Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 Next
Comments 103101 to 103150:
-
Camburn at 14:43 PM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
actually: There is a lot of concrete in any type of power generating plant. There is a lot of concrete in each base of a wind tower. I watched a Windfarm being built. A LOT of concrete under each tower. But once it is built, the co2 emission ceases. -
Marcus at 14:41 PM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Camburn, in what way is Thorium a "proven" technology? How many commercially viable power plants are there in the world? By my reading, only the Indians have built a Thorium Reactor-a single, pilot plant. In spite of some benefits, Thorium Reactors still have a number of engineering & cost hurdles to overcome, & Thorium has a number of negative health & environment impacts that can't be overlooked. -
archiesteel at 14:32 PM on 28 November 2010Can you make a hockey stick without tree rings?
@eco-kowana: it wasn't. -
Marcus at 14:32 PM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
archiesteel. Yes, for what its worth, I agree with helping those Countries that already *have* nuclear power to keep using that-rather than switching to coal-as their source of base-load power, at least until renewable energy technologies truly "come of age". I certainly don't believe we should try expanding nuclear power into Countries that don't already have it-especially when you consider the very long lead times in construction. Finland, for example, started construction of a new 1.6GW reactor earlier in the decade, & was due to go online in 2009. It is now not expected to go online until 2013-four years behind schedule. The project has also run into significant cost overruns. Now this is in a Country with prior experience in nuclear power-so how much *worse* will it be for Countries that lack the skills base? Also, what about potential proliferation issues in Countries that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Of course, nuclear power was tried in a number of developing countries, mostly in SE Asia, but was abandoned in each case due to cost & construction overruns. Last I checked, the World Bank no longer funds energy projects that involve nuclear power. I do love tt3's claim that nuclear power receives no subsidies! Complete nonsense. Globally, nuclear power has received hundreds of *billions* of dollars worth of subsidies-both direct & indirect-to keep the price of the technology down. The spruikers of the technology also love to low-ball their overnight construction cost estimates in order to produce a much lower life-time cost of the electricity of new plants. Even with these low estimates, & the ongoing subsidies, EIA studies show that new nuclear reactors are more expensive than Wind, Gas or Coal (at around $60/MW-h)-with Solar technologies swiftly catching up. -
archiesteel at 14:31 PM on 28 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
@Camburn: "Laws were broken and prosecuted. No sir: They couldn't be prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired." I'm sure you can tell me which law was broken, and how long the statutes of limitations are for that offense... "Dis-information. I will go with only one that is well known." That's what I said: the well-known disinformation is the one that comes from professional climate science deniers, whose junk science is peddled by think tanks that are funded by such oil industrialists as the Koch brothers. "You base your 2.0 to 4.5 C increase in temps on model runs. The scientist who produced the model seems to have made you certain of this." I would hardly call a 2.0 to 4.5C spread "certainty". On the contrary, it indicates an admitted degree of *uncertainty*. As for myself, I am not certain of it, I accept it as correct after reading up on it and understanding the science behind such a claim. "The HO is still the warmest period of this interglacial. The current warm period may be within 1.0C of that temperature." Actually, we don't know for certain that the current temperatures aren't already higher than those of the HCO. In any case, they are very close to them. "Trend going up since 1850. You attribute this trend to co2." Actually, I mostly attribute the warming since 1975 to CO2. You're the one who brought up 1850 - don't put words in my mouth, please. "On each one there was a dramatic increase in temps before the fall of said temps. We may be experiencing one of those now as the cycle is ripe for it to happen." Actually, we aren't - and those alleged rises (I have not seen any convincing evidence of their existence) were likely much slower than the current warming we are experiencing. "This topic has drifted of target. Maybe you can start a new thread where we can talk in earnest about historical climate. I would welcome it." It's unlikely you'll bring any arguments that haven't already been debunked on this site. Frankly, I've wasted enough time with political activists trying to delay action on climate change. -
actually thoughtful at 14:29 PM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
CAmburn: "No CO2 emitted." Research how much CO2 is in concrete. Then how much concrete goes into a nuclear power plant. It sounds good - but it ain't true. -
kdkd at 14:21 PM on 28 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
Camburn: #61 It's called smoothing, and it's a reasonable response to complex systems with fractal properties. I'm reminded of the old Douglas Adams quote: 'If anyone finds out what the universe is for it will disappear and be replace by something more bizzarly inexplicable." There is another theory that states: "This has already happened.' Or to put it another way; if you model something with sufficient precision to be an exact model of the phenomenon under investigation, you're not modelling, you're replicating. All models are wrong but many are useful (quote attributable to someone else). -
