently in weather forecasting where different forecasters can use very different models. All too often here in Australia with seasonal to long range outlooks, what one body predicts as most likely will be predicted by another forecaster as most unlikely. It has happened that two totally opposing outlooks have been released by two separate organisations on the same day. Given such differing predictions are not isolated events, "unlikely" therefore cannot be an appropriate means of judging quality. -
michael sweet at 20:35 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Interested readers willl find Gilles' questions about air conditioning, heating and other areas of the world addressed here. The reference linked there proposes to use renewable energy for all current uses of Fossil Fuels. They calculate the material needs and costs. It is possible to live similarly to current lifestyles using renewable energy. -
michael sweet at 20:18 PM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
It would be interesting to see a comparison of Hanson's prediction in 1988 with what MSU and Lindzen predicted in 1988. We have a thread on Hanson's prediction but it does not compare to what other people said. As Peter points out, now everyone knows it got hotter and skeptics say Hanson's prediction was not perfect. A beter question is how good did Hanson do compared to the skeptics (and other scientists) at the time. -
michael sweet at 20:10 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Eric: The cost of FF is already rising as the supply runs low. Hybrid cars are a response to high gas prices. Mountaintop mining would not be done if there was more coal available. The question is how much does coal have to go up before the public supports policies that favor renewables. When Spain's electricity is cheaper than the rest of Europe it will be a real eye opener. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later. -
sailrick at 20:07 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Peter Hogarth and adelady Sail for modern cargo ships is not a new idea, as you might know. You may have heard of the mega yacht - modern square rigged luxury vessel, the nearly 300 ft. Maltese Falcon. Belongs to one of those Silicon Valley billionaires. It uses a computerized rig with rigid sails called a Dyna Rig, that was originally developed for cargo ships. The idea is not to turn cargo ships into sailing vessels, but sail assisted vessels, or motorsailors. (the Maltese Falcon is more of a sailboat.) And more recently the SkySail has been developed, basically a parasail flown like a kite hundreds of feet off the deck. They are relatively cheap and can save 10%- 35% on fuel, depending on the passage, wind direction etc. "Currently, SkySails is offering towing kite propulsion systems for cargo vessels with an effective load* of between 8 and 16 tons. SkySails with an effective load* of 32 tons are under development. The planned product program comprises towing kite propulsion systems with an effective load* of up to 130 tons." "An effective tractive force of 8 tons by a SkySail corresponds to approx. 600 to 1,000 kW installed main engine power on average - depending on the ship‘s properties (propeller efficiency degree, resistance, etc.) " http://www.skysails.info/english/company/ They work on any point of sail a sailboat can sail. In other words, about 290 out of 360 degrees. -
Peter Hogarth at 19:56 PM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Gilles at 18:33 PM on 27 March, 2011, I see your point (despite the comments of batsvensson!), but to qualify a good theory as one which predicts unlikely events is tricky when we look at climate change. A Pinatubo event for example can be fed into a model once the significant effect it has is appreciated with hindsight and study, but we cannot predict the timing of the next one, or the likely frequency of such events in future decades. Back to an “unlikely” event that has been predicted by climate models, if we look at Hansens model from 1988, I repeat what I’ve said on the models are unreliable thread, the global average surface temperature has risen. There were many who predicted the reverse based on overestimates of solar influence, or claimed that any temperature rise to date was not statistically significant, and that this would remain the case (famously for example based on the MSU satellite evidence). Climate science has advanced at least partly as a result. It is more telling to look at events not adequately predicted by climate models (and we should remember there are many many types of models and not generalise too much) such as the acceleration in Arctic ice loss and in particular the loss of 2007, which it can be argued is a result of localised combination of “weather” events superimposed on background “climate” warming. There is recent work with higher resolution models which provides insight. There are similar stories to tell about eddy resolving ocean circulation models, sometimes the theory is adequate already, but we need much higher resolution to successfully model or forecast unlikely events (or even realistic variability), such as extreme weather, and then any “knock on” effect that this subsequently may have. -
batsvensson at 19:40 PM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
