I was thinking more of the electric car batteries. See my comments on the thread I linked and also this slightly earlier thread where I was laying out my ideas.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/15/tilting-at-windmills-in-germany/#comment-332583
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie
Ya – it’s really a loaded concept and I’m surprised there’s no more discussion of it than there is. Conceivably, ‘ERF’ could be zero even though ‘RF’ is the nominal 3.7W/m^2.
I’m not sure I buy it all, including:
“Nontrivial fraction of precipitation changes by 2100 driven directly by CO2.”
If I understand the thought process, this is not a feedback because it’s not a response to temperature change.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Turbulent Eddie
<i>Conceivably, ‘ERF’ could be zero even though ‘RF’ is the nominal 3.7W/m^2.</i>
Or, as you point out, could ERF be even less than zero?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
I wonder what he means by CO2 directly affecting clouds and precipitation even without the warming. The effective forcing is certainly applicable to aerosols, but CO2 and GHGs? What is the mechanism?
↧
Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by Richard Townsend (@richardtownse)
Below is a link to Patrick Wood’s recent interview on the Corbett Report. Patrick’s recent book “Technocracy Rising” historically tracks a fanatical group of individuals in the early twentieth century that sought international dominance through total control over energy resources. This group was later supported by the nefarious Trilateral Commission who eventually sought to further there efforts internationally by backing the Environmentalists movement and later the Global Warming cause. Organizations that have garnered a large amount of public attention, backed up by public media and various government officials, supporting an agenda based almost entirely on fear mongering and the story of Chicken Little ! https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1046-patrick-wood-exposes-the-technocracy-agenda/?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
JimD, Li is better than lead acid but still not going to be cost effective. Go that route and you will end up with $10 laptops and $100 hamburgers. Most of the alternate energy use greater than 20% of base is going to be third world or off grid. Then is is only cost effective for basic essentials from a third world point of view not an energy hog world point of view.
Same with electric cars for the most part. You can build a light weight surrey type of vehicle but if you build for interstate speeds and all the safety regulations you just have an expensive toy, $100K Telsa.
“Globally”, most have squat compared to a lower middle class developed worlder.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by Jim D
As I have mentioned before, this is something for the future. Prices will come down, especially with mass production. Give it a decade or two to mature. It could significantly impact future residential power use.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by ristvan
Both ‘natural gas as bridge to low carbon future’ are revealing in their pathological imbedded assumptions. Just plain antipathy to fossil fuels, plus abject ignorance about how the grid works. Renewables are intermittent so not dispatchable. The only alternative to dispatchable base load fossil fuels is nuclear. Period. And no grid functions without a large majority of dispatchable base load. Double Period.
Where natural gas is abundent and relatively inexpensive, it wins out over coal. Thanks to chemical composition and higher thermal efficiency, natural gas fired CCGT produces about a third the CO2 of modern USC coal, plus takes a year less to construct (3 versus 4) plus has a capital cost of about $1000/kw versus $3000/kw. But places like India and Japan don’t have abundant natural gas at any reasonable price (japan gas from LNG imports is ~$15/mbtu) so coal and nuclear are the only viable options. India has emphatically chosen coal. Japan has yet to make a choice. China is moving toward nuclear plus its own shale gas plus gas imports from Russia.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by opluso
Agreed. This situation (i.e., useless economic projections) has not changed in 25 years. Yet that has not slowed, let alone stopped, hyped-up demands to spend money now to avoid “estimated” climate costs generations in the future.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by ordvic
After reading the nuke article I decided to see what amount of private funding goes to nuclear today as opposed to the article written in 2010. I typed private funding for nuclear power 2015. I ended up reading four links. The first link privided is the US Nuclear power policy that details all the spending and various funding projects most of which cancelled out. There is a chart at the bottom. The second link I read was about the dept of eneregy (DOE) handing out $3.5 mil to four companies general atomics, ge hitachi, gen4energy and westinghouse for research that mostly looks like materials related research. The third article was the DOE providing two large utilities with funds to develope small modular reactors (SMR) $226 mil to NuScale and $452 mil to Babcock and Wilcox. The fourth article is about the US helping China build two molten salt reactors.
