Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 Next
Comments 102701 to 102750:
-
VeryTallGuy at 19:06 PM on 2 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
This is a topic which I've never been able to understand to my own satisfaction. Let me test if I've got this right. 1) The stratosphere features very little convection, so radiative heat transfer dominates 2) The stratosphere is heated by UV absorption by ozone and also somewhat by IR absorption by CO2. 3) Due to higher CO2 levels, more IR is absorbed in the troposphere, so less in the stratosphere, resulting in cooling of the stratosphere as CO2 rises. Is this correct ? It begs one question, which I think needs a full heat transfer model to answer: Consider a thought experiment with CO2 at zero. There is no CO2 IR absorption either in the troposphere or stratosphere. Now allow CO2 to rise. Initially, despite increased (from zero) tropospheric CO2 IR absorption, there will also be increased stratsopheric absorption (by definition, as it was zero) So we initially expect a rise in stratospheric temperature, peaking at some level of CO2, then falling as increased tropospheric absorption blocks stratospheric IR absorption by CO2. Is this correct ? And if so what's the CO2 level at which stratospheric temperatures start to fall ? -
Gareth at 18:50 PM on 2 December 2010The Climate Show #3: Cancun and cooling
The URL is a dead giveaway... ;-) -
Joe Blog at 18:47 PM on 2 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Daniel Bailey Its really more a question of optical depth for a given wavelength, the probability of it absorbing vrs emitting. Which is basically due to the number of molecules in a given area. If a molecule absorbs more than it emits, it increase its energy. If it emits more than it absorbs, it decrease its energy. So the further apart the molecules are, the greater the probability a given photon will travel further before it is absorbed. Its decreasing the probability of absorption vrs distance... Now if the atmosphere is opaque to say UV, but transparent to 15 micron... the UV will heat the other gases(well O3, and the O3 will heat the other gases) through absorption, and collisional energy transfer, but the probability is that energy that is lost by a molecule(O3) through emitting is replaced by absorption of radiation from a neighboring molecule. However, the heating of the other gases by the excited O3 will also heat CO2, causing it to emit, but if the probability is greater for it to emit more than it absorbs, just due to the distance a photon can travel between emission and absorption, it will cause a net energy loss from a given area through radiation. So what some of us are contending, is that above the troposphere, CO2 is a net emitter, due to the pressure. -
quokka at 18:44 PM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
267 actually thoughtfull EIA distinguishes between PV and CSP on the summary page for 2016 cost projections. I have already posted this once before on this thread. 2016 Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources PV is assessed as the most expensive of all technologies. -
swieder at 18:11 PM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
@Peter Lang, #263 Your strategy here is twofold it looks to me: Firstly, you constantly ignore all the hints given in this thread where mutliple times it was explained to you that none of the renewable as individual source or as individual generator is intended or ment to provide baseload power (it is obvious that this is of course not the case, exception might be solar thermal plants if storage size is adequatly). But everybody else seem to understand that the fluctuations in time differ from geographic location to anther location and that thereby distributed sites across a country very well technically provide true baseload power if properly managed (as already demonstrated). And secondly, you constantly suggest that nobody other then you has a clue what baseload power is. I have not read any new statement/information from your side in your (at least) last 5 posts - and i said already: repeating the same thing over and over again does not add value to the information behind. I'd say this is fruitless and tedious. -
actually thoughtful at 17:41 PM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Peter Lang, I personally would prefer you not post again until you provide your definition of baseload power. So far, reading your posts, I presume baseload power means "electricity generated from nuclear." Have I got that right? I didn't realize that two different sources would overwhelm you. -
actually thoughtful at 17:38 PM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
I checked the 2010 report - it shows wind cheaper than nuclear in 2020, and cheaper by a larger margin in 2035. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2010).pdf (report page 67, PDF page 76) Why do I say DOE/EIA is biased against renewables: 1) Because they are 2) No mention of concentrating solar power in the 2010 report 3) No mention of peak oil 4) Doesn't distinguish between solar PV and concentrating solar power 5) They underestimate cost reductions for renewables 6) They are structured to support old energy, not new energy. 7) Climate change is mentioned 2 (two) times in the "Annual Energy Outlook 2010" Proof - watch how renewables do in reality compared to the 2010 outlook. -
