> These worthies then could impose energy austerity that would limit many middle-class pleasures like cheap air travel, cars, freeways, suburbs and single-family housing
That wipes me out, but why is satellite TV and always-available internet not included in the “delete” column ?
As someone recently pointed out (and I’m sorry, I really cannot remember who):
“It is not that these people want your bank account for themselves. It is just that they want you to lose it”
If all the sun’s energy which reaches the Earth were dedicated to the sustenance of humans, at 100 Watts/human, then the maximum theoretical carrying capacity of the Earth would be in the quadrillions, approximately a million times as many humans as are now sustained.
Obviously, this is practically impossible, but it illustrates that a relatively tiny increase of humans’ share of that sun energy, a la Norman Borlaug, would sustain a far larger population than at present, and in a manner to which we would all like to be accustomed.
I first made this calculation when Erlich was first on the loose. Such fools so many have been.
=================
Heh, the movement splits of its own brittleness, nor all the hypocrisy, nor all the megalomania of the McKibbens can hold the broken together.
=============
On a networked system. load will stress the system differently than a generation source. It all depends on how it works with the other loads and resources on the system. For more details see http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/07/transmission-planning-wind-and-solar/
Gas turbines spin up quickly. Coal boilers not so, there is a long period for bringing the boiler to operating temperature, therefore the match to immediate demand with gas is much better. Also it is not clear that the turbines for coal (or gas) are a good match to CSP. Might be best to have separate systems.
Don, google will translate. The upshot is that the article says wind can be a huge part of the energy mix if you have enough cheap storage. But of course we already know that.
“That is horrible I admit but if the wind generation is truly surplus – that is to say in excess of existing system load, then it would have to be curtailed which results in 100% loss.”
Thanks for the answer.
It would also be good to get an expected cost in terms of kilowatt-hours. I suppose, however, that this is independent of the efficiency, since as you say, the power is free.
Takes about 8-10 hours for a coal fired plant to start generating electricity at capacity, and a few hours before you get 30% mostly because considerable energy is needed to heat the boiler up to operating temperature
I am a current power plant PE, Operations and Engineering. In addition to what ristvan has stated, even if a new turbine was procured with the needed design inlet pressure, as someone previously pointed out, the inlet pressure would be constantly dropping as the molten salt cooled. It is no small engineering challenge to create a turbine that can deal with these inlet conditions. Condensation will damage turbine blades, this can be mitigated somewhat by use of moisture extraction in the interstage turbine blades, but it can’t be fixed. This turbine would require frequent maintenance and be inefficient.
Without a lot more engineering and economic detail, I would judge this to be impractical.
One witness, that’s the general rule at these things.
Meaning geoengineering? People in spaceships who screw with the air supply tend to end up chewing vacuum.
Peter Davies,
As well as very outdated renewables prices, you have also given well over the top figures for the capital cost per MW of gas generation.
Clearly you haven’t read or understood the report. The capital cost for gas includes the cost of biomass fuel and biofuel storage facilities. Pitty you don’t read with an intention to understand before making your disingenuous remarks.
Your disingenuous comments are a disgrace It seems you haven’t read the paper with an intention to try to understand it (or the other links I gave). The LCOE costs were the latest official Australian government figures for Australia at the time of writing . I gave the link to the updated inputs for LCOE calculations. They do not change the conclusions. The CSIRO calculators with the updated figures show the conclusion is correct. An electrcity system with high proportion of renewables is not viable, electricity cost is much more than with nuclear and the CO2 abatement cost is several times higher than with nuclear. Clearly, you are unable to make the calculations yourself, so you resort to unsubstantiated assertions.
I asked you in previous comments what your background and qualifications are. You haven’t answered. It is clear you are not an engineer, and are uncomfortable or not competent with rational, objective, quantitative analysis.
Sorry Tripp, it’s the warmists who deny climate change. Climate is always changing. Climate change is common and natural.
You mean actually you go out on reefs and restore coral? Or are you just another propagandist?
is likely to decline for the foreseeable future, from demographics, before incompetent governments in Paris can even figure out what to order for lunch:
You can keep repeating that, but it doesn’t make it true as I have tried to explain to you before. Unless, of course you have a crystal ball, If you could publish your analysis or find one that supports it. I might take it more seriously,
CFC and methane show the effect of regulations. Likewise, hopefully, in the future for CO2.
Wow, a lawyer. What great credentials for a climate “scientist”.
Where have you been restoring coral? Would like to see, got a link? Do you assert the coral died because the ocean wasn’t alkaline enough and that this was caused by human emissions alone?
Prof s’ Christy and Curry on data and dogma.
It don’t mean a thing
if it ain’t got that schwing,
troposphere warming that’s missing,
‘n models’ showing 3-fold exaggerated warming,
( though no expanded wildfire-flood activity as
predicted, instead greater agricultural productivity )
a theory that’s used for policy determining.
Hmm, that climate sensitivity
ain’t what it ‘s all cranked up to be.
– J.Christy.
It don’t mean a thing
if it ain’t got that schwing,
considering climate-data uncertainty
you’d likely expect scientific objectivity
re CO2 theory effectivity,
not scientists resorting to
doom message advocacy,
promoting a god’s-eye-view
theory monopoly, even action
against dissenters politically.
– J. Curry.
Say ‘who ever knew truth put to worse
in a free and open encounter?’
– J. Milton.
Repeat the truism after me: Demographics are destiny
There are emissions associated with infrastructure ( which tend to increase the efficiencies of use ).
But there are other emissions that are associated with personal consumption ( and corresponding production ).
Declining number of consumers obviously lead to declines in consumption.
Less obviously, ageing consumers alone lead to declines.
