Modified “<i>Simple reality check:</i>”:
Nuclear storage option, 25¢/50% Capacity Factor = $5.50/W, not $6.00. Playing around with numbers, decided nuclear didn't need as much storage as Solar, failed to retrofit to the total.
Solar capacity factor at Arizona is <a href="http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_6_07_b" rel="nofollow">given</a> as “<i>18.9%</i>”. That is, 20%. I usually use 25%, assuming (the possibility of) 2-axis tracking, but in this case the need for low cost probably puts on too stringent design constraints for tracking.
So, $1.00/20% = $5.00/W. Adding the $1.00/W (average) for storage yields $6.00/W average. 50¢/W more than nuclear.
Given how thoroughly both numbers are swagged, though, I don't see how either could be taken out of the running.
And floating solar power can be <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/floating-solar-plant-set-to-be-built-in-australian-first-26076" rel="nofollow">deployed in a few months.</a> I doubt nuclear can match that.
OTOH, given the need for load balancing, there are probably tight limits to how much "low-hanging fruit" there is via installing new pumped storage at existing dams. I'd guess that somewhere between 4GW and 20GW, the price will start to go up, due to the need for new dredging, pipes and pump-houses, dam improvements, etc.
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by AK
↧
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by ordvic
Judith, They picked you for a reason remember that. You’re the best!!!
Good Luck,
Philip
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by thomaswfuller2
Yes–if it isn’t fun it isn’t worth it. You get the chance many of us would love to have–to speak your views to humans like yourself who have influence more of us would love to have. It’s a treat–except it really isn’t, as you’ve earned it through hard work and exercise of integrity. Enjoy.
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by Wagathon
Enjoy DC where even the cherry blossoms defied Pres. Obama’s 8-April claim of human-caused global warming by refusing to reach peak bloom in 2015 until April 10, which is well past the April 4 average since 1921 (as has been the trend over the last 3 years) and contrary to inferences in a report filed by the Smithsonian years ago that earlier peak bloom dates was evidence of global warming. Interestingly, original research shows that the average peak bloom dates in Washington DC have not changed by a single day over the last half of the 20th century.
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Peter Lang
AK
I’ve skimmed through. Badly out of date,
No it’s not. You’ve clearly missed the point. It’s not about the numbers. It’s about how to do reality checks so you don’t continue to mislead your self and mislead everyone else who doesn’t have the time or ability to check the total nonsense you keep spewing out.
↧
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by Jim D
Just try not to giggle if Rohrabacher or Sensenbrenner bring up their favorite climate subject, Mars.
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by Neville.
All the best in Washington Judith, I look forward to reading and watching your analysis of the science as you understand it.
Andrew Bolt can’t believe the current President’s mad reason for his belief in CAGW and Hillary’s equally stupid ideas.
It seems that the then smoker Obama blamed a warming climate for his daughter’s asthma attack and silly Hillary thought that a warmer Alaska allowed race contestants to throw away their gloves. Just a pity about the savage frost bite.
Boy what a pair of intellectual heavyweights you have at the pinnacle of the democrat party. Gawwwd help you.
↧
Comment on Are human influences on the climate really small? by JCH
I’m not ignoring it. I do not think rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere can provide much direct CO2 to plants in the water.
Trees make wood. Freeman Dyson didn’t propose engineering carbon eating lettuce.
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by JCH
Me, I need to learn more about their Mars science before giggling, though I’m too busy to read about it right now, but I do respect Mars scientists like RoarSensaBacher.
↧
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by Peter Lang
Gee that green part down on the right of the chart looks cold. Brrrr. Would like to get out of that climate.
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by MarkJ
One lesson I’ve learned in my numerous times of public speaking is not to believe the reaction my subconscious thinks I’m getting. A preacher once told me the heartiest praise he sometimes gets comes from a guy who sat there like a corpse throughout.
Trust your material … it will win the day.
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by Jim D
And while they don’t have the “global wobbling” guy, they still have some of their stars of previous grillings, so there could be some entertaining soundbites for Jon Stewart again.
http://www.planetexperts.com/republicans-argue-climate-science-obamas-top-science-advisor/
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by markbofill
:) I was talking about all sorts of stuff. How and why I thought bad faith exchanges occur, the ways that the manner in which we express ourselves can affect a perception of good/bad faith, even whether or not I thought a good conversation could be had at the Blackboard.
Our host appears to be saying ‘move on’, I’d hate to abuse her hospitality.
↧
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by David Springer
curryja | April 14, 2015 at 4:39 pm wrote: “You can’t imagine how much stimulation I get from comments on the blog”
Me too!
You’re welcome!
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Joshua
Mark Bofill –
==> “Our host appears to be saying ‘move on’, I’d hate to abuse her hospitality.”
Fair enough. I respect that and I’ve got no problem with moving on…
But I did want to point out that the comment that you quoted reflected positively on the topic that you and I were discussing, IMO (why people fool themselves).
As for others who are obsessed with my motivations, her comment would suggest moving on, I agree.
Either way, I enjoyed the exchange. Look forward to others.
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by Bad Andrew
David,
The link that showed Dr. Curry’s 08 donations to the O’bumma Campaign.
Andrew
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by zentgraf2
Judith, yes your presentations have gotten better over time. You will do a great job.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – politics and policy edition by Willard
> Is little joshie a self-confessed braggart troll, or ain’t he?
Where have you read this confession, Don Don?
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by micro6500
curryja commented
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-battle-over-meaning-of-incontrovertible-in-global-warming-fight/
Which is pretty much the argument I made
This statement
That would be disputed by many climate scientists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that it is extremely likely that human activity has been the dominant cause of global warming since the 1950s.
Is absurd based on surface data, the dominate source of changing surface temps since the 50’s appears to be the Ocean’s “hot” spots, and currents moving around.
But this gets to my earlier question, what kind of change in average temp are they counting?
↧
Comment on House Hearing scheduled on President’s U.N. climate pledge by scotts4sf
Thanks Judy
The update on the Dr Koonin APS statement issue is illuminating. A few critical aspersions in the SciAm article but in general it apprears you and Christy and Linston convinced the objective and skilled observors of your point of view. Too bad they made him resign.
Scott
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