Peter Lang at 17:18 PM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
actually thoughtfull, You are mixing so many different figures this is simply nonsense. You mix 2006 costs with current costs and mix the cost of baseload and non baseload power. The post is totally irrelevant. For heavens sake are you simply ignoring everything you've been told about making proper comparisons? -
actually thoughtful at 17:03 PM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
KR, As you requested - here is DOE/EIA data showing the costs of various fuels: "The lifetime cost of new generating capacity in the United States was estimated in 2006 by the U.S. government: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MW·h, coal (cheap in the U.S.) at $53.10, natural gas at $52.50 and nuclear at $59.30. However, the "total overnight cost" for new nuclear was assumed to be $1,984 per kWe[38] — as seen above in Capital Costs, this figure is subject to debate, as much higher cost was found for recent projects." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants#Cost_per_kW.C2.B7h [Note that the N(unprintable) figure seems to be 1/3 of reality for the United States] So what about Solar PV? http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2010/06/solar-photovoltaics-pv-is-cost-competitive-now (I know the source looks biased - read the article and decide for yourself). OK, convert the .10-.40/kWh to per MW·h as above = kWhX1,000 = $100-$400 per MW h (note that these come from different sources - so it looks like apples-to-apples but it might be crab apples-to-granny smith apples. -
Spaceman Spiff at 16:44 PM on 2 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
I've just recently bought the 3rd edition of John Houghton's textbook, "The Physics of Atmospheres". I've done some perusing (which is nowhere near enough) and found that my suggestion in the first paragraph of comment #33 regarding the possible state of LTE (or non-LTE) in the stratosphere wrt the 15 micron band transitions is incorrect. For these transitions LTE is still a good approximation up to an altitude of at least ~70 km. However, the second paragraph of the same comment (#33) appears to be on firm (if somewhat muddy) ground. In section 4.8 of Houghton's book, "Cooling by carbon dioxide emission from upper stratosphere and lower mesosphere", it mentions that for these atmospheric levels: 1) the temperature distribution is mainly determined by a balance between radiative cooling in the IR from CO2 and heating by photo-absorption of O3 by incoming solar radiation. 2) an approximation known as "the cooling to space" approximation may be employed, "in which the exchange of radiation between layers is neglected in comparison with the loss of radiation direct to space". To me, this latter comment seems to imply that the stratosphere is largely optically thin to CO2's main IR band centered near 15 microns. Adding to Tom Curtis' post (#55), the stratosphere is definitely in radiative equilibrium, so your findings from Archer's radiative equilibrium model ought to be reasonable. -
Tom Dayton at 16:36 PM on 2 December 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel, you wrote "Since emitting (GH) gases absorb also there is no chance that any imbalance in thermal energy transfer will arise as described by 'back radiation.'" You are wrong. Greenhouse gases do not absorb 100% of the radiation they emit; they do not create a closed cycle that traps the energy within the greenhouse gases. They emit radiation in all directions, including down. If other greenhouse gas molecules in that downward direction absorb that radiation, those molecules in turn radiate in all directions including down. That downward cascade of radiation continues all the way to the bottom of the atmosphere, where due to the closeness of the surface, a substantial amount of the downward radiation avoids reabsorption by other greenhouse gases and so makes it to the surface. Also, greenhouse gas molecules transfer the energy they acquire not just by radiation but also by conduction. As KR explained on another thread, a CO2 molecule on average has 1000 collisions with other molecules in which it transfers energy, before it emits a photon. Those collisions are with not just other greenhouse gas molecules, but with any molecules--non-greenhouse gas molecules, liquid molecules, solid molecules. The recipients of those energy transfer in turn collide with other molecules of all kinds, thereby transferring the energy again. Thus collision (conduction) is an additional path for greenhouse gases causing warming. -
Tom Curtis at 15:50 PM on 2 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
