Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Peter Lang

0
0

Matthewrmarler,

Steven Mosher: The lesson is that shifting will not kill your economy.

Your response to Mosher’s comment is spot on. Steven Mosher simply doesn’t understand economic matters, or doesn’t want to – another sign of his often displayed motivated reasoning.


Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by AK

0
0

With electricity prices being cheaper by 2030 as the CO2 emissions are reduced, […]

Based on Obama’s behavior, we have no reason at all for confidence that his plan will achieve that result. After all, his track record on the “experts” he listens to is abysmal.

Personally, I think there are ways it could be achieved, but I see no sign of understanding what it would take (IMO) in his plans, or “science”. Or yours.

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by GaryM

0
0

Peter Lang,

“Can’t he hear people telling him he’s being misled by his adviser.”

Obama isn’t being fooled by anybody. He is a hard core progressive. He is acting on the progressive gibberish views on economics, foreign policy and social policy he was taught since he was a toddler. He is a mediocre intellect who is a shining example of just how effective propaganda is when you start it when they’re very young. He grew up surrounded by communists, socialists, and America haters. He governs based on his own beliefs.

The sad thing is that all that was out there for voters to learn, had anyone cared to tell them. He said he was going to shutter the coal industry. He said he was going to make electricity prices sky rocket. He said he was going to start the process of imposing socialized medicine on the US. As a state senator in Illinois, he voted against a law that tried to outlaw infanticide after a failed abortion. He said he was going to radically transform the United States.

He said all this long before he was elected president. John Holdren is not the problem. Valerie Jarrett is not the problem. Barack Obama is the problem.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by AK

0
0
@erikemagnuson...<blockquote>The installed cost of PV is no longer dominated by the cost of the PV cells, rather by balance of plant. The price of the cells could go to zero without making a major effect on the economics.</blockquote>You seem to have no more awareness of the effect of <b>time and change</b> on broader economic conditions than ancient Greek historians. The simple fact that “<i>PV is no longer dominated by the cost of the PV cells</i>” changes the economic incentives. When PV was the major factor, nobody had any real incentives to work to lower the BOS costs. (Except for a few visionaries whose work is probably still under wraps.) Now that the costs of PV are down, and apparently going to come down much farther, there's far more incentive. And the beginnings of new ideas and technology are there, if you know where/how to look.<blockquote>Deep sea pumped hydro has a bunch of problems.</blockquote>They're not problems, they're <b>Opportunities</b><blockquote>First is requiring access to the coast and the permitting in some areas (e.g. California Coastal Commission).</blockquote>Those are political problems. I'm addressing <b>technology</b>. Sure, there will be some polities (and sub-polities) that refuse to get with the program until the pioneers have proven things out. But all it takes is a few forward-looking examples, and once the technology can be seen to work, the politics will follow.<blockquote>Second, providing storage for users remote from the coast will require construction of new transmission facilities with attendant permitting and capital costs.</blockquote>AFAIK undersea transmission is fairly mature technology, although the costs can probably be brought down considerably through learning curve and economies of scale.<blockquote>Third, I haven’t seen anything about deep sea pumped hydro being a mature technology as opposed to the Ultra-Caps being available from Digi-Key.</blockquote>See my first response (in this comment) above. I'm not interested in <b>mature</b> technology, except when (as with deep-sea pumped hydro) it can be combined with something still requiring substantial technological innovation. I'm interested in the <b>technological innovation itself</b>. Not things that require real theoretical breakthroughs, just routine R&D, combined with the sort of predictable innovation we see in IT, materials science, chemical engineering, etc. Except for the lower-reservoir problem, all the technology needed for deep-sea pumped hydro is fairly mature. And by isolating that as the key problem, as I said on Tom's blog, we can focus innovation and R&D where it will be most useful. Plenty of potential solutions present themselves. Solutions that will have their own exponential price reduction curves.

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by AK

0
0

I am concerned there is an assumption that these dedicated experts will get the job done simply because they always have before.

Reminds me of a scene from “Atlas Shrugged”. (The book, I never watched the movie but suppose it’s there, too.)

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Peter Lang

0
0

Thanks GaryM. You know far more about his history that I do. I was giving him the benefit of th doubt. I was lso giving the US electors the benefit of the doubt too, because they usually do a pretty good job of electing there presidents, on balance. The worl’s has become a far better place thanks to a great extent over the past 70 years or so to the USA. But this US Presidned has wasted a hell of a lot of good will around the world over just 8 years. I doubt it can ever be recovered. I believe it has likely to be the Presidency that started the decline of the US influence – sort of like the decline of all the past great empires. hen countries and their people get too fat and comfortable, the decline begins. Obama has started the long slow period of decay (relative to the rapidly growing Asian economies) for not just the USA but also for UK, Canada, EU, Australia, Japan. He’s Nero II

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by climatereason

0
0

Charcoal burning ushered in the Bronze age and it remained a very important component of industrial development until supplanted by steam/coke/coal in the 8th and 19th century.

http://www.ukagriculture.com/countryside/charcoal_history.cfm

In turn the convenience of gas and oil helped fuel the industrial revolution further. In short, one technology becomes supplanted by another if it has benefits of efficiency or price.