My conclusion is that Nuclear energy is a long way off and just replacing what we have now will be a challenge. Unless things change, and money pours in, that energy is a ways away. In fact even if they did pour the money in on the timescale of what alarmist climate scientists are telling us it will be too little too late. Opps sorry we were late for the disaster party. That leaves the idea that climate sensitivity is more robust than consensus believed it was is the only hope.
In the meantime California is launching itself headlong into an anti-carbon future starting with Schwarzenegger’s global initiative kicking in this year already raising the price of gas by .60 cents a gallon and just getting started according to Lundberg survey. It is investing in solar and renewables and battery storage not to mention the high speed train (hardly green that one). All these efforts will supposedly amount to less than 1% of human impact on climate change.
So all this indoctrination, politcal fighting and energy poverty will have all been a big waste of time.
↧
Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by micro6500
“But I put it out here in case it stimulates anybody else’s thinking productively.”
It’s a great idea, and reminds me of the beginning of the design automaton Industry. Logic primitives stitched together and available for simulation.
The second point goes with this, I spend a lot of time helping design engineers understand what and why the simulations were telling them, simulations are not reality, and have various levels of fidelity, but the question you asked and how you defined the conditions matter, and most of the gcm results fail to inform and improve for these reasons.
Actual climate not amenable able to testing just makes it harder.
↧
Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by Freedom4All (@equsnarnd)
In the way of solutions to the problems outlined here:
“The sins of expertness and a proposal for redemption”
published in 2000.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118019/
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by ordvic
I have the same problem trying to access Vukcevic links and website from my tablet. I gave up.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by ordvic
I did, however, just access Lucia’s Blackboard rankexploits.com linked from goggle.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by vukcevic
Hi Steven
Any idea where I can find numeric data file for the red line in
(copied from http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/07/rahmstorf-sea-level-source-code-and-transliteration/)
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by David Wojick
Killing coal quantified by DOE EIA:
http://insideclimatenews.org/carbon-copy/22052015/analysis-shows-clean-power-plan-would-cut-coal-use-energy-information-agency?utm_source=Inside+Climate+News&utm_campaign=3d2e97af44-Weekly_Newsletter_5_31_20155_29_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-3d2e97af44-327531733
Tragic.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mike Flynn
bobdroege,
Well, climate scientists don’t seem to understand that the future is as discernible to a 12 year as to the finest of self proclaimed climate scientists.
I do, so I understand more than climate scientists.
I can’t see any evidence of climate scientists actually providing anything of any use to anyone, but I may be mistaken. I have actually provided goods and services to both Governments and members of the public, for payment, and my customers have given me repeat business.
It is obvious that I have been of more benefit to humanity than all the climate scientists put together.
If every climate scientist in the world were to vanish in a puff of malodorous smoke, who would be the worse for it? No one, of course! On the other hand . . .
I admit to one failing – albeit a minor one – and that is being excessively modest. Oh well, we all have our crosses to bear.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK
What perfectly good alternative explanation?
Natural internal variation. It’s intrinsic to almost all hyper-complex non-linear systems, so the default assumption should be that it’s present in something like climate. At scales ranging from sub-annual to mega-years.
You can see that all the high insolation peaks above a threshold leave a mark on glaciation and there’s about 20 of them. It is not just coincidence.
Not really. I can see a decent probability that some insolation changes are involved in some of the shorter-term changes, but nothing really stands out as far as the major glacial/interglacial transitions. Perhaps you need to link to whatever you think shows this. Here’s some examples of the best I could find to look at:
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by Peter Lang
Re: MIT economist shows weakness in social cost of carbon:
I agree with Pindyck’s criticisms of the IAMs, and especially about discount rate selection and damage function. However, what he want’s is far worse. He wants a group of experts to decide policy. But who appoints the experts? I’d suggest Benny Pieser, Bjorn Lomborg, Bob Carter, and others who have some common sense.
The only rational solution to reducing global GHG emissions is no regret policies – i.e policies that deliver net benefits whether GHG emissions are increasing or decreasing the consequences and/or probability of abrupt climate change. Examples of policies that are ‘no regrets’ and reduce GHG emissions are:
1. Remove the unwarranted impediments on nuclear power; these are making nuclear far more expensive than it should be, delaying progress and causing around 1.3 million avoidable fatalities per year.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy, water & food edition by David Wojick
Peter, what do you claim is killing 1.3 million people per year and how would building nukes prevent it? I am skeptical. How many/much nukes are we talking about, built where?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
