So, Daviid, are the “warmist” scientists like the high priests or prophets? Are they on board with this political population reduction goal? Or are they actually concerned about climate change?
Comment on Climate models and precautionary measures by Joseph
↧
↧
Comment on Climate models and precautionary measures by David Wojick
I see no point in speculating about a 100 to 200 year “near future.” What difference can the answer possibly make?
↧
Comment on Climate models and precautionary measures by knutesea
The absurdum pov matters if you cling to the concept that logic defines the discussion. The more I talk to the young adults late teens to mid 30s, the more I understand that the brave new energy future is a backlash response to wars they want nothing to do with. In their minds, money spent on chasing new energy is far better spent than money diverted to military tendencies.
They’ve already succeeded when the money doesn’t got to the military.
↧
Comment on Climate models and precautionary measures by knutesea
Your book points to 2020 as the beginning of the squeeze.
Am I correct in assuming that you think the current price is a steal if your timeframe is 10 years ?
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by John Carpenter
Yes you have, somewhere in this neighborhood. In close proximity is the notion that precautionary measures are necessary to mitigate those unprecedented changes in both scope and speed. Using that same idea, it could be argued we should take similar precaution when adopting non-synchronous renewable energy technologies into the current grid system in order to maintain ERS’s.
Cake or fork?
↧
↧
Comment on Climate models and precautionary measures by David Wojick
I am not buying your ten year “really pinch” forecast (or you books), but what about coal as a feedstock? Also nuclear can be used for transportation, witness Navy nukes.
↧
Comment on Climate models and precautionary measures by Arch Stanton
Science will tell us what we need to know.
After all we evolved from monkeys they say.
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by Willard
> Cake or fork?
If the fork is edible, I take both.
If you take the same idea, then you get to accept where it leads in other contexts too.
What you’re referring to is called contraposition, BTW. If A & B => C, then NOT C => NOT (A & B). The symmetry assumption might be problematic in precautionary contexts.
↧
Comment on Climate models and precautionary measures by jim2
There are also a couple of companies supplying natural gas for trucks. This keeps gaining momentum.
https://www.cleanenergyfuels.com/
On the subject of WTI price, I predict it won’t get above $70 this year. No bets since this is subject to so many different forces.
↧
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by Stephen Segrest
Wagathon If a poll was taken in Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska on concern over Global Warming — it would probably be something like .000000001%.
Are you familiar with the Tea Party movement in the South (Georgia, Florida, South Carolina) pushing for increased solar?
Your generic labeling just doesn’t fly.
↧
Comment on Climate models and precautionary measures by popesclimatetheory
In the climate debate it is crazy to use actual data rather than flawed model output, but this is what I do.
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by aplanningengineer
Stephen – Speaking for myself, I’ll let Rud answer on his own. The third paragraph of the section titled “Problems with Picking a Target Penetration Level for Wind and Solar” describes the difficulties in answering such a question as yours as penetration levels get higher. Me I’m not that worried below 5%. It will create some work, cause some problems and cost some money but not likely inordinate amounts and not something I’d bother policy makers with, if that were as far as they seemed to be pushing things. But at higher levels I have strong concerns.
I’ll go out on a limb and share a story and a quote of mine that showed up in the press not too long ago.The quote was roughly “Five percent solar is not a big deal, 10% probably ok, at 15% to 20% it’s different…”
Anyway I kind of forgot about that, but some time after that I was talking with my planners about implementing criteria for studies around various penetration levels (and we are in the infancy here). One engineer said, “We’re not worried below 5%”. I asked, “How do you know that and why do you say that?” Well they came back with my quote. I backtracked a little and explained that I was talking to the public. At 5% penetration level I don’t think the public needs to worry about it or that it should swing policy decision. But I do think my planners need to worry about it! The context is that we worry about a lot of things and we can handle a lot of problems. This won’t be the first case where something needs special attention, incurs extra costs or causes some problems for the system. The costs and burdens are not of the magnitude at low penetration levels that I would second guess or seek to warn policy makers. Policy imposes costs on us all the time. It’s doable at that level. But as the numbers get higher it is a beast of an entirely different sort. The costs, risks, problems are such that they should be part of the public policy dialogue.