For what it is worth, I ran the Modtran model at Archer's website with the following values: CH4 = 0; tropospheric ozone = 0; stratosperic ozone scale = 1; Ground T offset = 0; Hold water vapor = pressure; Water Vapor Scale = 0; Tropical Atmosphere; and No clouds or rain. I then set an altituded of 18 km (the tropopause) and compared Iout for both 100ppm and 1000 ppm CO2, both looking up and looking down. By looking down, we measure the effect of changes in outgoing radiation, and hence of IR radiation in the CO2 absorption band entering the stratosphere. The effect was to reduce the outgoing IR radiation by 18 watts/meter^2. By looking up, we measure the change in IR radiation emitted by the stratosphere. The amount emitted downwards changed by 4 watts/meter^2, so the total change (both radiation directed to the surface and to space) would have been 8 watts/meter^2. None of these figures represent an equilibrium responce, as surface temperature is held constant in the model. As the atmosphere approaches equilibrium, the decrease in outgoing radiation from the troposphere would reduce as the surface warmed; and the difference outgoing radiation sourced from the stratosphere would also reduce as the stratosphere cooled. Further, it is not possible to simply compare the two values and say that because one is larger than the other it has a dominant effect. The decrease in IR warming of the stratosphere would be a function of the wave length specific emissivity times the reduction in incoming IR radiation, and the emissivity would be less than 1. Testing that later point, I checked Iout for 70 km, looking down. There was around 14 watts/meter^2 difference in the two cases. That suggests very little of the outgoing IR radiation from the troposphere is absorbed in the stratosphere, which in turn suggests improved efficiency in cooling the stratosphere with increased CO2 is the dominant effect. To the extent that we can trust this model for this (which is to say, not very far), that would indicate that: Both effects are active, and relevant for cooling; and Improved efficiency of cooling is the more important of the two effects. Having said that, Gavin certainly appears to prefer the theory that stratospheric cooling is predominantly because of reduced IR radiation from the troposphere. I would certainly appreciate if he were to have another attempt at explaining the effect. -
Spaceman Spiff at 15:14 PM on 2 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Knutti & Hegerl (2008): The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation chanages -- the most relevant of which is Figure 1. However, not much ink is expended in explaining the change in the stratospheric temperature profile. It's based on similar plots appearing in several of Hansen's papers. -
Daniel Bailey at 15:01 PM on 2 December 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
FWIW, posted some molecular visualizations of the various states of the CO2 molecule here. The Yooper -
Daniel Bailey at 14:56 PM on 2 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Managed to pull out those molecular visualizations of CO2 from the GIF's (from Timothy Chase's website): Ground State Mode
*********************************************************************************
Pure Symmetric Stretching Mode
The pure symmetric stretching mode v1 of CO2. While this is a mode that may gain and lose energy collisionally it is not infrared (IR) active as there is no transient electric dipole.
*********************************************************************************
Bending Mode V2
The bending mode v2 of CO2, responsible for the 15.00 μm (wavenumber 667 cm-1) band -- the mode dominating the enhanced greenhouse effect and that primarily used by AIRS. This is infrared (IR) active due to a transient dipole: bending results in charge being asymmetrically distributed with net positive near the carbon atom and negative near the two oxygen atoms.
And
*********************************************************************************
And Asymmetic Stretching Mode V3
The asymmetric stretching mode v3 of CO2 is responsible for the 4.26 μm (wavenumber of 2349 cm-1) band. The asymmetic stretch result in a net positive charge near the carbon atom and a net negative charge with the isolated oxygen atom, creating an electric dipole and making it infrared (IR) active. Given the range of atmospheric temperatures and concentrations of CO2 the bending mode v2 plays a greater role in climate change.
*********************************************************************************
Now the hard part: understanding it...(if I've mis-attributed any of these, let me know)
The Yooper
-
Tom Dayton at 14:53 PM on 2 December 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel, you wrote "Heat transfer due to radiation goes only in one direction only, out into deep space." Yes, but the energy (via radiation) transfer in the direction down to the surface reduces the heat (net transfer of energy) from the surface up toward space. Which means that activity by greenhouse gases slows the cooling of the surface. Without greenhouse gases providing that offsetting (dare I say "back"?) radiation toward the surface, the heat (net transfer of energy) from the surface up would be larger, so the surface would cool faster, outstripping the replenishment of energy from the Sun, and consequently the surface would end up colder. -
Spaceman Spiff at 14:44 PM on 2 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
fyi: the author of comment #17 in the RealClimate link noted above, is Andy Lacis, who is a colleague of Gavin's. -
Tom Dayton at 14:41 PM on 2 December 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel, you wrote:Even higher up in the atmosphere the gas density becomes so low and the chance of a photon being reabsorbed becomes correspondingly low. For thin atmospheres many photons emitted by H2O & CO2 do not get reabsorbed by adjacent H2O & CO2 molecules, some are reabsorbed by the surface but others are absorbed by deep space.
