Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on APS discussion thread by PeteBonk

0
0

The American Chemical Society (ACS) Public Policy Statement on Climate Change is due for review in 2016, on a 3 year cycle. it would be refreshing and unprecedented for the ACS to be quite as open as the APS was (even if it was meant by some as window dressings), but a similar set of posts for the chemists would be interesting.


Comment on APS discussion thread by Steven Mosher

0
0

“The revealed attempts to affect the peer-review and degree-granting processes alerted the public to the possibility that the published record might be severely biased — not merely “imperfect”, but severely biased”

huh?

we suspected pal review BEFORE we got the mails.
the bogus HS was exposed BEFORE the mails

we learned maybe one or two things wort talking about

So severely biased? .. hardly. you keeping taking the HS seriously.
its a side show, a diversion

Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by Stephen Segrest

0
0
<b>PA</b> -- I think if you knew what the cost per kWh was for peaking power (using fossil fuels), you would be shocked. Personally, I think that greater use of "<b>Time of Use Rates</b> would give a better market signal in consumer behavior.

Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by Barnes

0
0

Stephen – agreed that engineers are a better choice for making decisions, but we also don’t need engineers whose thought process starts from an assumption that CAGW is a real problem that needs to be solved. No problem with developing new technologies with or without fossil fuels, but not OK with starting from a standpoint that expressly excludes any solution that uses fossil fuels as an option.

Comment on APS discussion thread by matthewrmarler

0
0

Steven Mosher: we suspected pal review BEFORE we got the mails.
the bogus HS was exposed BEFORE the mails

The number of people included in that collective “we” was increased. At least by 1: I did not know about Trenbeth’s “travesty” opinion, and how it was different from public testimony; I also did not know how much criticism of Mann there was among supporters of the AGW based CO2 mitigations. I read similar comments from other people. It became more generally understood that “the science” presented in Congressional testimony was different from “the science” as perceived by the testifiers — even if “science” was unaffected.

Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by Stephen Segrest

0
0

Several weeks ago, Dr. Curry posted a story (from Motley Fool?) on supposedly skyrocketing electricity prices and that Renewable Energy was the cause. Most Denizens here at CE grabbed their pitch-forks to storm the gate.

I went back over the period that the article cited. I saw that EIA and U.S. Dept. of Commerce data showed that electricity prices followed the cost of living/general inflation index (e.g., the GNP price deflator).

Today, the Wall Street Journal has their own “conspiracy theory” on how Electric Utilities are out to gouge consumers: http://www.wsj.com/articles/utilities-profit-recipe-spend-more-1429567463

Geez — give me a break.

I just wish everyone would be required to step into a Regional Load Dispatch Center to see software at work that NASA would envy — and that System Planners try and replicate.

No — There is no mass conspiracy going on.

Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by kneel63

0
0

“One other form of subsidy for solar that needs to be addressed is net metering where the homeowner is essentially paid full retail rates for energy provided from the home to the grid.”

In some cases, energy supplied TO the grid from solar earns the consumer more than the price of the same power FROM the grid – this can be true even where the consumer uses their own power, meaning they have “negative” bills!
IIRC, consumers in Germany at one stage had such an advantage in pricing terms from this arrangement that it was profitable to light solar panels from grid energy and “sell” the resultant “product” back to the grid. Madness^2!

Comment on APS discussion thread by jim2

0
0

JC says: ” (we do share a few commenters).”

And there are some we would like to share even more with ATTP :)


Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by PA

0
0

I sometimes let my disgust/contempt/loathing for environmentalists get the better of me.

Let me look at the numbers. There are the green happy stories about how wind cuts peaking cost. I haven’t looked at it in while.

I would expect the out-of-pocket cost of the resource is 2X but market pricing is going to be much higher. LCOE of baseband NG is around $64/MW-h vs $128 for conventional combustion turbine.

I don’t really have a objection to time based pricing. They have rolled out the upgraded meters in most places so resisting it is spitting in the wind.

Comment on APS discussion thread by chuckrr (@chuckerenno)

0
0

Gary, That this can go on in the US and only a few conservatives care….well you wonder if there’s any hope. What most people don’t realize is that Rush is one of the most accurate news sources there is. He has to be . He has Media Matters and every liberal web page watching his every move. He’s partisan but very accurate.

Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by Geoff Weatherford

0
0

Possible solution for PV/Wind Power/Hydro Powered do-it-yourselfers.

(Note – I did not read all the comments, so someone else may have posted something similar.)

Just don’t allow self-generated electricity to be pushed back into the commercial grid (as we know it today). It seems to me that attempting to do such a thing is just not feasible at this point in time and is liable to cause strife and no solutions. And muddy the water on the real issues.