Unfortunately modern renewables (in the UK) do not fulfil that criteria. We can all see motionless wind turbines-often when most needed on cold sunless windless days, and we are all aware of the exponential loss of solar power once the peak hours of the peak summer months have passed.

With name plate capacity being completely different to actual capacity renewables (in the UK) are not yet ready to supplant existing fuel sources including nuclear. To try to do so will raise prices and reduce our reliable generating capacity. Perhaps in 20 years they will have a place, along with tidal energy.

However, until then, unless we want to bankrupt our industries and consumers renewables can not be a prime component of our annual energy mix.

However we DO need to factor in security of supply-buying gas or oil from Russia or the Mid East is not a good idea, introducing uncertainty whilst providing money to regimes that don’t like us.

So whats not to like about renewables…in due course…

tonyb

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by David L. Hagen

0
0
<b>Reduce plant food or Redress impending fuel scarcity?</b> <a href="http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=352&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1" rel="nofollow">Why reduce plant food (CO2)?</a> <blockquote>the past 150-year increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has resulted in mean yield increases of 70% for C3 cereals, 28% for C4 cereals, 33% for fruits and melons, 62% for legumes, 67% for root and tuber crops, and 51% for vegetables. . . . Today in Holland, for example, growers produce crops, vegetables and ornamentals in glass greenhouses with air enriched to as much as 1,000 ppm CO2 during daylight hours, experiencing yield enhancements on the order of 20 to 40% for this multi-billion dollar industry.. . .</blockquote> The Pied Piper of Washington is misleadingly diverting our focus to a molehill and persuading us to spend a mountain of resources on it. The <b>greatest danger </b>of Obama's power plan is that it <b>diverts our attention</b> from the Mt. Everest of <b>impending global constrained fuel supplies</b>. Fuel growth insufficient to meet economic needs and then inevitable declining fossil fuel supply are the greatest threat to modern economies. The US Dept. of Energy's Energy Information Agency (EIA) already <a href="http://www.eia.gov/analysis/petroleum/crudetypes/" / rel="nofollow">forecasts <b>US oil production to max out about 2020!</b></a> Robert L. Hirsch recently commented on the current oil situation: <a href="http://peak-oil.org/deja-vu-with-a-twist/" / rel="nofollow">Déjà Vu With a Twist?</a> <blockquote>. . .As in the mid-1980s, it is conceivable that Saudi might maintain high oil production for many years, forcing oil prices to remain around $40-50 per barrel, possibly lower. If that were to happen, the US and world tight light oil enterprise would be decimated, a number of deep-water and expensive frontier projects would be suspended or canceled, and heavy oil production in Canada and Venezuela would falter, to name just some of the obvious. Rigs would be idled and could eventually be scrapped; a large number of service contracts would be canceled; people throughout the industry would be laid off and seek employment outside the industry; and royalties would be lost. US GDP would be negatively impacted, and U.S. oil imports would increase, negatively impacting the U.S. balance of payments. . . . A number of analysts believe that the world is close to the onset of world oilproduction decline, often called “peaking.” In a worst case scenario, the onset of decline could start after 2015, when U.S. and world high-cost oil production capability will have been significantly degraded, making catch-up much more difficult than it might have been just a year ago. . . . PPS. Rarely in human history has one country had the ability to inflict such a large impact on the economies of so many other countries with just the turn of a valve. PPS. What might happen if the house of Saud is overthrown and unfriendlies take charge of the Saudi oil valve? Before the onset of decline? After the onset of decline?</blockquote> Why are we not debating why Obama is diverting our attention in the face of Saudi oil plays decimating US high cost oil industry?

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by aneipris

0
0

“In President Obama’s first term, climate change was barely mentioned; now we see addressing climate change as the major initiative of his second term. ”
Not a great mystery. Faced with overwhelming real world problems about which he’s unwilling or unable to do anything (except make them worse), he’s decided to tackle a problem that likely doesn’t even exist.

A pretend problem with pretend solutions. Both pathetic and horrifying.

(aka pokerguy)

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jonathan Abbott

0
0

Thanks for posting the NVAP data, Don.

Mr Mosher seems not to have noticed that the politicians that are ignoring sceptics are ignoring the alarmists even harder.

CO2 reduction has become a convenient political football to kick at ideological foes, nothing more. Differing scientific theories mean diddly squat to such people.

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Fernando Leanme (@FernandoLeanme)

0
0

I think it’s based on an experiment carried out in a prestigious UK university. They put their subjects in a sealed chamber hooked up to a 5 gravity centrifuge, spun it up, raised the chamber temperature to 40 degrees C and increased the CO2 concentration to 50,000 ppm. After five minutes’ exposure the experiment had to be suspended because the subjects started gasping and vomiting, proving conclusively that CO2 causes asthma.