I'm not sure you are thinking three dimensionally. Even way high up in thin atmosphere, H2O and CO2 molecules are emitting radiation in all directions, including down. So "adjacent" molecules include the ones below. Energy transferred by radiation down, warms the atmosphere below. That layer of atmosphere also radiates in all directions, including down, thereby warming the atmosphere below it. That cascade continues down to the surface. -
Spaceman Spiff at 14:34 PM on 2 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Sphaerica @47 et al. Have a look at commments #17 and #19 in the RealClimate link mentioned by Andy S (@35): Why does the stratosphere cool when the troposphere warms?" -
muoncounter at 13:42 PM on 2 December 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
#84, #85: HR, you objected to V09's use of a few years of data to generate a trend. Yet you use a self-described 'blip', one year long, to conclude that no 'strong assertions' can be made. "It really all does hinge on the anomalous 2006 data". How is what you are saying any better than what you say Velicogna has done? I merely drew an analogy to the 1998 'blip' of high temperatures, alluding to those who claim that one year will determine that 'it hasn't warmed' -- until that one year's temperature is exceeded. (And then the goal posts will be moved again, but that's a separate story). "and the fact the author choose to start and end her trends on that year." Read the portions I quoted in #73. It doesn't appear arbitrary: We fitted two straight continuous lines through the data, i.e., connected in the middle. We find that the Radj^2 for the two lines regression model is 0.97, the same than for the quadratic model I grant that your points about rebound velocities in #85 are legit and maybe the GRACE estimates are high. However, any rebound in Antarctica is not truly post-glacial in the sense of PGR from the Wisconsin ice sheet, as the ice in Antarctica is still there. If there is rebound in Antarctica, there must in fact be ice loss, because ice loss is what causes rebound. Searching 'antarctic ice loss' in Google Scholar, I find studies documenting measurements made by a wide range of technologies other than gravitational satellite: radar interferometry, shelf glacier acceleration, calving, rapid proliferation of crevasse systems and meltwater ponds, etc. None of these features are consistent with ice gain. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:21 PM on 2 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
You guys have left me behind on a subject I thought I've kind of understood... ...so you made me start looking around. Fortunately, the Rabett has a timely post on the subject that may hopefully shed some light on the issue. Or obscure it (you tell me). Also ran across this video linked by Timothy Chase (from his discussion of his avatar page - TIP: has some neat GIFs of the energy states of CO2). HTH, The Yooper -
Joe Blog at 13:00 PM on 2 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Sphaerica at 11:51 AM I would interpret the tropopause as a result of pressure/transparency(in LW), reaching a level where the balance of energy is lost..ie its no longer effectivly opaque to the passing of terrestrial LW, more energy is lost from here than what is received both above and below it from SW and LW absorption. So adding more co2, should increase opacity vrs altitude, raising the level of the tropopause, simply put, because there are more opaque molecules in a given area than prior to the rise. But the change in incoming and out going energy, is only going to be small, it will require a rise in T at all levels below the tropopause to enable the transport of energy up, but the difference in quantity of LW emitted will be inside the margin of error for measurements at the now, but an accumulation of energy should occur. Its lengthening the path length for the escape of energy, not stopping it until it reaches an overflow point. But the tropopause, marks the altitude, where the atmosphere is no longer effectively opaque to the passing of LW. -
Peter Lang at 12:45 PM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
scaddenp, Regarding "economically" people are already getting annoyed about the increasing costs of electricity and we are talking about 30% so far. If we went with renewables the cost of electricity would increase by a factor of 5 to 10 and we'd still have to maintain the fossil fuel plants because renewables cannot supply reliable power. There is no way people are going to accept their electricity prices (and all the other flow on costs) increase that much, especially when there is a much lower cost (and more environmentally benign) way odf supplying our electricity. Nuclear is banned in Australia. Even if the bans were removed it is likely that most of the impediments to nuclear would not be removed. The impediments would make N more costly than coal in Australia unless the impediments are removed. The impediments are a result of the western democracies' way of allowing public opinion and anti nuclear fears to override good policy. That is why the estimated