Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Peter Davies

$
0
0

To support the variable generation from wind and solar you don’t need more fossil fuel generation, you just need to keep what you have at the moment.

The times when wind and solar generation cannot meet demand are going to be something like 20 to 40% of the time, and probably in Australia would come outside the daytime availability of solar power. During these gaps wind and solar would probably still provide on average around 50% of the power demand. So the fossil fuel use would be required to provide something like 10 to 20% of the power generation, so CO2 emissions would be down to 10 to 20% of the levels compared with using fossil fuel generation all the time. With significant hydro and other storage you can do better.

Since this coal and gas generation tends to exist already there are no new capital costs, and the fuel costs are approximately going to follow the use. If you have to provide new generation then do it with gas because the capital costs of this are much lower than that of wind and solar, so the backup capital cost probably adds no more than 10-20% of the wind and solar capital cost at the moment. As wind and solar get cheaper this percentage for backup will rise, but the total cost comes down, of course, as does the average cost of electricity generated.


Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by ianl8888

$
0
0

> During these gaps wind and solar would probably still provide on average around 50% of the power demand

How, when the “gaps” ares caused by no sun (ie. night) and no wind

Are you serious ? Experience in both South Australia and the UK in the last fortnight have demonstrated the lie ino your propaganda

[Please don’t bother with “better battery technology” – any millenium now, I expect]

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Don Monfort

$
0
0

You need to do a little homework, yoey. Learn the difference between an investment and a loan. Look up the net foreign direct investment related to China.

You got inflows of capital and you got outflows. China has made large foreign direct investments. You are interested in the net.

I am very sure you will find that net foreign investment in China is not in the same ballpark as the $30 trillion corporate debt bubble discussed in the article. And China does not have to repay foreign direct investments, yoey. That’s not one of their problems.

You shouldn’t take any economic forecasts seriously, yoey. You would need some basic understanding of economics, before economic forecasts would be meaningful to you.

Good luck!

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Peter M Davies

$
0
0

Peter M is the original if not the best! The newbie is a Londoner and somewhat younger (and braver).

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by mosomoso

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

$
0
0

Hope you enjoy it and thanks for the link.

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

$
0
0

Excellent post Wolfe
THAT article went into my favorites.

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Peter Davies

$
0
0

ian18888, there are a few things to bear in mind.

Firstly in a hot climate like Australia, then the peak demand is likely to occur during the days from air conditioning. Fortunately most of the really hot days are also sunny so there will be plenty of wind power for most of the day to drive this air conditioning. There may be a period towards the end of the day when it is still too warm, but the sun is going and there is little solar power. But it’s not for much of the day. If you have wind power near the coast then you often get winds travelling onshore towards the end of the day which help too.

So mostly if there is going to be shortage of power it’s going to be night, early morning or evening, and probably outside peak demand times.

if you have a sufficiently wide distribution of wind turbines you rarely get no wind at all. Here’s a typical graph of the shape of wind speed versus probability at a single location – http://www.wind-power-program.com/Images/wind_statistics.htm/Histogram%20of%20wind%20speeds%20with%20photo(600×411).JPG. ignore the actual values and just look at the shape.

Power output goes with the cube of the wind speed. I cannot find a chart of power output versus number of observations for a wind turbine – but it would be skewed rather more towards the lower output power (supporting your first thought). But this would be for a single location only.

So what you tend to get is less wind than you need to meet electricity demand from wind alone rather than long periods with no wind at all. How much less depends on how you much wind you have installed and how independent the wind is in the different locations it is installed. If it is highly correlated across all locations you have a problem – when you cannot meet demand the average shortfall is going to be more than 50% of the demand. Probably you are talking a 65-70% shortfall

However, if the wind is relatively independent at the different locations (more likely in a larger geographic region) then the wind is likely to be blowing somewhere and average shortfall is going to more closely approach 50% of demand. For an equal split between two locations with completely independent wind speeds following a Rayleigh / Weibull distribution (e.g. north Europe/North Sea plus North African coast) the figure is very close to 50%.

Mostly you would try to disperse the wind generation as much as possible, if you have a choice, or have connectors between different windy regions to get around this particular issue.


Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Joseph

$
0
0

But foreign investment is related to economic growth and in the article you posted it states that economy is causing them to not be able to pay their debts.

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Wagathon

$
0
0

I don’t think Saudi Arabia would mind funding Australia’s wind power industry so long as the cost is rolled into the cost of oil Australia buys from Saudi Arabia. But, what then is the gain to Australia?

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Joseph

$
0
0
Here's the quote, Don. <blockquote>hanshui, reeling from China’s <b>economic slowdown </b> and a shareholder campaign to oust Zhang, said it will fail to pay 2 billion yuan ($314 million) of bonds due on Nov. 12, making it at least the sixth Chinese company to default in the local note market this year.</blockquote>

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by kneel63

$
0
0

“… the climate models have gone astray by 0.8C.”