Instead, do the following:
1. The self-generating power person(s) can connect to the grid. But it is, as is generally the case now, only a one way connection. They have to pay for electricity they use at the same prices as everyone else.
There is an argument to be made that they should possibly pay a surcharge based on a sliding scale of usage of the grid’s electricity. As an example, if a person wanted to be a 100% off the grid, they would have to create/manage their own battery storage solution. By allowing them to connect to the grid and purchase small amounts of electricity (during the night, etc.), they are not spending money for batteries. They should be willing to pay extra for this benefit. This benefit is quite an easy thing to measure (in dollars). The problem is one of communication (both accidental and on purpose).
2. Self-generating power persons should be able to setup/manage a neighborhood power system. When scaling to such a size, the use of batteries may be cost favorable (especially when that technology matures a little more). They should be able to “sell” electricity to others at rates competitive with the power company. This may help drive innovation (possibly from the power companies themselves). Obviously, there will need to be new codes created (sigh, I hate codes, but kinda one of those necessary evils. They just seem to always overdo it.).
3. Etc. (sorry, ran out of time).

The above gets rid of all the headaches (well, most of them) for the major power companies and puts everything more on an equal setting. There would have to be some regulatory group in place to ensure that the power companies did not set the surcharge so high as to being mostly an anti-competitive measure. Although, once a person is really “off the grid”, such things would not matter. But there would (forever, most likely) be those (probably a majority) who want to have the grid as a nice “backup.”

As someone who has lived “off the grid” among others where “off the grid” was moderately normal (Alaska), I can assure you that unless there is some sort of large monetary benefit (or, as the case was normal in Alaska, there is no other option), it’s just a VERY large pain in the butt to maintain an off the grid system. What normally happens is you hook onto the grid as soon as possible and maintain your “off the grid” stuff just for emergencies when the grid goes down (or, a fire or wind storm temporarily disconnects you from the grid : )

GeoffW

Comment on APS discussion thread by chuckrr (@chuckerenno)

0
0

I’m afraid your not going to get much of a response. There’s not much of a potential upside but great potential downside. People are learning that anything controversial on the internet can be disastrous. There are armies set to destroy anyone that sticks there head up. It takes an unusually strong and principled individual to weather the storm…like you. I hope I’m wrong though.

Comment on APS discussion thread by Jim D

Comment on APS discussion thread by stevenreincarnated

0
0

ATTP, if you had read the reference I linked to you regarding dynamic water vapor, then you would already know that it isn’t a requirement that OHC be lost to cause higher SSTs from internal variability since the redistrbution of heat changes the energy budget. I will give you the link again:

http://water.columbia.edu/files/2011/11/Seager2005OceanHeat.pdf

There could be some very interesting differences between SW and LW radiation and how they affect the ocean. Here is a paper on SW attenuation depth:

http://www.tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/view/25313

Comment on APS discussion thread by PA

0
0

…and Then There’s Physics | April 21, 2015 at 3:04 pm | Reply

Do I? All I can think of is that I pointed out on this post that it’s not surprising that some APS members are unhappy with the APS statement as it’s clearly a contentious topic and, hence, it would seem impossible to please all of their 4000 members.

If Dr. Curry put a poll on the APS members thread that would let even the timid or time challenged APS members register an opinion.


Comment on APS discussion thread by Steven Mosher

0
0

You haven’t made a case Matthew. Pal review was widely publized.. Wegman.. And ya some guys privately disagreed with mann. Therefore line people up and demand that they disavow this… Right as if that will make people open their minds and read the science.

The only people who have standing to ask people to disavow behavior are folks who already believe in the science.. Other folks are using the ethical issues as a cover for their disbelief

Comment on APS discussion thread by PA

0
0

The low reproducibility of studies means it really doesn’t matter. Punksta, you may be running around a cul-de-sac.

Even when science is honest it isn’t very reliable or accurate. Dishonest science can’t be much less reliable or accurate.

Comment on What should renewables pay for grid service? by Stephen Segrest

0
0
<b>Barnes</b> -- As I have repeatedly stated here at CE, I just hate a Federal Renewable Energy Standard. I'm OK with State REPs as long as they are <b>TARGETS</b>, not locked in concrete mandates. I see nothing wrong in nudging Electric Utilities (at a State level) a little to think outside the box. I worked for one the largest Electric Utilities in the U.S. and have built and used numerous planning models. I've never seen a planning model that assumes CAGW in the code to drive decisions. I've just never seen it.

Comment on APS discussion thread by Jim D

0
0

The first few comments there have set an angry tone that may be too over the top for more moderate people to want to be associated with.

Comment on APS discussion thread by PA

0
0

verytallguy11 | April 21, 2015 at 10:54 am | Reply
……..
More grist for Lewandowsky’s hypothesis:

Really? Rrrreeeeeaaalllllyyy?

These “studies” (and I use the word studies loosely) have spent so much time in the woodshed at Climate Audit and other places I’m surprised anyone reads them, let alone quotes them.

These studies have the same relationship to science or fact that theology has to religion, i.e. none to speak of.

Viewing all 147818 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images