@Dikran Marsupia at 01:38 AM on 27 March, 2011 I read your comment as "Since what I do is a correct procedures, it follows that what climate scientist do is also a correct procedures." But surely this is not what you really meant to say or? -
batsvensson at 19:34 PM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
@Gilles 18:33 PM on 27 March, 2011 You're not supposed to ask questions like this here. :-) The classical answer back from the AGW camp to your question will always be "deviations are variations in weather and should not be confused with climate that is long term based", combine this with error range that in principle cover every possible future scenario how can one ever be found to have made an incorrect predictions then? ;-) -
batsvensson at 19:13 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
"Similarly, we consider only those technologies that have low impacts on wildlife [...] and land" Would be interesting if the author also defines what is meant with "low impacts" as this is an issue that clearly can be debated. -
Gilles at 18:59 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Adelady, as I said, I live in France that may have achieved a large part of the program you'd like to apply to Australia and America - we have a lot of decarbonated electricity, good and modern electric trains , a lot of small cities with good public transportation where people can go to work without cars. Actually this has an effect - an average French guy produces only 6 tCO2/yr, much better than americans and australians. So i'm not saying that all progress is impossible. I just say they're limited. You should consider that the difference in consumption is partly due to historical and geographical disparities that you can't wipe off easily. You must heat in cold countries - and air conditioning , if not necessary, is considered as a normal comfort in hot ones. If Europe has small historical town centers with a very concentrated population, cities in new world countries have been built in the XXth century together with the development of cars and they are much more spread - you can't change that in a few decades; so you can't change rapidly the different conditions that led to differences in energy intensity (BTW as Actuallythoughtful remarked , nuclear industry that is one of the main reason for the low carbon intensity of France has dark perspectives ..). You seem to think that you could live like now with any technique - I can't understand the logics behind. That's just wishful thinking. The current way of life is just a by-product of very specific conditions that happened only once in the history of mankind : an enormous thermo-industrial society powered by the massive combustion of fossil fuels. Seen at a geological scale, combustion of FF is really an explosion : sudden combustion in a very short time. This explosion will last a few hundreds years, which is like one second in the year when compared to the age of the Earth. Now you're saying : once this explosion will be over, there will be no problem to keep living like that even after the fuel has totally disappeared - i see absolutely no reason to justify that. -
Gilles at 18:23 PM on 27 March 2011Models are unreliable
IanC, sorry for being late , I missed your question. "Gilles In a comment you made in the weather and climate thread, you said "there is some implicit selection of "good" parameters behind" Are you saying that models are bad because parameters that reflect reality are used?" all models are approximate, so I don't really know what you're calling "bad" or "good". My question would rather be ; are they reliable (good predictive power)? in other facts : is the fact that they correctly fit past data enough to believe in their predictions ? and my answer is : no. " 1) climate is sensitive to parameters/physical processes in the model, and without knowing precisely what theses parameters and unknown processes are, the outputs don't reflect reality." same remark : they always reflect a part of reality. The only question is if it's good enough to make reliable predictions - and how we can assess that. Many people seem to think that seeing a set of models superimposed to data is enough to believe them- I don't. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:48 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Eric L @14 Valid point. What is often not considered is the extent too which 'baseload' demand is policy generated. A common practice when big coal FF plants are your source of 'baseload' generation is to implement pricing policies to push demand into 'off-peak' periods. Here in southern Australia a major aspect of this cheap 'off-peak' power demand is over-night heating of hot water. All to flatten out the demand curve to let the big coal plants runn efficiently. If we are looking at a renewable energy grid we need to consider what policies - pricing and other - can shift 'moveable' demand to those times of the day most advantageous to renewables. All debates over 'renewables cant do base load' need to be tempered by this judgement. -
RW1 at 17:44 PM on 27 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
At the end of 861, I mean to say "not just this one." -