Camburn at 14:18 PM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
archiesteel: Why not the only solution? Proven tech, supply of thorium for over 1,000 years. No co2 emitted. After reading the comments again, it would appear that to most of you nuclear is not part of any solution. To me it is a better solution than the current mix as it is an actable solution. Just think of the level of co2 emitted in 10 years if we decided to REALLY attack emissions, shut down all coal/natural gas power plants and have nuclear instead. I know.....a pipe dream. But we won't because no one really wants to. -
Camburn at 14:11 PM on 28 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
"Nevertheless, models still show significant errors. Although these are generally greater at smaller scales, important large-scale problems also remain. For example, deficiencies remain in the simulation of tropical precipitation, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and the Madden-Julian Oscillation (an observed variation in tropical winds and rainfall with a time scale of 30 to 90 days). The ultimate source of most such errors is that many important small-scale processes cannot be represented explicitly in models, and so must be included in approximate form as they interact with larger-scale features. This is partly due to limitations in computing power, but also results from limitations in scientific understanding or in the availability of detailed observations of some physical processes. Significant uncertainties, in particular, are associated with the representation of clouds, and in the resulting cloud responses to climate change. Consequently, models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas" -
archiesteel at 14:10 PM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Another day, another thread hijacked by nuclear industry shills. Look, we all agree that nuclear is *part* of the solution, but it cannot be the *only* solution. For starters, nuclear energy doesn't allow for consumer-producers, i.e. consumers who have their own solar/wind installation and can sell back excess power to the grid. -
Camburn at 14:01 PM on 28 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
Also, I would suggest that you read WG1 in regards to modeling climate. -
Camburn at 13:59 PM on 28 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
archiesteel@56: Laws were broken and prosecuted. No sir: They couldn't be prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired. 2. Dis-information. I will go with only one that is well known. There are multitudes of others. a. The west side highway of Manhaten will be under water by 2013. Isn't going to happen. 3. Models and certainty. You base your 2.0 to 4.5 C increase in temps on model runs. The scientist who produced the model seems to have made you certain of this. 4. Temps 8,000YBP. The HO is still the warmest period of this interglacial. The current warm period may be within 1.0C of that temperature. This is a brief history of the Holocene. http://westinstenv.org/palbot/2007/12/14/holocene-temperatures-and-sea-level-changes/ 5. Trend going up since 1850. You attribute this trend to co2. Well, the period from 1850-1940 saw very little increase in co2PPMV. The temp did increase. Also please observe the ends of past interglacial periods. On each one there was a dramatic increase in temps before the fall of said temps. We may be experiencing one of those now as the cycle is ripe for it to happen. 6. This topic has drifted of target. Maybe you can start a new thread where we can talk in earnest about historical climate. I would welcome it. -
actually thoughtful at 13:57 PM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Quokka: "This surely leads to the obvious question of why, other than pumped hydro, grid storage is not currently used on any significant scale?" I will take this at face value. There has not previously been a need, nor the ability. The first molten salt happened in 1995. Before then we didn't have the material science to pull it off. Same with the super-high temperatures of CSP. So then your next sentence:"Which leads to the obvious conclusion that all of the possible technologies mentioned in the article are not currently viable." Makes no sense (it never did). By your logic we could never have been to the moon - the technology was not in use at the time - therefore it was not viable. Lather, rinse, repeat. But even your weak conclusion (it isn't viable) isn't supported by the evidence. I have dozens of customers NOW who have cut their home heating bills (in a winter climate) by 75%. With today's "non-viable" technology. We risk the great being the enemy of the good. It would be great for a high energy-density, non-CO2, non-WMD producing, non-polluting energy source to appear right now. But to insist on that, when we have very GOOD energy sources (wind, solar, wave) ready - RIGHT NOW is just silly. Go install solar panels on your roof (PV, solar thermal or both). Experience the feeling of controlling your own energy density. Of locally produced energy. Reflect on peak oil/gas/coal/nuke, on pollution in its various forms, on terrorists funded by the energy YOU buy. Then tell me "Undue and unwarranted faith in unproven technologies has the very nasty side effect of providing a fig leaf for the continued use of fossil fuels." Time for a dose of reality indeed. While you are hand-wringing and fearing it can't be done - some of us are busy doing it. The more people who install renewable energy, the easier it gets. -
eco-kowana at 13:32 PM on 28 November 2010Can you make a hockey stick without tree rings?
I thought the Medevil warm period was a lot warmer than now -
archiesteel at 12:37 PM on 28 November 2010Climategate: Hiding the Decline?