cost of new nuclear nuclear power station in USA, Canada, UK etc is up to 4 times more costly than in China (cost of local labour is a small component of the cost). The sort of impediments and regulatory distortions to the market that are blocking nuclear in Australia are: 1. ban on nuclear power 2. high investor risk premium because of the politics 3. Renewable Energy Targets 4. Renewable Energy Certificates 5. Feed in Tariffs for renewables 6. Subsidies and tax advantages for renewable energy 7. Subsidies and tax advantages for fossil fuel electricity generators 8. subsidies for transmission and grid enhancements to support renewable energy 9. massive funding for research into renewable energy 10. massive subsidies for research into carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) 11. Guarantees that the government will carry the risk for any leakage from CCS 12. No equivalent guarantee for management of once used nuclear fuel 13. Massive subsidies and government facilitation for the gas industry, coal seam gas and coal to gas industries (despite the latter putting toxic chemicals into the ground water and the Great Artesian Basin water) 14. Fast tracking of the approvals process for wind power, solar power, gas industry, coal industry while nuclear industry remains band from even fair comparative studies by Treasury, Productivity Commission, ABARE, Department of Climate change and more. We can just imagine what the approvals process would be like for a nuclear power plant!! -
Peter Lang at 12:30 PM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Rob Honeycutt, @261, I don't understand why you don't understand that wind power cannot supply to meet basle load. Do you understand what baseload means? I am convoinced you don't. Until you do, there is no point in you posting here. Your comments are off topic because they are not about basload. Wind power could only generate to meet basload if it had enormous amounts of storage - like 50 days at full power. I've explained this previously. The costs of any storage to try to make wind power baseload are totaly uneconomic - too high by orders of magnitude. -
scaddenp at 12:13 PM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Peter - thanks, I make mistakes too and much more likely to take an interest in the opinion of people who admit it. As to "economically" - well what people pay for energy is something of a choice. If you have a people that say no to nuclear for various reason and no to fossil for various reasons, and so are prepared to pay a massive hike for energy, then sure its economic. I wouldnt, but then I live in a place with base-load hydro and geothermal and no subsidies. If you wanted to build nuclear, then you would have to raise the financial interest and apply for resource consent (which i would imagine to be a very involved process). The arguments about safety would wash out in the consent hearing and the economics in the raising of the capital. What's stopping someone doing this in Australia? -
Rob Honeycutt at 12:09 PM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Peter... Once again, "does not" is not the issue at hand. Whether it can and whether it will is another matter. China IS at the crux of the issue you seem to want to avoid because they are on track to do exactly what you say can not be done. Is it your position that China is on track to do something that will ultimately fail? -
Bob Guercio at 12:05 PM on 2 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Sphaerica - 47 I've actually emailed Gavin asking him to take a look at this blog. All I could do is hope that he responds. I'll keep you guys posted. Bob -
Peter Lang at 12:04 PM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Rob Honeycutt, Why do you keep on talking about the capacity of wind in China. This discussion is about baseload renewables. Wind does not and cannot supply base power. -
Peter Lang at 12:00 PM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
scaddenp, "Peter Lang's argument seems to me that he think nuclear and fossil are the only ones capable of providing base-load power NOW and that they do this much cheaper than any future renewable (non-hydro, non-geothermal) means. This is not exactly the same as "can renewables provide base-load energy" (for a given definition of "base-load"). " That is a fair summary. But I need to clarify. I say "non-hydro renewables cannot provide significant quantities of baseload generation NOW, and probably will never be able to economically." If you leave out the "economically" the whole discussion becomes an irrelevant, theoretical exercise. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:59 AM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
quokka... Just found the 112 GW figure in another China Daily article. -
Peter Lang at 11:54 AM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
scaddenp, You are correct. My mistake. I am often critical of others for making such slips, so I humbly admit this error and eat humble pie on this mistake. I'd better take a break :) -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:53 AM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Another interesting article from the China Daily. China's wind-power boom to outpace nuclear by 2020. Again, I have to ask, if the economics are so crystal clear in favor of nuclear, why is China taking this path? -
