Oil price falls? Why you should relax: OPEC head
Drilling chief calls bottom on U.S. oil
Pro: Energy investors should prepare for $60 oil
Crude oil hasn’t bottomed yet, traders say
OPEC cuts oil price forecasts as ‘price war’ bites
T Boone Pickens: The real problem with oil
Comment on Week in review by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Michael
AK | November 8, 2014 at 8:40 pm |
“But anybody using a scientific approach will recognize that such connections must be treated as hypothetical, with more or less probability, along with recognition that the causation could go either way, or neither (when both are effects of a different cause).”
Known physics makes it more than just a game of hypotheticals.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Tom Fuller
As a liberal and progressive Democrat, I might suggest that you compare results with similar experiments conducted on liberal and progressive Democrats. I think you might find the same mechanism and similar results at work. Perhaps a meta communications study that included GMOs and vaccines as well as climate change might be interesting.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Peter Lang
I’ve just posted this on the site where I’ve been arguing about the costs of a mostly nuclear v a mostly renewables electricity generation for Australia’s National Electricity Market. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16809&page=0
Ben Rose,
Since it appears you have difficulty understanding the numbers and keep trying to dismiss the CSIRO calculators’ LCOE figures, I’ll lay it out so just about anyone should be able to follow it.
I’ll use CSIRO ‘eFuture’ http://efuture.csiro.au/#scenarios projections for this and use the default scenario settings (central estimates for each selectable item) with and without nuclear permitted. I’ll compare the projected emissions and LCOE in 2050 with and without nuclear permitted.
CO2 emissions for the default scenario (nuclear not permitted) are 80 t/MWh. With nuclear permitted, CO2 emissions are 25 t/MWh. That is, emissions would be 3.2 times higher if nuclear is not permitted.
The table below shows LCOE (wholesale price) in $/MWh without and with nuclear permitted and the the ratio ‘no nuclear / with nuclear’. Estimates of individual items you have asked about are itemised.
Item No nuclear With Nuclear No/With
‘eFuture’ 130 85 1.5
Accident insurance 0 0.11
Decommissioning 2 2
Waste management 0 1
Transmission, high penetration 37 4
Total LCOE 169 92 1.8
The LCOE for no nuclear is 80% higher than with nuclear. With a higher proportion of renewables than the default (no nuclear), the LCOE would be even higher, probably more than double.
Sources for the above figures are in previous comments.
Policy analysts also need to include in policy options analysis an estimate of the risk that renewables will not be able to do the job. We know nuclear can provide around 75% of electricity in an advanced industrial economy because France has been doing it for over 30 years. But renewables have not demonstrated they can or will be able to. Many practitioners think they will not. An order of magnitude estimate for the risk adjusted cost for renewables is 10x the AETA’s LCOE estimate.
The risk that renewables will not be able to do the job is the major risk you should be questioning!
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
Tom I would expect that you would find the same thing. The authors even mention that.
The point is these studies are scientifically uninteresting. You learn nothing about the science.
You do give a tribe a club. The interesting thing is how they hand out clubs. Given that the argue that both tribes do this the question is which tribe and which issue they focus on.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
Joshua the sky is blue. What is to discuss.
Agreed the sky is blue.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Sparrow
“Do you know how much you should be paying for being connected to the grid or even for living in an area where grid power is supplied?”
What’s with this socialist rhetoric? Are you trying to charge me for just living in an area that has an electric grid?
Why should I have to pay to line to pockets of shysters like Energy Futures Holdings? Since you brought up Australia you should check into the sweet deal we Texas rate payers got when TXU lost billions trying to rig the Australian electricity market back in the 90’s. If Australians are paying high electric bills I sure that past graft and corruption have something to do with it.
Is it any wonder that freedom loving citizens might just want to go off-grid precisely because of the demonstrated failures of industry and their paid-for politicians?
Jack Smith
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by rls
Jack Smith
Do you store and convert your solar generated electricity? Is there zero need to use electricity from the grid? Do you not use natural gas for heating or cooking?