@KL: "The topic of this thread is Climategate - hiding the decline." Actually, the true topic is how that innocuous phrase was misrepresented by climate "skeptics" - something which you continue to do to this day it seems, even though no one seriously believe there was anything misleading or dishonest about the phrase in its proper context. "All the raw global thermometer data was collected and many (if not all) 'corrected' by CRU to produce the surface temp series HADCRUT etc." Please provide actual evidence that the corrections to the data made it less represenative of reality. If you do not have any evidence of this, then you are making baseless accusations, which is not a logically tenable position. "In plain language - do dodgy once and don't be surprised if others want to look at your other 'tricks' to verify there is no other 'dodginess'." Except there was no dodginess in the first place. "when the proxy no longer matched the warming trend" Indeed, because tree ring proxies since the 1950s do not accurately represent actual temperatures. The misleading thing would have been to *continue* using the proxies past this date. "Archiesteel - I can't remember which thread I last conversed with you but your ungenerous remark does not fit with my recollection of the weakness of your contribution." At least my contributions make sense, and are not a series of confused deductions based on erroneous premises. So say my contributions are weak all you want, they are the rock of Gibraltar compared to yours. (Nor do I constantly whine about being "censored" when my comments are redacted due to inflammatory language. Instead, I take it like a responsible adult. You should try it. This is just a website, after all - it's not as if we're being paid to post here, right?) "The argument then goes - if one bit of this 'science' is dodgy - how do we know that the rest is rock solid" Uh, by analyzing it? I mean, that is the logical thing to do. On the other hand, if we were to apply your logic to professional climate deniers like Singer, Lindzen, Watts and McIntyre - who have been shown to be wrong over and over again - then none of them should have *any* credibility left, and you should criticize them as much as you do actual climate scientists. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:28 PM on 28 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
Philippe Chantreau (#55): Regular skeptics on this site do it quite often too. When shown that there was simply an element they overlooked, instead of duly apologizing, they say, "I'll look into it again and get back to you", which never happens. Eric (skeptic): It's often not feasible to investigate an issue right away especially one that is complex. This site is very useful in pointing out flaws in my thinking but it can take time to integrate that new knowledge. So it may appear to be hit and run, but its not. Arguments like this thread are not very useful since I am not going to convince anyone about Steve M. It is much more useful for me to put forth alternatives to CAGW and let people poke holes in them. I'll apologize now in advance for those times where I will be wrong. -
johnd at 12:24 PM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
sailrick at 08:32 AM, sailrick, I was thinking more along the lines the energy being stored elsewhere in the system other than by the power generator itself. In order for the power generator to be able to store energy that can be drawn upon when the sun or wind is insufficient, the amount it puts into the grid is somewhat less than what it is capable off, just for arguments sake, lets say supplier A puts 2/3 of their capacity into the grid, and 1/3 goes into storage. That means that some other power supplier, generator B has to be also supplying power into the grid, firstly to supplement the 1/3 that generator A is otherwise putting into storage, and then perhaps 100% when generator A becomes idle having exhausted their storage capacity. Generator B will be using fuel of some sort, but again for arguments sake, lets say it is hydro powered. If generator A is limiting itself to only putting 2/3 of capacity into the grid in order to store energy, then generator B will being using water to makeup the extra required. What I was saying is that if instead generator B puts 100% directly into the grid instead of 1/3 into storage, then the power required from generator B will be correspondingly less, thus they are conserving their energy input, namely the water in their reservoir, which in effect becomes an energy store, increased in capacity by the equivalent to what otherwise would have been put into storage by generator A. What one has to consider then which is the most efficient form of storage, both in terms of losses, and the ability to store for extended periods. In this example it would be hard to beat storing water in a dam. -
quokka at 12:23 PM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Nick Palmer @31we will switch to breeders, which is tested and proved technology since the early 1050s. Then we would have to deal with the consequences of a very widespread plutonium economy. Just imagine what might happen if Iran, North Korea, Chechnya etc had easy access to tonnes of the stuff.