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

0
0

richard, “A few years ago there appeared to be promise for fuel cell autos, and direct nuclear-to-hydrogen conversion. What say you?”

Fuel cell costs still have a way to go, but aren’t that bad. H2 production from “sustainable” sources has a long way to go. Right now reforming of natgas or liquid petroleum is the most cost effective way to use fuel cells. You can call that a “bridge” if you are a fan of fuel cells. Graphene and nanoparticles could “revolutionize” fuel cell design. Ballard/Plug power had some cells in the $1000 per kw range.last I checked, for package handling equipment.and most of that cost is in the PEM.

The “bridge” though doesn’t fit the greenie game plan unless of course they need it for their political purposes. Since coal based synfuels are the Great Satan, FutureGen got hammered.

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Fernando Leanme (@FernandoLeanme)

0
0

Mr Turbulent, that scatter plot should be normalized to account for the cost of natural gas and the fraction provided by hydropower. Or it should only include nations with a mix similar to Germany and Denmark. For example, I think Spain has very high cost imported natural gas, so it’s comparable.

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by Fernando Leanme (@FernandoLeanme)

0
0

I think the Wall Street Journal writer is worried about peak oil. They are big into energy security and sticking it to the Muslims.

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling

0
0

I’ll bite. Asthma is not one disease. It’s kind of like saying “sore back” in reference to the lungs. Rather it is a bunch of diseases which all have the same symptoms. Some forms of asthma are linked to hang chronic infection with Chlamydia pneumoniae in the lining of the bronchial tubes and if you had a course of antibiotics with your surgery that might have cured it. Another cause of asthma is a chronic infection of the sinuses sending dead stuff into the lungs when you breath. If your sinuses were fixed that would explain it. And for some of us it’s just our genetics give us hyper-reactive lungs. The reason doctors are not interested is its very hard to treat and what works like a miracle in one patient will fail miserably in another. All you can do is shrug and move along. This is why Obama used asthma as his hook to get people to tackle climate change I guess. It’s such a puzzling nonspecific kind of disease you can attribute it to anything and there are lots of irritatingly nonspecific miracle cures like yours out there too.


Comment on Week in review – science edition by Willard

0
0

> There is no mass effort to reduce fossil fuel use.

How to switch from scientific to political concerns in one single step.

Incidentally, this switch bathes in truthiness, e.g.:

The Clean Power Plan is a Landmark Action to Protect Public Health, Reduce Energy Bills for Households and Businesses, Create American Jobs, and Bring Clean Power to Communities across the Country[.]

http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/03/president-obamas-clean-power-plan/

That’s just the next post to this current one.

***

Cue to more concerns over the meaning of “mass effort.”

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by mwgrant

0
0

H Matthew and Peter,

I suspect many people use hyperbole here from time to time to telegraph a thought or concept efficiently. That is how I took ‘kill the economy’ and do not take Steven to task for that. More crucial in my opinion is does the chart really ‘prove’ anything at this point in time? e.g., economies will not be severely damaged? IMO the answer is no, things are too much in a state of flux and are certainly still unfolding. Besides another way to take the comment could be that the lesson [as ‘understood’ by some parties] is that shifting will not damage/kill economy [and that is debatable.]

In any case there are lot of ways to skin a chart and the chart is the interest.

Just my perspective. Regards,

mwg

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling

0
0

I’m very lucky. My candidate is a man of integrity with real environmentalist training in fisheries biology and not the climate change credo. He is also not innumerate and understands stats, a refreshing change in a politician. My major complaint about Harper is why is this guy a back bencher and not in cabinet? My family is fourth generation rabid socialist and union people. I am the family shame and black sheep. My daughter is voting green.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Willard

Comment on President Obama’s Clean Power Plan by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

0
0

mwgrant, US nuclear power is extremely interesting. Most of the components are so grossly over built that the bulk of any plant can have a useful life of 100 years or more. Penetrations seem to be the biggest problem and as long as they are accessible they can be upgraded and repaired. Since most are accessible, power companies have spent money and improved the efficiency and licensing life of plants to over 40 years. The 40 year estimated life was based on amortization not observation so the NRC anticipates some plants may be licensed for 80 years with many getting 60 years.

Since 1990, improved refueling times, increased efficiency and “up rating” of the existing plants has increase US nuclear output by about 29 new AP1000 equivalents worth of energy despite plant closures. That is about the same real energy as the entire wind farm program.

The NRC reports don’t appear to be all that biased. There have been “football” sized voids in pressure vessels that have needed repair after 30 years of operation. Those “football” sized voids though are often in beach or basketball thick slabs of steel.

If the greenies sexed up nuclear as much as they bash coal, there would be a totally different ballgame to watch.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images