RW1 at 17:05 PM on 27 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel, Do you know that the 2nd law does not apply to photons? Thermal energy by definition is kinetic and not radiative. The kinetic energy in the atmosphere is not what's heating the surface. It cannot as the 2nd law dictates. It's the photons emitted from the surface and re-emitted isotropically by the atmosphere that is heating the surface. The net effect the kinetic energy in the atmosphere has on the radiative budget is zero, as I explained earlier in this thread. It seems to be a significant source of confusion in a multitude of issues - not this one. -
Tim228 at 16:31 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
They should include bio-matter methane production and solid oxide fuel cells in the mix. This system is carbon neutral since the carbon is already part of the biosphere and we are just cycling it through like we do with our respiration. The other by-products are good soil building fertilizers without the leaching, soil depleting, and energy waste drawbacks of current fertilizers. The plant material needs little to no pre-conditioning beyond chopping. The use of native plants in the various regions reduces fertilizer and water issues. -
Eric (skeptic) at 16:06 PM on 27 March 2011Models are unreliable
Stu, I agree with the progression from physics to model to sensitivity. Schwartz agrees too, his energy balance model is basically an AR1 equation with parameters derived from empirical data (the temperature record and external forcings). The model has some debatable characteristics, 1) it is linear, 2) external forcings that act differently on parts of the climate system (e.g. solar forcing into ocean warming) are not treated separately, they are all combined into one variable. But his critics did not use empirical data the same way, but ran part of it through their model which by its particular parameterization of weather has a resultant high sensitivity. It is not programmed to be high. Rob, it looks Schwartz lengthened the time constant to 8.5 years by fixing a mistake (still not sure what the mistake was in the original 2007 paper). That yielded sensitivity of close to 2C per doubling. I had read that a while ago, but forgot about it when I wrote my previous post. -
MattJ at 15:57 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
@michael sweet #9: You correctly echo the article's valid claim, "And it is cheaper in the end!" But the problem is that that is only when including the full cost of the externalities of fossil fuels. But the industry has been all too successful at foisting the costs for this on the rest of us. It has long been a political impossibility to force them to pay their fare share, and I don't see this changing until much too late, thanks to the BRIC success is scuttling Copenhagen, and the disastrous Republicunning triumphs in our last 'midterm' elections. -
MattJ at 15:53 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
50% coming from wind? This is the first study I have ever read or even heard of that gave such a high figure. I am very skeptical. -
RobertS at 15:22 PM on 27 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
"Claiming right libertarians are "freedum luvin'", while accusing everyone else of authoritarianism..." I don't believe I made either of those claims. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else? Or perhaps you're confused as to what "statism" means? It certainly doesn't mean authoritarianism. I also think your understanding of history is a little fuzzy. Modern American Liberalism can be traced back to people like Ward (i.e. pre-Russian Revolution) and Herbert Croly who combined facets of classical liberal theory with progressivism. In general they supported government-intervention and central-planning to effect social and economic equity (i.e. a form of statism). I might be wrong, but I don't think this is particularly controversial, and was never meant to be derisive. -
dana1981 at 15:15 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Eric, the study doesn't assume we'll switch to hydrogen transportation. It allows for the possibility that hydrogen will be in the mix. -
adelady at 14:34 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles, I am fully, gratefully, joyfully aware of my great privilege in living in such a wealthy country for the last 60+ years. What I was indirectly alluding to was the fact that every single one of us has options that are limited by the action or inactions of our societies. 50 years ago my mum wouldn't have needed anyone to take her shopping. Everything came to the door in our suburbs, bread, milk, greengrocer. Butcher shop and grocery items had to be ordered one way or another, but those items were also delivered by schoolboys earning a bit of pocketmoney pushing a very large bicycle around the place. Many people would use mass transit if they could but it's simply not available in many of our low density suburbs. Americans and Australians would happily use comfortable high-speed trains rather than air travel between their closer cities - if only it were available. I would have bought an EV if such a thing had been on the market. And for other options limited by decisions about technology. Japan is now imposing blackouts to manage the lack of power. Why? There is no lack of power. The problem is that an antiquated system has been allowed to persist and expand while limiting transmission between the east and west of the main island. 50 hertz one side, 60 hertz the other and only 1, one!, gigawatt capacity of transmission between the two systems. That to me is the essence of the problem. We live with what we've got and we allow patently inadequate, or downright foolish, initial decisions to perpetuate and eventually distort vital systems. Hindsight is now telling the Japanese they should have invested more in some things, like transmission, nuclear safety and wind power and a lot less in others, write your own list. The same thing applies to us. We shouldn't need tragedy of biblical proportions to learn the same lessons. -