This is a poorly informed claim. It has no relevance whatsoever to potential thorium based breeders. In the case of fast spectrum reactors based on a uranium/plutonium fuel cycle, the preferred reprocessing technology is almost certainly Pyroprocessing. This technology simply cannot be used to produce weapons grade plutonium. The reprocessed fuel from pyroprocessing contains uranium, plutonium and other actinides all mixed together and the resulting material cannot be used to make a bomb. Would be bomb makers would certainly take some other, mostly likely traditional method of obtaining weapons grade material. -
quokka at 11:50 AM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
When considering grid storage, it must be realised that grid storage is not something that is uniquely applicable to variable renewables. It would be just as useful in conjunction with coal or nuclear for meeting peak demand. This surely leads to the obvious question of why, other than pumped hydro, grid storage is not currently used on any significant scale? Which leads to the obvious conclusion that all of the possible technologies mentioned in the article are not currently viable. Furthermore, I would suggest that there is no real indication of when they might be viable on a scale that matters. There is a very dangerous tendency to put hugely optimistic hope in future technologies - some of which may very well never prove to viable. The notion of using half-spent batteries from EVs is a fine example of dangerous nonsense that should never figure in a discussion of current energy planning. We do not know when there will be enough EVs deployed to even begin seriously thinking about such a scheme, let alone the practicalities of it. We don't even know whether batteries are going to largely replace the good old internal combustion engine. It may be possible that the ICE lives on for a long time with carbon neutral syn fuels. Undue and unwarranted faith in unproven technologies has the very nasty side effect of providing a fig leaf for the continued use of fossil fuels. Time for a serious dose of reality. -
dhogaza at 10:25 AM on 28 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
""The models do not project the certainty that some would have you believe." Which scientist claimed their models projected certainty? Please provide some evidence for your allegations." Indeed. Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 most likely in the range of 2-4.5C projects a lot of uncertainty, not certainty. Of course, Camburn and his ilk are those that project certainty, i.e. that even the low end of that rather wide range is too high. They're certain of it. Their own certainty is what they mean by "uncertainty". -
Paul D at 10:24 AM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
New Zealand company I mentioned in comment 50: http://www.solenza.co.nz/ -
Daniel Bailey at 10:23 AM on 28 November 2010We're heading into an ice age
Re: NQuestofApollo (119) To tack onto muoncounter's execellent comment to you at 120 above, there's these quotes from Dr Toby Tyrrell of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, appearing in Science Daily:"Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them. The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result."
and"Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages."
The Yooper -
Paul D at 10:20 AM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
sailrick: "An interesting approach to getting more energy out of the sun, is that being done by Zenith Solar of Israel and by Cogenra. In both cases, these are concentrating PV solar which produce both electricity and hot water." There is a New Zealand company that has developed a roofing system that combines PV with solar heating. Can't remember the name of the company, although I know it is a university spin off. They get higher efficiencies from the PV part because the cells are kept cooler. -
Paul D at 10:10 AM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Another idea, harvesting urban heat island energy: http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/44135 -
archiesteel at 10:08 AM on 28 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
@Camburn: "CRU did not follow the law. It is that plain and simple." Actually, no laws were broken, except by the person who hacked the e-mails. If Jones and the CRU had broken any laws, they would have been prosecuted. Are you as confused about Law as you seem to be about Science? "The issues that deal with climate is the mis information on both sides." Actually, the disinformation is coming out from one side only: the climate deniers'. "The models do not project the certainty that some would have you believe." Which scientist claimed their models projected certainty? Please provide some evidence for your allegations. "The temp data gets pulled in both directions." Do you have evidence supporting this? "The sensativity of climate to co2 is a very much loaded question." Not really, but if you have an actual scientific argument to support your claims, please share it with us. "The trend in temp since 1850 has been up. The long term trend since 8000 BP is still down. These are known facts." Current temperatures are already as high as they've ever been since the HCO, and may even be higher on a global scale. The fact that the current trend is going dramatically up while the normal long-term trend should lead to a decrease is *evidence* that AGW is indeed happening. I suggest you learn a bit more about the science before challenging it, otherwise it simply sounds as if you're opposing AGW on political grounds. -
Daniel Bailey at 10:02 AM on 28 November 2010Climate's changed before
Re: flanerz (138) In addition to archiesteel's nice link at 139, please see "What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?" for a good explanation of what Gore said in his movie and what it means. RealClimate does a nice deconstruction of Gore's An Inconvenient Truth here, where they talk about what he got right with the science and what he got wrong. One of the more knowledgable commenters at RealClimate, Patrick 027, offers up a dissection of forcings, ice ages and milankovitch cycles here. I have not seen the film you name in your comment, so I couldn't characterize what they said that Gore said (he said, she said revisited). Hope that helps, The Yooper -
