Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review – science edition by RichardLH

0
0

If you pardon me that was not the question. You can assign 0,0 as your weighting term if you like. That’s all CO2. You can assign 1,0 also, that’s a vote for all 60 year cycle and no CO2.. You can pitch it somewhere in the middle and make the current OLS trend nonsense. So chose. Now for a sneak peak at the year ahead. Put your stake down and get your excuses ready. On your marks, set, go


Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by erikemagnuson

0
0

Peter, a minor quibble about your point 2.1, on France having a 75% nuclear generation. As with Germany, France has several neighboring countries to share load and generation. My understanding that the French have implemented some load following, but there’s a limit due to Xenon poisoning. Otherwise I am in agreement with the points you brought up.

One potential advantage with the molten salt reactors is that load following should be easier as the Xenon would be removed from the fuel in a relatively short time. Similarly, fast reactors would also have the same advantage as the Xenon resonance absorption peak is slightly above thermal.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by RichardLH

0
0

Mods: Optional. If you think it is too much of an attack, just delete. Playbook price keeps going down and down
—-
“…The longer it takes to answer a simple question, the more I worry. If I ask a guy if it’s raining outside, and he starts to tell me about cloud formations, I know we’ve got an issue.”

— Ron Kaplan, CEO of of Trex in an interview with Adam Bryant of The New York Times

Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by jeffnsails850

0
0

“Doable. I’m referring to some level of give an take. Yes, it’s a foreign concept in today’s world but allowing for some level of renewables foregoing the efficiencies in order to gain a greater level of penetration of that which (IMO) provides for the ‘greater good’ is acceptable.”

It’s “doable” to require that 5% of your trip from Australia to France be conducted by kayak. It could even be described as a “give and take” with those who insist that you swim and walk the whole way. But to the person who needs to get from Australia to France it’s flat out loony tunes. And that’s the point- we need a good understanding of what’s nuts and what’s not nuts. Based on that you move forward regardless of how “doable” the nuts idea is. If a properly designed nuclear plant provides 110% of the power you need 24/7/365, what’s the purpose of erecting dozens of windmills to spin pointlessly at some arbitrary percentage of capacity?
Your best argument is to keep studying whether wind and solar are nuts. No offense to PE or the other engineers, but theirs can be a very logical rather than aspirational train of thought. For instance, a perfectly good engineer would tell you that a rotary dial phone tied to a land line is “all you need,” more practical given the existing infrastructure, and more reliable and secure than wireless. A more aspirational engineer will give you the iPhone because they know you want one.

Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by aplanningengineer

Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by Curious George

0
0

Slightly off topic, but beautiful.

Solar, wind laws generate $7.4 billion.
By Alex Nussbaum, Bloomberg News

Rules to promote wind and solar power generated $7.4 billion in environmental and health benefits in 2013, according to a U.S. government study. …

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joel Williams

0
0

Considering the “scatter” in the values about the polynomial trend (plot below), it seems that one will have a tough time evaluating any of this (warming or cooling) in anything less than 30-year increments. Assuming we might be midway through an upper bound (I believe that JCH would have it be a “possible” inflection before the great demon rises from the Pacific) to scorch the earth, 2030 (15-years from now) looks like the next real point of determining just what is happening – not this or next year. Looks to me like too many are focusing on 1-5-year outlooks (4-years for congress!) with ups or downs cited to fit their position.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH

0
0

Except… I have the perfectly congruent behavior during the ramps and ramp down of the PDO from 1910 to 1985. It’s a complex, nonlinear system, so you have to watch out for those short periods because, with the ramp ups of the PDO, you still have Babe Ruth swingin’ the lumber: with the ramp down, it’s now Eddie Joost.


Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by omanuel

0
0

You are right, scotts4sf.
1. The nuclear signature of an EMP would be recognized immediately.
2. Fallout and residual products would eventually distinguish the source
_ a.) The Sun, or
_ b.) A nuclear attack

The question is whether government leaders would wait for the results from #2 before launching a counter attack?

Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by ristvan

0
0

Watched enough to know it is the internet equivalent of a penny stock boiler shop. The idea of using CVD to make pure silicon was abandoned long ago on cost grounds. And solar cells must use doped silicon to create the PN ‘diode’ junction. “If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is”.

Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by ordvic

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joel Williams

0
0

Wow, JCH you had 2 ‘osts’ to choose from! So remarkably similar.

Eddie Yost (1926-2012) Senators/Tigers/Angels (the one I remember more)
Career: 139 HR, .254 BA, 682 RBI, 3B, AllStar (The Walking Man)

Eddie Joost (1916-2011) Athletics/Reds/Braves/RedSox
Career: 134 HR, .239 BA, 601 RBI, SS/2B/3B, 2xAllStar

Babe Ruth (1895-1948)
1915-1934: 0.336 BA (stdev = 0.036); not quite a 30-year cycle!

Your batting analogy is interesting, but Babe Ruth was more consistent (in baseball terms!) than your venerable Pacific, which is neither a Ruth nor an ‘ost”, but much the “Natural Cycle”. Unfortunately, you do not give any credence to anything else. Too bad. Many would take you more serious and being objective, if you did not “spout” off on all the problems are CO2 and voicing the same stance all the time without some consideration of cosmic forces and their impact. Otherwise, I enjoy your inputs. I guess I like to take a more open view of matters than you apparently do.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joel Williams

0
0

JCH, my response below in the wrong “nesting”

Judith, note the “nesting” problem, again! Looking forward to your addressing it in a posting this weekend.

Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by scotts4sf

0
0

A very big number multiplied by a very small number can give any number desired depending on the assumptions.
Scott

Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler

0
0
JCH:: <i> As reinforcement, in the current ramp-up phase of the PDO, RSS appears poised to respond accordingly – up, up and through the clouds.</i> Is that approaching a quantitative prediction? Would you say that you expect a 0.3C increase in global mean temperature between now and 2030? more or less?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joel Williams

0
0

MM, I would not consider “through the clouds” as being a 0.3C increase by 2030. 0.30C*10/15=0.2/decade. Surely, that is what he and other “climaterati” are considering a low value. Might want him to commit to a high value like 0.45-0.5C/decade by 2030; that’s 3C+/century.

Comment on Climate models and precautionary measures by Precautionary measures |…and Then There's Physics

0
0

[…] you can probably imagine, Judith Curry doesn’t really agree with Nassim Taleb and co-authors’ conclusions, even though she likes his writing on risk. This appears to be because Judith doesn’t see […]

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joel Williams

0
0

At least as high as 0.45C/decade, but even higher is what “I” consider “going through the clouds”! Any others wanting to pipe in?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Joel Williams

0
0

Dang this nesting. My post should go in the next nest. For MM and others.

Comment on Renewables and grid reliability by Curious George

0
0

Thou lookest, thou findest, thou deceivest.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images