RW1 at 14:04 PM on 27 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel (RE: 780), "What you say doesn't just apply to a car, it is the same for a greenhouse or any surface exposed directly to the Sun's output. It's well known that, in a desert, the Sun can heat a surface well above 100C, enough to fry an egg. But even the arguments for the GH effect agree that it is the average temperature that is inportant, so they account for this by saying the Sun's output (the solar constant ) is not the measured 1370W/m^2 (@5780K if they include the temperature of the photons) but 342.5W/m^2 this latter would give an average temperature of about 279K, an average taken over the entire planet - summer and winter; pole to pole." But the temperature is about 288K - not 279K. How is that so? Here are more questions for you: Do you agree that all of the Sun's emitted energy is radiative? Do you agree that the Sun's emitted energy is transparent through space to the Earth? Do you agree that the Sun's energy is mostly transparent through Earth's atmosphere? Do you agree that space is colder than than the Earth's atmosphere? Do you agree that the atmosphere of the Earth is colder than the surface of the Earth? Do you agree that of the roughly 390 W/m^2 emitted at the Earth's surface, all of it is radiative? Do you agree that the emitted 390 W/m^2 is a result of the Earth's surface temperature and nothing else? Do you agree that the emitted radiation from the surface is mostly NOT transparent to the atmosphere? Do you agree that a lot of the surface emitted radiation is absorbed and re-emitted isotropically by the atmosphere? -
actually thoughtful at 13:57 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles: "86 : I'm neither assuming mankind is totally rational, nor irrational : I'm only assuming it won't change a lot in the next century. I think it's enough." 3 weeks ago, nuclear had a strong and promising future. Many people considered it a necessary (at least short term) energy source as we transition to a non-carbon future. No one seriously thought existing capacity would be shuttered before the plant lifespan. But the events in Japan have caused Germany to swear off nuclear. Other countries are giving it another look (ending nuclear). Japan is probably done with nuclear. So major economies are contemplating an complete deletion of nuclear from their portfolios. It is important to understand human nature. To say "human behavior won't change in the 21st century" is to fail to understand human nature. It is human nature that will not change, not human behavior. For example, at the beginning of the 20th century - hardly anyone drove automobiles (they weren't mass produced yet). NO ONE flew. No one at all. It hadn't been invented yet. So obviously we (humans) react to new information and new technology. The early adopters are already creating net zero homes and transportation that uses zero carbon (electric cars powered by solar/wind). This seems to be a flaw in most of your posts - assuming that humans do not take in new information, and change their behavior accordingly, but you only have to study a little history to realize the opposite is true. -
Trueofvoice at 13:18 PM on 27 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
RobertS, Saying that American liberalism emerged from the machinations of "statists" is ahistorical. Liberalism was the product of the anti-communist American left which hoped to avert the violent revolution of Leninism through social reforms, including limitations on government power through expansion of civil liberties. Claiming right libertarians are "freedum luvin'", while accusing everyone else of authoritarianism is nothing more than a shibboleth to proclaim your tribal affiliation. -
Eric L at 12:26 PM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
There's something a little incongruous about a study that's careful to limit consideration of electricity generation technologies to those that are well established assuming we'll switch to hydrogen for transportation. I personally expect what we will see is better batteries and ultracapacitors, electrified rail, perhaps with more autotrains for long distance trips, perhaps biofuels, and a more long-shot would be factories that use excess electricity to turn water and CO2 into gasoline; given the infrastructure challenges I'm not sure hydrogen is actually more likely than that last one. One thing I don't often see in these reports is to what extent industrial or other uses can be scheduled around power availability. I believe there already are some industries which operate at night for the cheap power. Uses like desalination may become more practical if you can desalinate and pump into reservoirs when power is plentiful and use the reservoirs when power is scarce. -
scaddenp at 12:19 PM on 27 March 2011Temp record is unreliable