archiesteel at 09:58 AM on 28 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
@damorbel: the graph serves its purpose. It is not misleading to anyone with any kind of base scientific knowledge. I'm sorry, but it really sound as if you're grasping at straws, here. The greenhouse effect is real, a fact the majority of climate change skeptics recognize. Heck, I even had skeptics here assure me that "no one disputes the greenhouse effect"...yet it seems that this is exactly what you're (unsuccessfully) attempting here. Is this really a wise tactic on your part? -
sailrick at 09:54 AM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Solar thermal, or CSP, can also desalinate sea water while generating power. Desertrec plans to get hot water, desalination and electric power, all from solar thermal power plants. "Skyrocketing fuel prices and the mounting reality of a peak oil future have made Desertec economically attractive for the first time since it was conceived back in 2003. ...And it doesn’t hurt that the project carries a built-in bonus: drinking water. The plan aims to use the waste heat from the solar power plants for thermal desalination to create clean water for host countries. " http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080421/solar-power-africa-best-investment-eu-can-make This could be very positive for quality of life in countries where clean water, abundant hot water, and electricity are luxuries. That, and cooperation among countries may reduce geopolitical and regional tensions. How about it Southern California? SoCal cities take water from the SF Bay area Delta via the aqueduct, the Colorado River and the Owens Valley aquifer. Combined with the massive use of irrigation water, and the needs of natural ecosystems of rivers and delta, something has to give. Impacts on fish and other creatures is severe. I'd like to see a feasability study for this. CPV can also desalinate water. "IBM Launches Solar-Powered Desalination in Saudi Arabia" ".... a concentrated solar system with an innovative cooling mechanism that will allow it to take better advantage of the desert heat and fuel the desalination process with renewable energy.......... IBM's concentrated PV system can focus 2,300 times the power of the sun onto a one square meter solar cell without causing heat damage, thanks to an indium/gallium liquid metal alloy that conducts heat away from the cell" http://solveclimate.com/blog/20100407/ibm-launches-solar-powered-desalination-saudi-arabia -
archiesteel at 09:51 AM on 28 November 2010Climate's changed before
@flanerz: check out the response to the CO2 Lags Temperatures argument. -
flanerz at 09:16 AM on 28 November 2010Climate's changed before
I have one simple question that I hope someone can asnwer. In that film 'The great global warming hoax' I think that is the name of it. Def something like that, it said that the huge graph which Al Gore used to demonstrate the history of warming on our planet (by showing the direct corellation between CO2 and warming), failed to tell us that on closer inspection, the temperature rose first and then the CO2 because the ocean was releasing the CO2 as it warmed and not the other way round. Is this true or false? -
muoncounter at 09:14 AM on 28 November 2010We're heading into an ice age
#119: The Sicily paper's data only goes up to 1998; here is the more recent version. On that page, they say 337 billion metric tons of carbon since 1750; half since the mid-70s. The difficulty is the conversion from carbon to CO2 is a factor of 3.664: 1 gram C = 0.083 mole CO2 = 3.664 gram CO2. Not quite apples and oranges, but still important. When you divide 650.7 Gtons CO2 (world cumulative from 1980-2008 from the tables here) by 3.664, you obtain 177.6 Gtons carbon, which is the same order of magnitude as 'half of 337 Gtons carbon since the mid-70s.' Someone here very patiently explained this to me the first time I found the same sort of inconsistency; I hope I've paid that forward for you. I did a breakdown of the carbon numbers by identifying segments with reasonably constant slope:cum carbon avg annual rate period (gtons) (gtons/yr) 1751-1910 19.2 0.1 1911-1946 37.2 1.1 1947-1979 102.4 3.2 1980-2006 170.1 6.5
As a result, it hardly seems like anything prior to early part of the 20th century is worth bothering over. -
sailrick at 08:51 AM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Solar thermal power with heat storage makes it easier to integrate more intermittent sources, like PV solar and wind, into the grid. Another benefit of large sources of dispatchable power. While no definitively serious study, here's an interesting article on the above. It attempts to show that a grid with less baseload may not be a bad thing. "Why CSP Should Not Try To Be Coal" http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/04/why_csp_should_not_try_to_be_coal.html "Brighter than a Hundred Suns: Solar Power for the Southwest" from NREL "Even though some solar generating technologies could benefit from research and development, it was made clear that solar resources are abundant; are located where they are needed; that efficiencies from concentrating solar power (CSP) are good enough to justify deployment; and cost projections are very promising. All that solar power required, in the opinion of the experts, is an incubation period, where incentives are put in place that allow the transition of this emerging generating technology into the mainstream. It is our view that providing such an incubation period is not a leap of faith, but a proven recipe of success, as the emergence of wind generating technology in Europe has shown." "The success of an incubation period for solar power is all but guaranteed. This is because, unlike similar promises by the industry to introduce electric cars, CSP plants have already achieved a level of performance that makes them practical. They have proven their merit in over a decade of operation in the Mojave Desert, and cost-reduction projections for CSP technologies are based on the fact that they use ordinary technology in an extraordinary way." http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/33233.pdf this link is search results for "heat storage costs". Searched from NREL site. lots of articles the secret to low water use, high efficiency CSP http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/29/csp-concentrating-solar-power-heller-water-use/ In addition to Arizona's 285 GW solar thermal potential that I mentioned in a previous post, here are the numbers for some other states. New Mexico has another 220 GW, Nevada 165 GW, Utah 74 GW, California 98 GW, Colorado 38 GW, Oregon 12 GW, Kansas 6.7 GW, and West Texas has very large solar recources, for which I don't have the numbers. -
