who knows. He has a very small twitter following, doesn’t seem to be making much of an impact even in the Sou crowd (although when he mentions me, he does get a retweet from mann).
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by curryja
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by AK
<blockquote>I’m sure these technology options are expensive, but are there any real prospects for battery storage to do better?</blockquote>Very slim, I'd say. Rud Istvan has several posts here, and many comments, detailing the reasons. There may be a (small) chance with flow batteries. Making them scalable might be an issue, though.
IMO the best storage option, near-term is <a href="https://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/solar-must-fight-straw-men-as-well-as-fossil-fuels/comment-page-1/#comment-8383" rel="nofollow">deep-sea pumped hydro</a>. Which technology could be fostered with <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/05/embracing-uncertainty-in-climate-change-policy/#comment-722926" rel="nofollow">free subsidies.</a><blockquote>I believe the carbon comes from CO2 in sea water.</blockquote>The USNavy has some <a href="http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/" rel="nofollow">new research</a> that bids fair to be fully scalable, and very cheap with learning curve and economies of scale.<blockquote>It seems like Power plant exhaust plumes might offer a more concentrated source of CO2, but I don’t know the chemistry or technological details.</blockquote>Actually, sea water has more CO2 than any but actual stack gasses. AFAIK the latter add too much cost for capture and cooling, although there's lots of work being done on it.
For me, the capture of ambient CO2 is a much lower-regrets alternative. There are manifold risks associated with <b>depending</b> on simply reducing emissions: the actual cause of increasing pCO2 may be due to some other aspect of the Industrial Revolution, such as whaling and over-fishing, land use changes, etc. And even if fossil emissions were responsible for putting it there, that doesn't mean it'll stop increasing when/if emissions stop. It's a very complex non-linear system, whose behavior can only be guessed at.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder
Note, to be clear, Vermont closed a functioning nuclear plant to replace it with renewables, but they don’t have a renewable alternative.
I love Vermont, it is a gorgeous state, a treasure, but it is being ruined by wealthy lefty refugees from New York City.
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by climatereason
Don
Thanks for the link but it appears the case is stalled and Steyn himself doesn’t know when it will proceed. It reminds me of the circular and unlikely plot lines of the satirical sitcom Soap!
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
There’s always the Hopium-Air battery.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Canman
Hopium sounds like something that could be smoked, with or without the H.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by timg56
From a clown who pretends to be someone else.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder
Soros is a big hero of the left. He talks a lefty game but walks a Wall St. walk, not that I am bothered by his purchase at all. Warren Buffet bought a railroad a few years ago – he knows what those trains are going to haul, given the anti-pipeline sentiment. Those trains are going to haul coal and oil. Can we call the left reality dee nye errs?
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jim2
Buffet is an opportunistic hypocrite, IMO. A Dimowit.
↧
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by mike87122
Actually, you are.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Curious George
The sun shines in Gobi 24 hours a day.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by mosomoso
It beats me why the main push for niche alternatives hasn’t been directed at impoverished non-industrial, light-demand regions which could use a break.
Biomass and fertilising dung would be conserved. Communications and illumination would surely be improved. As to health matters, disfigurement from those clunky kerosene pressure stoves and lung probs from dung burning are pretty severe third world problems. (I’m told Interplast, the plastic surgery charity, is kept especially busy by kerosene burns to children.)
Solar is pretty good in its modest role (I’ve lived with it) and I imagine there would be millions who might benefit from light power infrastructure where storage demands are low. Solar cooking and pasteurising, pumping water…why not improve and implement solar where there is lots of sun and no heavy industry? If you’re fretful about carbon, does it matter if the solar project you fund is in Africa instead of in California? Same atmosphere, right?
Why mount acres of solar panels at 50 degrees north in Europe’s industrial heartland as a green fetish and subsidy swindle when they might serve a real purpose somewhere?
(Love this sort of thing: http://www.solavore.com/shop/solavoresport-solar-oven)
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by Ron Graf
John Sidles brings up an interesting question: If one is able to profit from making politically popular yet unsubstantiated statements by building a public following, becoming a “rock star,” is their rightfully recoverable damages if another knocks down their attractiveness by making them “uncool” by lampooning them? Let’s assume even that the lampooning was willfully ignorant and with malicious intent. Are political satirists immune? Comedians? Cartoonists? But what if a humorists makes and unfunny remark or cartoon?
In the case of Deryagin’s polywater what if Richard Feynman had voiced harsher skepticism yet the polywater canard had lasted because Deryagin was the leader of a circle of scientists all profiting from the notoriety. Could Deryagin have sued and won damages just put in the bank before the canard was finally exposed?
John, you did hurt Mann’s case for damages by showing he is still profiting from the same trough he was profiting from before Steyn’s comment. The value of reputation is hard to measure. By suing Steyn, Mann surely increased Steyn’s reputation among Steyn’s followers, thus aiding him. Likewise could be said of the effect of Steyn’s comment on Mann’s readers. If so should they owe each other royalties?
Perhaps the classical English law theory of defamation should no apply at all to anyone who has access to self-publication…which is everyone now.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by aplanningengineer
I wouldn’t say transmission is “the” bug expense, but it is “a” big expense on top of locating the wind turbines off shore.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by scotts4sf
It is not Steven Goddard or Tony Heller.
It is a new made up identity to slander scientists from the shadows.
Best to ignore.
Scott
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by catweazle666
Total, utter, unmitigated drivel from start to finish.
I’ve some pretty rubbish trolls in my time – and that goes right back to the days of Compuserve – but you take the biscuit.
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by scotts4sf
By the way, thanks for the articles on the Columbia river dams and the National Geographic Magazine on the greening of African Deserts. Return to the African Wet Era with Crocs and Hippos in the Sahara and Salmon running free to the sea in Idaho & Washington states.
Scott
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by catweazle666
Jim D: “200W=144 kWh per month. Not entirely unreasonable.”
Actually, a total waste of space.
Arithmetic isn’t your strong suit, is it?
Then of course there is the slight problem that every last milliwatt has to be backed up by thermal generation for well over 50% of the time, so not even close to 144 kWh per month, not even half that in fact, and the Gobi desert is a long, long way from where the power will be used – there aren’t many homes in it due to it’s a desert, so transmission losses will be high.
Plus, there is the problem with dust, particularly dust storms, solar panels lose efficiency fast when they become dusty, and water is practically essential to clean them, once again a problem in a desert.
So that was a pretty poor bit of tr0ll1ng, even by your standards/
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by catweazle666
Jim D: “So they were his personal property?”
I believe it’s called “whistleblowing”, Jimbo.
Although I suspect you only approve of that when it’s carried out by Lefties and AGW alarmists, right?
↧
Comment on Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann by matthewrmarler
I did order a copy. I’ll get a t-shirt and mug later.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