Actually, it’s worse than that. The TRENDS have gone wrong by that amount. The ABSOLUTE temp is WAY worse and always has been.

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Don Monfort

$
0
0

I didn’t say that foreign investment is not related to economic growth, yoey. I pointed you to the analysis you needed to do to disabuse yourself of the goofey notion that foreign investment has driven China’s growth. You haven’t done any of your homework. I am not going to spend any more time trying to educate you, yoey.

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Mike Flynn

$
0
0

brentns1,

You wrote –

“In Australia, Mr Turnbull may struggle to meet the high expectations climate change campaigners have for his government.”

Why do you think anybody really cares what a looney bunch of people who believe that they can stop the climate from changing? Or did you really mean a looney bunch who believe CO2 is evil? Or maybe a looney bunch who believe that CO2 created warming after sunset?

Warmists believe all sorts of nonsense. Why anybody should care about their mad “expectations” is beyond me. On the other hand, politicians are popularity contest winners. Ability and intelligence are not prerequisites – as can be seen every day.

Cheers.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Eric Owens

$
0
0

I am disturbed – perhaps upset or angry is more to the point – by the witch-hunt on the part of the “Scientific Establishment” which consists of alarmists and mimics that of the anti-communist witch-hunt of the early 1950’s. Your summary brings it out to the forefront….and I find it shameful that accusations thrown out by the alarmists at deniers are in fact just another tool in their toolbox to mask their own conflicted interests.


Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by gjw2

$
0
0

I wrote, “Generally, a side effect of curbing local pollution is a reduction of CO2, allowing the government to take credit on the global stage for CO2 emissions reduction.”

In response matthewmarler (MTW) wrote, “How so? Reducing pollution requires installing a lot of add-on exhaust scrubbers and such which reduce total power output a little, necessitating the burning of more coal to maintain output and economic productivity. It’s worth it (at least judged by American health and pollution discussions and decisions), but it is an increase in cost and consumption. Isn’t that so?”

First, I am not an expert in cleaning up coal-fired power plants. My general statement was based on projects aimed at reducing CO2 emissions that also reduced local pollution. While the above statement by MTW may be true, it represents only one way to reduce local pollution by impacting coal-fired power plants. Below is a quote from an IEA publication on cutting CO2 emissions and local pollutants in existing coal-fired power plants in China.

“As the world’s largest consumer of coal, China stands at the forefront of both the challenges and opportunities offered by efficiency improvements. In response, China is undertaking a major national energy efficiency improvement programme, which includes improving the thermal efficiency and environmental performance of its existing coal-fired power plants. This programme offers the possibility of reaping the benefits of reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, lower coal consumption and thus lower operating costs, improved air quality and reduced water usage. It is also an ideal opportunity to showcase the benefits of improving energy efficiency to a global audience.” (Executive Summary)
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/PartnerCountrySeriesEmissionsReductionthroughUpgradeofCoalFiredPowerPlants.pdf

By the way, improving the efficiency of coal-fired power plants isn’t the only way to reduce local pollution while cutting CO2 emissions. Examples include, reducing electricity use via activities such as adopting improved lighting (CFLs, and LEDs), fuel economy standards, road freight logistics, switching from coal to other, more efficient, fossil fuels, etc.

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by mosomoso

$
0
0

“Over the next 15 years, USD 90 trillion will be invested globally in energy systems, cities and land use sectors.”

Is that 90 trill for fast mitigation, climate change tackling, climate solutions, climate adaptation, developmental agility (“agile” is the hot Australian buzzword), resilience, anti-fragility…or is it just for massive white elephant breeding programs? I can never tell.

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Steven Mosher

$
0
0

I am laughing.

You guys who say we can predict the climate or even that nobody knows the future.. are all pontificating about economic projections and forecasts.

too effin funny

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by beththeserf

$
0
0

Spain attempting to lead the world in clean energy
transformation, committing 571,138 euros for each
‘green job’ subsidized and loss of 110, 500 jobs
elsewhere. Heh, should have heeded the Don.
(Rest of the EU ain’t doing too well either.)

If the doom-sayers genu-inely believed that AGW
was an existential threat they could’ve gone nuclear,
but they didn’t. Guess it was never really about cli-sci
-based-on one-tree-hockey-stick-selecting-or-over-
heated-model-projecting-or-missing-hot-spot-over-
looking-or-bucket-theory-of–ocean-warming-or-that
-BOM-land-temp-data-homogenizing … was it?

http://www.windaction.org/posts/26329-gabriel-calzada-alvarez-speaks-to-the-u-s-congress-about-green-jobs#.VkQkDGeKpkp

Viewing all 148700 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images