sailrick at 08:32 AM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
johnd You asked about the extra capacity needed to store energy with renewables. With solar thermal, the steadiness of the power is quite reliable, particularly with molten salt heat storage. The location in the desert means sunshine is quite predictable and reliable. Of course for a given generating capacity, more solar collectors are needed for heat storage, but this is an incremental cost, as the central plant doesn't change. The NREL figured that the upfront cost of adding heat storage is a wash over the long run. NREL gives solar thermal power tower plants with molten salt heat storage a 70% capacity factor and 50% for parabolic solar troughs with heat storage. NREL estimates that the cost of building solar thermal plants will fall dramatically as experience is gained and economies of scale come into play. Mass production of the components would drastically reduce costs. Although they expect early CSP plants to be expensive, those costs were predicted to fall to under 10cents/kWh fairly quicly, and 4-7 cents/kWh to be achieved when the industry gets up to scale. It should also be noted that power from solar thermal with heat storage should be able to command a higher price, since it is valuable dispatchable power. It can follow the load. Can solar thermal provide large amounts of power? You bet. Nuclear advocates in Arizona tried to have nuclear classified as a renewable, in order to get the same tax credits as solar. An odd choice when you consider the following. How many nuclear plants did they plan to build in Arizona? According to NREL, Arizona has 285 GW potential for solar thermal with heat storage. I figure thats about the equivalent of 150 nuclear power plants, adjusting for capacity factors. (rough estimate) In total there is about 1,000 GW potential in the western states, mostly southwestern, from solar thermal. This is only using carefully selected areas for development, avoiding many sensitive areas, human habitation, parks national forsests, rivers lakes, etc. -
sailrick at 08:25 AM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Solar thermal and heat storage "Profit Maximization Energy storage allows the plant operator to maximize profits. During periods of low hourly power prices, the operator can forgo generation and dump heat into storage; and at times of high prices, the plant can run at full capacity even without sun. Peak Shaving Solar generating capacity with heat storage can make other capacity in the market unnecessary. With heat storage the solar plant is able to “shave “ the peak load. Reducing Intermittence The ability of thermal solar plants to use heat energy storage to keep electric output constant: (1) reduces the cost associated with uncertainty surrounding power production; and (2) relieves concerns regarding electrical interconnection fees, regulation service charges, and transmission tariffs. Increasing Plant Utilization Solar plants equipped with heat storage have the ability to increase overall annual generation levels by 'spreading out' solar radiation to better match plant capacity." http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/owens_storage_value.pdf -
muoncounter at 08:22 AM on 28 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
#160: "If the diagram were improved it would show just how this 33K comes about." That would be called reinventing the wheel. Look here, particularly the paragraph beginning "If an ideal thermally conductive blackbody was the same distance from the Sun as the Earth," -
sailrick at 08:20 AM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
An interesting approach to getting more energy out of the sun, is that being done by Zenith Solar of Israel and by Cogenra. In both cases, these are concentrating PV solar which produce both electricity and hot water. Solar cells in CPV systems need to be cooled to avoid heat damage and maintain efficiency. These two companies turn this liability into an asset. Zenith says they get an overall solar conversion efficiency of 75% Cogenra claims to capture 80% of the sun's energy. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/11/cogenra-hybrid-solar-system-80-percent-efficient-electricity-hot-water.php http://www.zenithsolar.com/index.html -
muoncounter at 08:12 AM on 28 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
#162: "So I can surely say that the emitting of radiation as a result of absorbing energy can be attributed to all gases." You can say whatever you like; whether what you say is correct or not might matter to some. Look at these lecture notes for some further basics, including a model of how gas molecules absorb energy. -
NQuestofApollo at 08:10 AM on 28 November 2010We're heading into an ice age
muoncounter: Thank you for your response and for the links. But, I'm having trouble making sense out of the Sicily paper as it relates to the EIA data. Here is the problem I am having: according to the EIA, between 1980 and 2006, globally, humans have cumulatively emitted over 600 Gton C from the "Consumption and Flaring of Fossil Fuels". (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls). Roll in the link that you sent and we are up to 663 Gton C by 2008. Assuming an average increase in anthropogenic CO2 emission per year of 2%, and that puts us at a cumulative 725 Gton C for the last 30 years. If we want to say that global warming started in 1895 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983504,00.html) due to the flaring of fossil fuels - (assuming a constant of a 2% increase per year (which may or may not be reasonable)) then we had to be well beyond 1000 Gton C by the year 2000 (this excludes the first 145 years of the industrial revolution). So, how is it that the Sicily paper has us at cumulative of only 270 Gton C between 1750 and 2000? Am I not comparing apples and apples here? If I've made an error, I hope you can help me see where I went wrong. Thank you. -