Gee, Chris, noticed that it has dropped before? I can think I can predict with some confidence that this year will be cooler than last year. Why? La Nina. I can also bet with reasonable confidence it will be warmer than the last La nina of similar magnitude. And guess what, temperatures will go up again in the next EL Nino. Do you become a climate skeptic in La Nina years, and warmist in El Nino? -
scaddenp at 12:09 PM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
Just to remind people attempting to argue with Poptech, that he has stated in other threads that no data is capable of changing his mind. He isn't interested in learning anything. Refute the errors but engaging with him directly is a waste of your time. -
2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
L.J. Ryan "What is the LW radiation emissivity of the earths surface?" About 0.98 on average. This is known data; I've stated that as well in this thread. Effective emissivity from the surface to the top of the atmosphere, however, is still 0.612, as shown as the integral of the Earth emission spectra. Incidentally, I would appreciate something longer than three sentence postings in this discussion, rather, a post long enough to have some content worth discussing, perhaps a statement of what your hypothesis is rather than a drawn out, multiple day, QA cycle. This is especially important in this case - if you feel that the radiative greenhouse effect actually violates thermodynamics, then please point out what effect does not, in a way consistent with the very large amount of evidence from multiple investigatory pathways that supports the greenhouse effect. The surface of the Earth averages 14C, and without the GHE it would run at about -20C. What alternative to the GHE do you propose that accounts for that? -
scaddenp at 11:53 AM on 27 March 2011Weather vs Climate
"Many of you seem to be in favor of reducing the average global temperature. Do you hate New York so much that you want to restore that ice sheet?" Gallopingcamel, I cant believe after all this time you can seriously say this. Repeating again, concern over climate science isnt about proposing an optimal global temperature (higher or lower), it about reducing the rate of change in the temperature. From little I know of new york geography, the equilibrium sealevel, last time we had 400ppm would put most of NY underwater. I could ask whether you want that instead? Tell, if you put a large kettle on to hot flame, could you will all the computer modelling in the world accurate predict the convective flow within that pot? Not likely, though you might predict the pattern. (the weather) Could you predict when the kettle will boil? (climate) yes.Moderator Response: Wrong thread for rhis conversation. -
Gilles at 11:21 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Adelady, your vision of the world is totally "normal" : i.e. you consider as "normal" the way of life you're used to. But do you know that only 10 % of people in the world can think that they could use a car to take their mum go shopping - the others first don't have a car, and second their mums (who rarely live up to 85 ) has absolutely no money to go in shops that don't exist close to their home anyway. a last resort that how many people in the world would have the privilege to take, following you ? but I didn't want to discuss whether it was bad or good . I'm simply observing that even people who claim loudly we should all consume much less usually behave like the others. I forgot to say something about Maldives - the poor country that is supposed to drown underseas in a few decades. Very interesting facts here :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maldives including : "Real GDP growth averaged over 7.5% per year for more than a decade. Today, the Maldives' largest industry is tourism, accounting for 28% of GDP and more than 60% of the Maldives' foreign exchange receipts. Fishing is the second leading sector.[citation needed] The Maldivian economy is to a large degree based on tourism. In late December 2004, the major tsunami left more than 100 dead, 12,000 displaced, and property damage exceeding $400 million. As a result of the tsunami, the GDP contracted by about 3.6% in 2005. A rebound in tourism, post-tsunami reconstruction, and development of new resorts helped the economy recover quickly and showed an 18% increase on 2006. 2007 estimates show the Maldives enjoy the highest GDP per capita $4,600 (2007 est) amongst south Asian countries" Now obviously , they're facing some dilemma, because if tourism shrinks, so will their GDP. So it's understandable that in fact they don't ask for a reduction of tourism; they just ask for more money to be able to cope with the sea level rise - and probably build new hotels and resorts. -
Paul D at 11:09 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
It's beginning to look like one or more of the Fukushima reactors have a core breach and is leaching material into the ground below, including ground water. That's more than enough for me to focus on renewables. One could say, it is unlikely to happen elsewhere, but mistakes are often made. One can expect similar incidents to happen every 20 years or so. -
actually thoughtful at 10:55 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
SNRatio - will you please reach me via private email (XXX@XXXXXXX)? I really like your design and want to understand a few items more carefully. Thank you!
