JohnG, your link is quite entertaining. Refresh the screen and your link appears for about a minute, and then it disappears. Try it, you may not like it.
=======================
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by kim
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK
<blockquote>The link provided by AK of four pumped-storage hydro-electric power station [sic] in France [...]</blockquote>You're so eager to ("counter-")attack me that you walk right into traps I never intended to set for you (like Wilbur). The takeaway, for me, was that those stations were built, or upgraded, for nuclear, and thus demonstrated the value of pumped hydro combined with nuclear(especially then, with no other credible storage technology).
But...
<a href="http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/print/volume-19/issue-3/articles/new-development/renaissance-for-pumped-storage-in-europe.html" rel="nofollow">Renaissance for Pumped Storage in Europe</a><blockquote>Consulting company ecoprog anticipates more than 60 new pumped-storage plants with a total capacity of about 27 GW will be built in Europe by 2020, with the market particularly booming in Spain, Switzerland and Austria. The main reason for this growth is the development of renewable energy throughout Europe, including intermittent sources.</blockquote><blockquote>Many European countries are planning, constructing or upgrading pumped-storage facilities to deal with the growth of renewable energy and the related increasing share of intermittent electricity sources, such as wind and solar. Pumped-storage plants are uniquely situated to help integrate intermittent renewables because these plants can store electricity to balance load and can react quickly to changing grid conditions.</blockquote><blockquote>In April 2011, consulting firm ecoprog published results of a survey, The European Market for Pumped-Storage Power Plants. This report includes a detailed analysis of all essential trends in constructing and operating pumped-storage hydro plants; a differentiation of the current and future market volumes by country up to and including 2020; a description of about 170 pumped-storage plants currently operating, which represent more than 90% of the installed capacity in Europe; and a list of more than 50 new projects either under construction or being planned in the region.</blockquote>
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK
Sure, and a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calutron" rel="nofollow">Calutron</a> is just a mass spectrometer writ large.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by kim
Ah, it’s there until the page fully loads, then Shazam!, off to oblivion.
======================
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by pmhinsc
How much power is required?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK
AFAIK the same as other techniques: 2.5-3.5 KWHrs/cubic meter. As best I can tell, the improvements and reduced cost have to do with reduced capital requirements, although that’s just a guess.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by angech2014
JCH
great picture. Judy should keep it and use it every few months at the right times.
ATTP, thanks for the facts you have provided, very helpful. We will have to disagree on the meaning unfortunately.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by John Vonderlin
Jim2,
So renewables at crazy high prices are bad, but water at $2,000.00 an acrefoot is good? Affordable is an elastic word that even encompasses “absurd” apparently.
“The San Diego County Water Authority has agreed to buy at least 48,000 acre-feet of water from the plant each year for about $2,000 an acre-foot. An acre-foot equals about 326,000 gallons, roughly enough for two families of four for a year. The authority has made a long-term bet that those costs — now double those of the most readily available alternative — will eventually be competitive. But it still means the authority will pay more than $3 billion over 30 years for only about 7 percent of the county’s water needs.”
If the Authority is paying 2K what do you suppose their price will be to consumers after they pay capitalization costs, all their high salaries, Cadillac benefits for early retirees, lifetime healthcare, etc?
Then what happens when the rains return (unless you actually believe the alarmists that say Climate Change will keep them away forever in California despite the historical record ) and water drops back to its normal price of about $140 an acre foot. Oh that’s right, by then the architects of this plan will have taken early retirement at 90% of their salaries and will be enjoying life while their constituents are stuck paying a penny a gallon for decades. Be skeptical, be very skeptical.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by average joe
I really would like to see an open public debate, of the science behind the alarmist viewpoint. Ideally, a public re-creation of the meeting called by Steve Koonin for the APS climate statement review in Jan ’14, to discuss and debate the science. I have read the entire transcript twice. John Christy comes across as very credible to me, as well as Judith. I thought Ben Santer’s argument on aerosols from small volcanic eruptions to be reason for the pause was weak, he seemed to be grasping for anything to support his models, rather than just fess up that they have done poorly to date.
Can anyone here tell me if the following chart can be (or perhaps has been) fact checked?