Richard
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
From the article:
Even though it’s still early November, a January-like cold wave just entering Montana and the Dakotas on Sunday will bring 30 below zero temperatures to scattered locations in Montana and Wyoming by Wednesday morning.
The cold will fill the nation’s midsection by mid-week, with no let up in sight. The coldest air to arrive in a series of reinforcing surges is still a week away.
Temperatures are forecast to run 15 to 30 deg. F below normal for at least 5 days over a large portion of the central U.S. starting late in the coming week (graphic courtesy of Weatherbell.com, click to enlarge):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/11/siberian-express-to-bring-30-deg-f-to-wyoming/
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
↧
Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler
Danny Thomas: <i> What is to stop the CO2 either from increasing (if we don’t do it?)</i>
Estimates of total recoverable fossil fuels have been discussed here. It's possible that the limit will be reached before CO2 concentration doubles from its present value.
<i>But instead of the “republicans” just saying no to the “democrats” policies, what can be agreed upon? Can you help with your perspective here? </i>
With or without warming, the climate will continue to fluctuate between hot and cold, dry and wet. So we can do what California voters have just voted for: enlarge, enhance, refurbish flood control and irrigation infrastructure. Continue to develop "all of the above" energy technologies (relax restrictions on oil and gas exploration on federal land, for example.) Continue research on climate and weather, including mathematical/statistical modeling.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler
Jim D: the carbon budget is such that you only keep in the vicinity of 500 ppm by leaving at least 2/3 or known fossil fuels in the ground
I don’t think that is a useful goal anyway.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rud Istvan
Matthew, that is the joke. The mandate is GW only! The CPUC official reason was ‘not to constrain innovative solutions’. The unofficial reason is as written, in power not energy, it gives all the California VC backed battery startups a shot, and it was their Association (CESA) lobbying that led to this strange result, and also why peaker turbines were not part of the mandated solution.
The problem is that as mandated, the mandate does not solve the grid stability problem the 2020 renewables level presents (1/3 required by the 2006 law). They just put 377 megawatts of solar on grid at Ivanpah, which needs more than 8 hours of backup PLUS more for peaking morning and evening loads. The problem was well described by Planning Engineer.
The wind, solar, and energy storage situations each have an essay in the new ebook that give lots of specific illustrations.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Matthew Marler, burn-it-all, find-some-more, and burn-that-too gets you to 700 ppm and rising. Is that a useful goal to you, or would you suggest stopping somewhere short of that?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rud Istvan
Bob, Understood your power vs energy thrust first go. For the relevant piece of peak storage from AES, I provided your answer. 100MW x 4 hours is the spec. Total 400MWH.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Sparrow
rls;
I didn’t buy batteries when I put in my solar panels but I did wire my main service panel for adding them in later. I am waiting for prices to drop to under $200 per KWh and have a minimum useful life of 15 years.
I figure I will need 40-50 KWh of storage to go completely off-grid, or about 3 straight days with heavy cloud cover. I don’t have natural gas but I do use a very efficient wood burning fireplace insert and my wood is free. I get royalty checks from Chesapeake Energy and they pay out about $150 per year on my 1/3 acre gas lease or about 1/7 what my neighbor’s annual gas bill is.
Jack Smith
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bob Ludwick
@ Rud Istvan
Thanks.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
<blockquote>Known physics makes it more than just a game of hypotheticals.</blockquote>No it doesn't. It's still only a <b>hypothesis</b>, and an unlikely one at that, that a hyper-complex system like the Earth's climate can be treated like a simple radiating body. You can't even define a real surface temperature, for purposes of radiation.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Wagathon
“Science, after all, is simply a logical, rational and careful examination of the facts that nature presents to us.” ~Randi
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Peter Lang
Jack Smith,
I don’t see how my comment has anything to do with promoting socialism. If you’d bothered to read the link I provided you’ve realise that those who want to get off the grid as you do but live in built up residential areas are getting cross subsidised by those who have to pay for their power. If you want to live in built up areas and get all the benefits of it, you should either pay your fair share, or move away to remote areas that have no electricity near by. Do you understand what it means to be a bludger?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