I don’t really know about 10% As studies and experience develope I may be much more worried by 10% than I am now, or I may conclude we’ve got more margin and 10% doesn’t bother me so much. Of course as more is expected of renewables (such as ERs emulation) the more likely I will be comfortable with higher numbers. To the extent that renewables are given a pass with the expectation that they should be able to produce megawatts as cheaply as possible with others taking responsibility for the burdens they impose, the more higher penetration levels will be problematic.
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by aplanningengineer
kneel63 – The inertia provided by conventional technology is of great value for stability. The problem is oscillations between areas and this is minimized by well distributed well connected inertial loads. Just as you might posit a situation where wearing a seatbelt put a passenger in more harm, you might do the same by showing a case where less conventional technology at some point was better, but it’s an exceptional situation.
↧
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by mosomoso
Peter, I remember the cost and difficulty of a hot shower in Paris 45 years ago. Now it’s no big deal. If you haven’t got the local fossil fuels and can’t terraform to make a Norway or a Paraguay, 4 decades of French nukes should point to an obvious solution.
Of course, one needs to be interested in useful measures rather than trillion dollar fetishes.
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by aplanningengineer
If you wait till the pulse hits, the protective equipment can not operate in time. The problem is GMD creates a very fast powerful wave.
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by vukcevic
Oxford University’s Professor Myles Allen speaking on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4,said:
“You asked is this the new normal, well as I stressed, <b>normal weather, unchanged over generations</b>, is now a thing of the past.” (my bold)
Dear professor Allen, I suggest your statement is an embarrassment to what it use to be a world class university.
(extract from <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/12082013/Global-warming-normal-weather-is-a-thing-of-the-past-claims-scientist.html" rel="nofollow"> the telegraph</a> )
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by Willard
Lower than in “if feedbacks are negative”:
http://www.lostateminor.com/2011/04/22/edible-forks-and-spoons/
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by stevenreincarnated
JCH, yes that was a well done paper explaining some of the issues.
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by Arch Stanton
Looks like science says, fork it we are going to be toast too soon.
We have not eaten the pudding, so we can’t eat our meat. Payday will be the next Tuesday.
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by aplanningengineer
Science of Doom,
My nice long answer to you disappeared. Here’s a re-stab that might differ some if it shows up twice.
Your referenced article has a lot of good stuff in it. It is chock-full of reasons why wind and its modelling impose risk. My long post talks a lot about reliability and the challenges of very high levels. It’s easy to give up margin in a highly reliable system and ignore the impact. If a hurricane is coming, I wouldn’t worry if traffic overloaded a bridge. In tough times recommended maintenance is delayed. Carefully and skillfully applied such actions usually have no practical effects but to some extent they do impose risk and reduce reliability. Someone might be comfortable with the potential reliability levels obtainable with higher levels of penetration but it is not going to be the same reliability level we value now and have spent considerable resources to achieve. When you are trying to achieve reliability levels in that approach 100% each fractional percentage increase comes at a much higher cost. It’s hard to see the good you do from such measures. Similarly you can fritter away a fractional percentage of your improvements and likely not observe consequences in the near to midterm and possibly long term.
Besides that here’s some other questionable things likely supporting their numbers. They say “might” be lifted to 75%. I’d guess that assumes that all or most of the intermittent resources are using best available technology and providing ERS. Virtually no one is approaching such behavior and expecting existing resources to be retrofit would be wildly optimistic. They likely have assumed a huge amount of spinning reserve on line to back the wind (because it is the one day everywhere is blowing). In such conditions the machines providing the spinning reserve can provide inertial mass and ERS and the system could be stable, but that is not an economic practice that can work over time. Perhaps if it’s one hour a year it makes sense (considering politics and all that) to crank up a ton of CTs to back up wind. But if you are trying to count on diversity from your intermittent resources (so that it has the oft touted capacity benefits) you won’t want to greatly increase spinning reserves as a regular practice to provide inertia and ERS. Also I don’t know what special equipment they have added to the transmission system or if conventional generation is not allowed to dispatch economically, but must be prioritized ignoring economics in order to support the wind on the grid. Lastly they must have an overabundance of faith in their models to trust that level of penetrationr.
In the end I think they are doing everything they can to stack the deck to get such numbers. Maybe when models have been improved, maybe when intermittent all use best technology, maybe in limited times with a lot of backup- we can be more comfortable with limited periods of high penetration. I don’t think I am similarly stacking the deck on the low side. I could be taking an approach like “we need every rivet all the time in the Golden Gate Bridge” and some might. I am willing to have such resources impose some burdens and create some hardships that we should surmount.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
