Wait until we go back to the Mark 1, Body, 1 each, pattern of Flesh & Bone. Things should be very different. And I can hardly wait to see!
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by Arch Stanton
↧
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by AK
@aplanningengineer…
Question: How far away from the major grid concentration could a large source of ESRs be while still providing essentially full support? For instance, how much support does Hoover Dam provide to the Los Angeles area grid? (Relative to the same spinning reserve right there.) How about Eagle Crest?
Seems to me this would be a major factor in planning new spinning reserve, especially always-spinning advanced pumped hydro storage.
↧
Comment on Climate models and precautionary measures by peter3172
Safer cars, safer roads. better medical care, etc.
With the possible exception of DUI, legislation and enforcement have had little or no effect.
Unless of course you have very good evidence to the contrary
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by aplanningengineer
There is a difference in how well different quantities travel and and what speed. Vars don’t travel that well in any time frame. So Hoover does not contribute much to support voltage in the LA basin. For frequency support I think Hoover Dam is a fine contributor. Locating more inertia at Hoover dam may be good for LA in some conditions and not so much in others. Depends which areas are rocking against which others.
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by AK
Thanks.
Is there a standard algorithm? Or “rule of thumb”? I’ve done some searching but couldn’t find anything on it; perhaps I’m using the wrong search terms.
↧
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by omanuel
Planning Engineer,
Could an unexpected solar EMP be mistaken for a sneak nuclear attack by by another of the ~15 nations with nuclear weapons?
If so, those parts of civilization that survived the initial solar EMP might be destroyed by retaliatory launches of nuclear weapons.
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by omanuel
Thanks, aplanningengineer, for your candor. How great is the danger that an unexpected, solar EMP might be mistaken for a sneak nuclear attack and trigger a series of retaliatory launches of nuclear weapons?
↧
Comment on Climate models and precautionary measures by aaron
I think sensitivity could be as high as 1.2, it is probably close to 1, but lower. I think 0 is as likely as 1.2.
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by aplanningengineer
The problem is not your search skills. It’s very hard to speak in generalities. Even when sort of justified most have an aversion to it, wanting to look at the specific case.
Years back I worked on the DC tie from Utah to LA and there was one modelling parameter that’s I questioned the setting because of a class I was taking. (It was the firing angle “gamma” for the inverter/rectifiers on the DC tie. Gamma is constant in the steady state and I spoke to our modeler who had blindly set it to constant during the dynamic phase for no good reason other than we held it steady during normal conditions. The physics suggested it would be hard to hold constant during dynamic swings at a very fast time scale and that we should model it as varying then. Whoever made up the models understood, as I did, that the steady state and transient values did not have to be the same. No one could say for sure what was right or wrong.) I needed translators to speak with Germany and spent months trying to resolve the issue to no avail. But running the models with that one little parameter switched (out of a huge set) gave very different answers as to how much power could be imported/exported safely on various paths. Some went up and some went down with the changed modelling.
↧
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by aplanningengineer
Sorry outside my ballpark.
↧
Comment on Climate models and precautionary measures by aaron
David, I agree. Needing to keep CO2 levels up is more likely scenario than warming causing bad weather.
↧
Comment on Climate models and precautionary measures by pochas94
Rationally, the precautionary principle would prevent anyone from setting foot on an aircraft. The question is, is accepting risk to yourself different from accepting risk to civilization? For a radical solipsist the answer is no. Why would it be different for anybody else?
↧
Comment on Climate models and precautionary measures by qbeamus
“The old-nuclear’s Price-Anderson Act is a huge subsidy. Without Price-Anderson there would be zero nuclear plants.”
Um, no. Prior to the Price-Anderson act, the law already provided a mechanism that limited liability. It’s called corporate law. All that would be needed is to create a separate corporation for the operation of each nuclear power plant. If there were a catastrophic accident, the company would be liquidated, and the total value of its assets used to (partially) pay the claimants. This is one of the main reasons our government recognizes corporations.
The Price-Anderson Act imposed additional OBLIGATIONS on the operation of a nuclear power plant, including the obligation to buy the maximum amount of insurance available to help pay claimants in the event of a catastrophic accident. Furthermore, they are required to put up a bond (in effect) for ADDITIONAL money to finance the “Price-Anderson fund,” which pays claims in excess of those covered by the private insurance the plant-owners are required to purchase. The amount of that contribution was is well over $100MM per plant.
So there is no subsidization. Not a dime. It’s all funded by the plants themselves, preventing them from enjoying the protection from large liabilities that is naturally available to anyone any any other line of business (except those where government has created a similar set of regulations). Now, given the potentially large scale of a nuclear catastrophe, that’s probably a fine policy choice. My taste is about as small government as anyone this side of Albert J. Nock, but I, for one, am ok with it. But to call it a “subsidy” is just wrong.
↧
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by Arch Stanton
History suggests that we may all still be living in Baal Park.
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by omanuel
There are indications that may be true. When I asked this same question on <i>ResearchGate</i>, my account there was locked.
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by scotts4sf
The nuclear signatures give away any EMP. We would know with seconds.
Based on the fallout and residual products forensics could likely tell where it was from and which source of raw materials were used.
Scott
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by RichardLH
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/relativity-re-examined/
An interesting alternative point of view is also possible. Logically the same as the currently accepted view.
The current viewpoint is in what I call an X space.
Plus infinity to minus infinity in all directions.
How about a 1/x space instead as a viewpoint.
In that case the (c2 v2) term attached to M in the conventional view on the RHS becomes instead a F/(c2 v2) on the LHS
That term now lies with Maxwell’s equations rather than Newton’s which does seem more logical
Still the same mathematical outcome though.
Indistinguishable from the current view by maths or experiment.
A very very different viewpoint That is still logically the same space.
There appears at first glance no way to prove or disprove this state of affairs.
1/gamma = (1 – v^2 / c^2)^(1/2)
F/gamma = ma
Law ii(a)
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/mean:12/mean:36/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1965/mean:12/mean:36/scale:0.15/plot/rss/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1979/scale:0.15/trend/plot/rss/from:2013/mean:4/plot/jisao-pdo/from:2013/scale:0.15/mean:4" rel="nofollow">I would say I agree with you.</a> For the period, RSS appears to have been boosted by the positive ramp up phase of the PDO, and depressed by the ramp-down phase of the PDO. As reinforcement, in the current ramp-up phase of the PDO, RSS appears poised to respond accordingly - up, up and through the clouds.
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by ordvic
Does anyone know is this a hoax?
↧
Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by ristvan
Brentns1, I think Gen 3 now or Gen4 research/pilots now and Gen 4 later is one of the crucial energy policy questions that is not being addressed properly. Multibillions are being thrown at almost certainly guaranteed not to work fusion (US example, NIF), very little on gen 4 fission. Covered the issues in essay Going Nuclear.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