Bob Lacatena at 11:51 AM on 2 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Joe Blog, Bob, I understand what you are saying, but I think the mere fact that the stratosphere is warmed from the top down by UV could be enough to justify the temperature profile there. I don't think that is necessarily at odds with Bob's discussion (i.e. that the tropopause is cooler than the stratosphere). The two are compatible. At the same time, however, I'm heartened by the fact that four other people (yourself, Spiff, Tom Curtis, and Gavin), in varying ways, have reiterated my understanding. Gavin, however, is (to me, at least) the final authority on all things climate. That he confirms Bob's description is good enough for me, at least as far as saying that it is a relevant part of the explanation. Gavin's own response to Bob, however, also confirms what we've said (in different words -- he talks about the ratio of change in absorption/emittence, which is equivalent to what I said about the chance of emitting versus not):mostly right. You miss two key facts. First, all GHGs emit as well as absorb, and whether you will get warming or cooling in a region depends on the ratio of the change in absorption and the change in emittence. Second, the troposphere has many IR absorbers, the stratosphere only two (CO2 and O3 - everything else is minor). So the impact of CO2 above the tropopause is amplified.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:46 AM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Peter... No one here has suggested that wind/solar can currently provide significant baseload. Renewables are currently a tiny portion of the energy mix. What we are discussing here is what is possible and where things are going... where things are obviously going. (Also, please check the patronizing tone with the attendant at the door.) quokka... I've lost the link but I just read that China's projections in 2006 for where that they'd be in 2010 has been exceeded (19 GW projected to 25 GW installed wind today). I wouldn't be surprised if they also exceed their 2020 projection of 100 GW of wind power. -
scaddenp at 11:42 AM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
"By the way 50MW peak power is about 30% of the power of an average car - but only available in the day time!!" I dont understand this. A 450hp engine (not a average car) is about 330kW?? That's a very long way from 50MW. Is it just me or is the report versus counter-report from competing industry advocates making this issue as clear as mud? Peter Lang's argument seems to me that he think nuclear and fossil are the only ones capable of providing base-load power NOW and that they do this much cheaper than any future renewable (non-hydro, non-geothermal) means. This is not exactly the same as "can renewables provide base-load energy" (for a given definition of "base-load"). -
quokka at 11:34 AM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
@247 Rob Honeycutt, The latest target for n* in China is 112 GW by 2020. That's sort of equivalent to ~340 GW wind. Things are moving very quickly in China and it's very possible that the Chinese are not showing their full hand yet. We shall see. I've some hope that China will move much faster than most western countries in emissions reductions and supply a large part of the industrial base to get the job done. It seems James Hansen thinks so too. -
Tom Curtis at 11:31 AM on 2 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Bob,when I was first trying to understand the greenhouse effect, I figured out that the statosphere should be cooling before I learnt that, in fact, it had been (which is always pleasant); but the mechanism I thought of was different to the one you describe. Specifically, it occured to me that the temperature in the stratosphere is determined by the balance between the energy from ulatraviolet light absorbed by ozone, and energy emited as IR light by CO2. If the CO2 is increased, then the amount of energy emitted by the CO2 at a given temperature will also increase. Therefore, the CO2, and surrounding gas, will cool until equilibrium is reached again. Doubling the energy radiated by the CO2 will result in an approximate 15% reduction in temperature, all else being equal. Of course, the mechanism you describe will also cool the stratosphere. If IR absorbed from the troposphere were the only energy input of the stratosphere, halving the energy recieved would again, I believe, reduce stratospheric temperatures by about 15%. Which of these two mechanisms is most important would depend on the ratio of the energy absorbed from UV light to that absorbed by IR light. I believe that makes the mechanism I have described (as have Spaceman spiff, Sphaerica and Joe Blog above) more important. -
HumanityRules at 11:28 AM on 2 December 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