I think getting this chart out into a public debate (assuming it can be fact checked) along with some of John Christy’s charts from the Koonin APS meeting, is the best thing that could happen to this whole climate debate (war). Who in their right mind can look at the chart and with a straight face say that the science of cagw is settled?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science and technology edition by curryja
New Murry Salby lecture online
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1170&Itemid=1
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Davies
That’s strange! Maybe this could be done by Judith’s blogsite as a form of automated spam filter for whole postings that fail some sort of sniff test. Can just image lots of orphaned comments also cascading down to the bottom of the thread into this sort of cyber trash can.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Jim D
Brandon C, how about if you use the AR5 number of 2.3 W/m2 forcing since pre-industrial, or Lewis’s number somewhere around 2.8 W/m2? I don’t think Lewis did the non-anthro skeptics any favors by increasing the forcing when it comes to attribution. With his (I think high) forcing you get nearly 0.8 C even with no feedback, meaning all the warming is anthropogenic. I tend to go with lower forcings and positive feedbacks, but the result is the same for attribution. Since 1950, CO2 alone accounts for 1.36 W/m2 which gives over half the warming since then even without feedback. That is ignoring the net positive effect of other GHGs minus aerosols. You can only bring it below half if you go for a much stronger aerosol effect than AR5, but the skeptics went the other way for some reason.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Lang
You’re so eager to (“counter-“)attack me that you walk right into traps I never intended to set for you (like Wilbur). The takeaway, for me, was that those stations were built, or upgraded, for nuclear, and thus demonstrated the value of pumped hydro combined with nuclear(especially then, with no other credible storage technology).
You so eager to defend you beliefs and try to avoid admitting your ideas about energy are ridiculous you walk into traps I never intended to set for you.
1) I’ve already pointed out to you in a comment on last weeks thread that pumped-hydro was economic in the 1970s and 1980s to take baseload power from nuclear plants at night and store it for use during peak demand periods. Dinorwig in Wales is one example of a pumped hydro storage scheme built specifically for that purpose (I worked on site on the underground cavern design during construction for a short period in 1979).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
2) you made a whole pile of nonsensical assumptions and interpretations from the Tantangara-Blowering pumped hydro scheme. All that showed is how totally ignorant of the subjects you keep posting about. You also demonstrate you have a closed mind not willing to question or challenge your cult beliefs, and can’t be coached.
3. You continue to advocate for solar powered pumped hydro, no matter how blatantly obvious are the facts demonstrating it is not within an order of magnitude of being viable now, there is no persuasive evidence it could ever be viable. You cannot admit when you are wrong no matter how obvious the evidence.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by kim
It’s a good article. I wonder if anyone else can read it.
=============
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Davies
Only if you clicked to read JohnG’s post within a minute of logging into CE. I will try referring to the link in my next comment.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by Mal Adapted
“The percentage of new emissions which are being sequestered has been rising, in the face of rising magnitude of emissions. ‘Splain that.”
Document that.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Davies
Here it is for the benefit of CE readers:
View profile at Medium.com
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Jim D
You have to put that in the context of longer periods like this where the models do OK.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by angech2014
Mal Adapted | April 12, 2015 at 4:36 pm | Reply
“Angech2014 CO2 is constantly turned over in large amounts and is removed from the atmosphere and sequestered in larger amounts when they occur by the biologic process you ignore.
Ah, let’s not ignore biological processes, then”
Quite right, thanks for agreeing with me and providing the graph
“The seasonal removal and return of CO2 to the atmosphere is seen in the Keeling Curve”
The graph shows the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it shows a variation in the amount of CO2.
It says nothing about the amount or rate of CO2 being removed and returned by the biological processes which is very fast by the way.
Which disproves Lacis’s argument.
CO2 does not persist for long periods of time in the atmosphere.
ATTP is trying to argue that there will be more CO2 overall because of extra human input but this is a different argument to that of Lacis who is pretending that CO2 is practically inert and will stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years once introduced.
I appreciate ATTP’s line of argument much more than that of Lacis.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by angech2014
You do not get it, do you?
Try the new, modern, paleo argument.
More CO2, more biomass, more sequestration.
Look at the fossil record. We did not get oil and coal produced in low CO2 environments.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