Philippe Chantreau at 07:31 AM on 28 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
'But I wouldn't paint them all with the same brush.' Perhaps, but that brush is definitely appropriate for McIntyre himself. He should have encouraged his readers to do exactly what was described by caerbannog. He didn't. Why? It was so much better to accuse CRU of fraud, or Mann and Jones of being out there to destroy civilization (and I'm not making these up). CA became little more than an online lynch mob with better vocabulary than the one at WUWT. Actions clearly showed that there was never a true sincerity in McIntyre's skepticism; if there was, he would have done a lot more real work and published it. Just like Watts would have done some data analysis if he actually was intending to understand something. That's not what skeptics do. They accuse scientists systematically of fraud/incompetence but never provide any proof of it. Regular skeptics on this site do it quite often too. When shown that there was simply an element they overlooked, instead of duly apologizing, they say, "I'll look into it again and get back to you", which never happens. They complain about ad-homs all the time yet go on insulting personally those who disagree with them in ways that truly can not be let to appear on the site. Then they complain about censorship. When investigations are completed of blanket accusations (like the e-mails story) that conclude there is no fraud, they suggest the investigations themselves are fraud. When mathematical proof is shown that their allegations are false (as with Watts Canadian stations nonsense) they ignore it an wave their hands, or change the subject. Skeptics routinely claim that fraud is going to cost us trillions. I note that there still has not been one instance of scientific fraud confirmed after years of a scrutiny so intense that we can only wish it would be applied to other fields like, say, banking practices. After years of accusing the entire field of climate science to be riddled with fraud and error, skeptics' record of publications demonstrating so is non existent, but they really have nothing very interesting to publish. So they create their own journal out of nothingness (E&E) and claim high and loud that it is for them. Then, in true "skeptic" fashion, they make it their chief source of "scientific" information. What a joke. Seriously, how can a self professed skeptic consider trustworthy a source that has bias against a theory as its foundational premise? Would skeptics trust publications from a journal claiming to be a platform for pro-AGW papers? No, they would call it a political journal. They do that already with respectable publications, or accuse NSIDC of being a propaganda office (I'm still not making this up, it was read on skeptic sites). Why anyone who can reason would buy into the "skeptics" message would be incomprehensible, except for the fact that a careful examination almost always reveals an intense emotional bond to some ideology in which the idea of limiting carbon emissions does not fit. -
Bibliovermis at 07:22 AM on 28 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
Eric, It would be reasonable to assume that McIntyre was organizing the FoI requests in bad faith as he had a public history of acting in bad faith, e.g. 1934 vs. 1998. -
SoundOff at 07:18 AM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Thanks for the article and comments that follow. Very informative. Some more information that overlaps with the topic of this article … An interactive article on Powering a Green Planet: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=powering-a-green-planet The study summarized in the above link: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WindWaterSun1009.pdf -
Riccardo at 06:47 AM on 28 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
h-j-m "Seemingly no one contradicted my postulations concerning the behaviour of gases. So I can surely say that the emitting of radiation as a result of absorbing energy can be attributed to all gases" I can see one more possibility, people gave up trying to explain if you don't even bother to check this two century old physics. -
Eric (skeptic) at 06:46 AM on 28 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
caerbannog, my statement that you quoted in #49 is neutral narrative of what the CA regulars did and does not imply good faith or bad faith. As for CRU's response, it is summed up well by Kooiti Masuda in #35. Also as Kooiti points out, the CA regulars were a diverse crowd, so some may have been acting in bad faith in their FOI requests. But I wouldn't paint them all with the same brush. As for what Steve should have done instead, he should not have wasted his time. It is CRU itself that finally clarified their lack of raw data, lack of agreements, lack of records of who the data was given to (e.g. Rutherford), etc in http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/availability/ After reading that memo it would be pointless to send an FOI for anything, but that could not be said before that memo was published. -
Riccardo at 06:43 AM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Heraclitus the first test installation in Italy is due to start flying in a matter of a few weeks. If succesfull, four more are already approved. The hardest part of the whole project has been burocratic, it went through several stop and go. An anecdote. In Italy the Kitegen needs a permanent flying permit from both Civil Aviation and Air Forces. For the first test flights they also needed a special permits for each flight. -
h-j-m at 06:40 AM on 28 November 20102nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Concerning my post #148: Seemingly no one contradicted my postulations concerning the behaviour of gases. So I can surely say that the emitting of radiation as a result of absorbing energy can be attributed to all gases. This of cause leaves the green house gases off the hook when subjects like back-radiation are concerned, as it should be clear that the whole atmosphere plays a part in that game. That of cause, as Bibliovermis has correctly pointed out when he referred to Tyndall, points to the green house gasses speciality being able to trap (meaning store) heat and this way delay its further transmission. But considering this the most significant data with respect to global warming should be the specific thermal capacity of green house gases and I wonder why I can not recall it being mentioned. Someone willing to offer further information on this? -