To be fair it's not just Robert, it's Copenhagan Diagnosis and the authors of these ice mass balances who are all underplaying the uncertainties in these processes. -
Peter Lang at 11:27 AM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Rob Honeycutt, Your post #250 is accepting that non-hydro renewables cannot provide significant baseload power now. That is progress that at least you have recognised that. So now the argument turns to what might be the case in the future. If only ... -
Peter Lang at 11:10 AM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
KR, No I haven’t read the Czich’s paper you refer to (promoted by the American Wind Energy Association). I have read many of these sorts of reports. They come out, make a big splash in the Greenwash media, and eventually the industry gets around to debunking them. One such report along similar lines was the paper by Mark Jacobson “A path to sustainable energy by 2020” published in ‘Scientific American’. Read the critique here This critique, and the the "Zero Carbon Australia - Stationary Energy Plan - critique" will answer your questions about the renewablke energy advocacy studies that are trying to demonstrate that non-hydro renewable energy could, theoretically, provide baseload power. They are promoted by advocacy groups. They claimns cannot be demonstrated to be correct anywhere - despite making the same claims for at least 20 years and being continually proven wrong. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:06 AM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Peter @ 248... You're simply arguing for inaction on the basis that it hasn't happened yet. Look at your statements. You are using future tense in both cases. The abstract says, "there are good prospects..." But you are saying "cannot provide significant baseload generation." Both a reference to what can or can not be done. The analogy would be someone arguing in 1963 that you can't put a man on the moon by saying, "Look! Show me one man that has ever walked on the moon!" -
swieder at 10:55 AM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
@Peter Lang "By the way 50MW peak power is about 30% of the power of an average car - but only available in the day time!! Get the message?" This is all wrong, sorry. You seem to have not read the linked article at all: it is not "peak" power. The heat is collected and converted to steam, then electricity. This is done continuously - the excess heat is stored in the molten salt tank - which seamlessly can take over in the evening hours or when clouds are there (You can easily think of a larger tank by the way). The tank provides continuously power for roughly 8 h. -
Peter Lang at 10:54 AM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Rob Honeycutt, You did not provide the information I asked for. Pointing to one or more of the thousands of studies by renewable energy advocates which say that there are 'prospects' for renewables is simply trying to distract from revealing or accepting the truth of the matter. I've read plenty of these studies. You quoted this fro the abstract: " "Using locally mass-produced wind turbines there are good prospects that wind power would be cost-competitive with coal power," That should be enough to show you they are talking about "prospects" (i.e. pure advocacy for a belief, a hope, a wish and a prayer) and there is no mention that they can provide baseload. Clearly, you still do not understand what baseload means. If you want to uead the link I provided. If you don't want to understand, I cannot be bothered discussing it with you any more. The answer is clear. Non hydro renewables cannot provide significant baseload generation. -
HumanityRules at 10:52 AM on 2 December 2010A basic overview of Antarctic ice
79 muoncounter "One thing these data do not show is a gain in ice. So your criticism must therefore be directed at those who make conclusions using no data whatsoever." Look I didn't want to avoid this question. I'll agree with you that those predicting gains are on shaky ground but what I'm concerned with is the sureness of those predicting losses. I think it's wrong to suggest that the data is all in one direction. I don't know if you can get round AGU's paywall but here's a new estimate of PGR using GPS from 2009 GEOCHEMISTRY GEOPHYSICS GEOSYSTEMS, VOL. 10, Q10005, 11 PP., 2009 doi:10.1029/2009GC002642 Geodetic measurements of vertical crustal velocity in West Antarctica and the implications for ice mass balance Bevis et al (hopefully not Butthead) Abstract "We present preliminary geodetic estimates for vertical bedrock velocity at twelve survey GPS stations in the West Antarctic GPS Network, an additional survey station in the northern Antarctic Peninsula, and eleven continuous GPS stations distributed across the continent. The spatial pattern of these velocities is not consistent with any postglacial rebound (PGR) model known to us. Four leading PGR models appear to be overpredicting uplift rates in the Transantarctic Mountains and West Antarctica and underpredicting them in the peninsula north of 65°. This discrepancy cannot be explained in terms of an elastic