-
SNRatio at 10:41 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
I just want to chime in and support actually thoughtful here - it's not about the deployment of heat pumps - they are an important part of the solution, but about the use. And there are a few important points about energy-efficiency here that don't seem to have been touched. 1. Heat pump efficiency is strongly dependent on cold side supply. Guess which heat source is most efficient for boosting the cold side supply - solar collectors! This winter, I have been using my collectors simultanously for direct heat collection and heat pump input (shunted in through a small heat exchanger, to control overheating of the heat pump). 2. Heat pumps may be used for lifting the temperature after solar has done the first job. Then, circulation in the collectors can be increased (temperature lowered) and yield improved. 3. With 60-90% coverage from solar collectors, and cold side boosting, heat pump energy use isn't much of a problem even with a FF dominated mix in electricity generation. 4. Solar cell panels can provide the energy for heat pumps, and both heat pumps and solar collectors should be used with adequate accumulation capacity. Therefore, the pumps should preferably be run in daytime, when cold side supply is best and solar power available. Then, then pumps could also be used for air-conditioning if necessary. 5. It is a smart thing to follow the EU parliament's lead and require all future new houses, from some point of time, being "plus-houses", producing more energy than they need. -
adelady at 10:39 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Oh come on Gilles. That's a bit like telling me I shouldn't use the car to take my mum (86 years old) shopping. Yes I should. If the car industry had got its act together when it should have done, my car would be an EV because EV would have been a standard choice when I bought it 5+ years ago, rather than an exotic novelty as it is at the moment. Flying for holidays? Well if the industry weren't distorted in favour of flying, we'd have a huge network of inter-intra-continental highspeed trains across Europe and Asia and the USA by now. The journey itself should be enjoyable as a (brief) part of the holiday itself, rather than a bit of an ordeal in a confined space to be endured and done with as fast as possible. Easy to get to a stop off point near desirable holiday destinations. Ferries or short flights to complete the various journeys. Job done. Long haul flying should be a last resort rather than the standard option. -
Gilles at 10:21 AM on 27 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
84 : Mucounter : depends if you consider the total amount, including that already extracted+ previsions, or the remaining one. The former usually increases, but the latter wil decrease at some time. 85 . Quokka : of you want some bounds on the range of the problem, I can give them very quickly , at no cost : Mankind will probably burn between 500 GtC and 3000 GtC in the XXIth century . Done. (easy to change if you find it is too restrictive : between 100 and 5000 for instance). just a question : does the Ecofys scenario presented here fit in the sample of the SRES scenarios, yes or no ? 86 : I'm neither assuming mankind is totally rational, nor irrational : I'm only assuming it won't change a lot in the next century. I think it's enough. Now the funny story about Maldives I promised you. The current leader of French Green Party , Cecile Duflot (a woman), went on vacation in Maldives Islands , just after the Copenhague Summit. When journalists learnt that, they "tickled" her a bit. She answered * it was a gift from her husband * she is a "normal " woman * one cannot go in Maldives Islands with a pedalboat ("pedalo") (for those understanding French , video here :http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbqz5l_duflot-on-ne-va-pas-aux-maldives-a_news) well all this is perfectly understandable and I'm not blaming her for being a "normal" woman and liking going on vacation with her husband. But .. that's it. If EVEN the leader of a green party find it "normal", who won't ? is she an exception? well some other well know "green" characters in France : Nicolas Hulot (who may be candidate at the next President election) - first famous for a TV broadcast "Ushuaïa" , showing all the marvelous places in the world, together with some sportive performances (flying over Kilimandjaro, swimming with sea lions , and so on). Must have travelled a lot too. Yann Artus-Bertrand, famous for having taken beautiful pictures by plane of "The Earth from the Sky" - you may know his book. I think he burnt a fair amount of fuel , too. But i think you know that - you have Al Gore , too? well again I'm not putting blame on them (although THEY put a lot of blame on a lot of people). Actually, they're just .. normal. They like earning money, traveling, being famous, probably eating good food... just like everybody.
Prev 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 Next