dana1981 at 06:25 AM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
I'm on the same boat as Rob when it comes to nuclear. I have nothing against it, except that right now new nuclear power is very expensive. People argue that there are ways to make it cheaper - the same is true of renewable power. Concentrated solar thermal is expected to drop below 10 cents per kWh in the next decade as it achieves economies of scale and technology advancements, for example. I think nuclear power has its place as part of the solution, but it's no silver bullet. There are lots of obstacles, from a lack of sufficient nuclear engineers to NIMBY concerns to construction and decommissioning costs. It's *a* solution, not *the* solution. MarkR and Utahn both make good points regarding somewhat external costs that aren't usually accounted for. But this article doesn't focus on costs, it focuses on available and developing technologies. I'll also repeat Rob's comment to Camburn - all the technologies discussed in the article are in place or in development. As metioned, the Iowa wind CAES project is on track for completion in the next 4-5 years. The wind turbine air compressor just got funding from the DOE, as shown in the final link. tt23 also made a comment about geothermal not being available anywhere, which again indicates that he didn't really read the article, which specifically discusses EGS which could work basically everywhere. But now I'm just repeating what's in the article, so again I suggest that certain people look it over again and try actually reading it this time. -
dana1981 at 06:15 AM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
t23 - like The Ville, I don't even know where to start. I guess the easiest claim to debunk is that nuclear power receives no subsidies. The EIA found in 2007 nuclear power received $1.27 billion in subsidies that year alone (compared to $740 million in 1999). President Obama has also proposed to triple nuclear power loan guarantees to over $54 billion in 2011 - loans which put taxpayers at risk if the energy companies default, which often happens on nuclear projects. Nuclear power is very heavily subsidized, though not on a per-kWh basis because it's such a well-established technology (there's so much nuclear already in place). As for claiming the article is full of "half truths", those blue words are links. I suggest reading them if you don't believe what's said in the article. Every claim is supported by various studies or real-world examples. This seems to be one of those cases where people have their pre-conceived notions and are incapable of reading about the subject with an open mind. Not much I can do about that, other than suggesting that people re-read the article with their biases and pre-conceived notions in check. There was also a comment that the USA is falling behind in nuclear technology. The same comment applies to solar PV (Germany), solar thermal (Spain), wind (China), etc. Odd that people don't seem to object to the USA falling behind on these renewable technologies. -
dhogaza at 06:11 AM on 28 November 2010Climategate: Impeding Information Requests?
Eric (skeptic): "Each request contained just 4 or so countries so that it could not be rejected because of one country being proprietary. There were also requests to obtain the proprietary agreements for those countries that were deemed proprietary." 5 countries, exactly, using a cut-and-paste form. At least one such request was made without the cut-and-paster from the horde having read instructions, because the section listing the five countries being requested was left ... BLANK! BTW, UK FOI law also allows for the agency not providing data that the requester can get elsewhere, which in the case of those countries that were not holding it as proprietary data is easy - you can get it from the global repository maintained by the US. You can even get scans of the original data sheets if you want *really raw* data. And, yes, the CA campaign was asking people to submit five countries per request, whether or not they were holding their data as being proprietary. Sorting through them would only make the work more onerous. McI and the CA crew could've figured out which countries make data freely available by scrutinizing the GHCN database. "To deem that campaign "vexatious" as dhogaza says is fair enough" Thank you, therefore CRU had a legal basis for denying the FOI requests. Cameron seems to be conflating Phil Jones saying "I was wrong" with an admission of *illegal activity*, which is a very different thing. Tch tch. -
Utahn at 06:09 AM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
@MarkR 17 I agree that lack of cost of grid enhancement, storage, etc... assessments may paint a somewhat rosier picture than renewables actually have, but don't forget the much higher external costs (esp health) to burning coal, also not accounted for in those costs- in a recent study here it was estimated that coal's external costs exceed the direct costs: http://geology.utah.gov/sep/renewable_energy/co-benefits.htm -
Rob Honeycutt at 06:07 AM on 28 November 2010Renewable Baseload Energy
Camburn @35... Can you define "in the foreseeable" for me? Dana is presenting here technologies that are all in the works, not just pie-in-the-sky ideas. I'll tell you, I'm not anti-nuclear. I think we need to quickly pull out all the stops and get the world off fossil fuels. But I would counter that nuclear is not a simple solution therefore can not be the only solution. Rationally dealing with the issues of climate change will require solving the problems of energy usage and production on as many different levels as possible. I'm always of the opinion that it's a mistake to dismiss any solution. Ultimately the market will select the best solutions. To echo actually thoughtful, once carbon is priced into the economy that's when things will get better.
Prev 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 Next