response to modern ice loss (except, perhaps, in part of the peninsula). Therefore, our initial geodetic results suggest that most GRACE ice mass rate estimates, which are critically dependent on a PGR correction, are systematically biased and are overpredicting ice loss for the continent as a whole. " Unfortunately as the paper points out it is impossible for them to know the full extent of this bias but it is likely a "significant fraction of all published ice mass rates derived from GRACE". Let's wait and see but as I said PGR is still contraversial. I'll agree with you that suggestions of ice mass gain are unwarranted but I think it's also reasonable to think that ice mass losses have been over-estimated. It worth pointing out that GRACE actually measures the equivalent of an ice mass gain for Antarctica, it is only the large estimates of PGR that turns this into an ice mass loss so getting PGR/GIA right is very important. The above is only one paper but a review of the subject in 2010 "Improved Constraints on Models of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment: A Review of the Contributionof Ground-Based Geodetic Observations" With a whooping 17 authors commented on the Bevis paper saying "their major conclusions appear robust". More generally on the subject of PGR they say "It is clear that GIA-related surface displacement observation and analysis around Antarctica, as with Greenland, is yet to reach maturity and further developments are required." I'm happy with 'wait and see' but I don't think Robert Way's article is coming to that conclusion so I'll stay in firm opposition to his position. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:51 AM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
And again, I have to ask... IF wind/solar can not possibly be economically feasible and IF nuclear is the obvious answer (as Peter claims) why would China be planning to install double the GW of power in wind over nuclear by 2020? China could very easily take the same route as France and go all out for nuclear. They aren't. Why? -
swieder at 10:50 AM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
@Pater Lang don't type so quickly :) I get that you asked for examples, they were given. Are they cost effective today? Are the sufficient today? 2 x no. Was the first coal plant cost effective? sufficient? Same for nuclear or any new thing. Should we therefor abandon them - No. My 2 cent. And i dislike your agressive, unpolite tone. -
Renewable Baseload Energy
Peter Lang - I think your accusation of "misinformation" is both highly insulting and contrary to the comments policy on this site. I do not see an "Addendum" in your "Solar Realities" linked article, nor any reference to such in this thread. What I do see is a single-site power estimate (solar only), no consideration of an integrated grid, wind power (which would cover a considerable portion of the lower nighttime demands), multiple siting to minimize single site low periods, etc. Without consideration of these factors your "Realities" article is quite unrealistic. I have not discussed costs because I do not have the information - I will clearly admit that. What I have been attempting to discuss for quite some time is the technical possibility of baseload power using renewables. You have not proven your technical point with that article in any fashion. -
swieder at 10:47 AM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
@Peter Lang Multiple links were provided (#161, #237, #240 just to mention some hints), you did not respond to them. Repeating your statement does not make it more valuable or true. -
Joe Blog at 10:47 AM on 2 December 2010Stratospheric Cooling and Tropospheric Warming
Spaceman spiff and Sphaerica have hit the nail on the head. Bob, you really do have to ask yourself why the tropopause is cooler than the stratosphere. Its a contradiction to this article. The measured LW spectrum often shown, are showing that in the co2 band, its escaping to space at around 220k, and given the fact that the tropopause is cooler than the stratosphere, we can safely assume its below this in the troposphere that the average LW escapes to space from co2. Some will be absorbed by co2 and O3, but thats not the predominant reason for the T profiles, or why elevating co2 should cause the stratosphere to cool. -
Peter Lang at 10:45 AM on 2 December 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
swieder, Your understanding of Andasol is wrong. I suggest you read the "Zero Carbon Australia - Stationary Energy Plan - Critique". It does not provide basload power and is hugely expensive (about 5 times the cost of (unprintable). By the way 50MW peak power is about 30% of the power of an average car - but only available in the day time!! Get the message? We'd need 1000 of these monsters to provide our pour during the day and a few hours at tnight and still need just as many reliable fossil fuel or (unprintable) power stations to provide the power during the night. They wouldn't replace any fossil fuel plants. Get the message yet?
Prev 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 Next
