Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand

$
0
0

Rob Ellison: “Nor does he understand the Hamiltonian – which is a vector field defining a flow on the symplectic manifold. How’s that for jargon?”

I’m very impressed. Maybe it’s my lack of knowledge of symplectic geometry that prevents me from understanding your claim that a free falling projectile has the same kinetic energy at a given level, both on the way up and down, only if this level is the mid-point of the full vertical trajectory.

Does it also have something to do with your unique understanding of the alleged fact an adiabatically expanding rising parcel of air in the atmosphere has a reduced “average kinetic energy” (whatever that is) but the same total kinetic energy?


Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Wagathon

$
0
0

A Motor Trend review recently that looked at the realistic range obtainable in a Tesla. A 528i chase car allowed for somewhat of a real world but still an apples to oranges comparison. The trip was 238 miles which was about the full extent of the Tesla’s juice—i.e., 78.2 kWh.

Unfortunately, MT erroneously compared the Tesla’s performance to the gallons of fuel used by the 528i on the trip —i.e., MT compared the 528’s mpg to the amount of energy in 2.32 gallons for the Tesla. Needless to say, iMT did not bother to consider the amount of energy that is required in the real world to generate the 78.2 kWh of electricity needed to charge the Tesla’s batteries.

For example, a diesel generator can produce around 3.2 kWh /liter of fuel. So, the 78.2 kWh that the Tesla used in the MT comparo to go 238 miles would have required 24.4375L or 6.46 gallons of diesel fuel to produce. Losses to transmit electricity over the grid is 5-7% which when factored in to the calculation results in 6.78 to 6.91 gallons of diesel for the Tesla’s 238 miles… not, 2.32 gallons.

The BMW 528i, managed 30.1 mpg; however, it uses gasoline not diesel so that requires an adjustment. But, using the 6.78-6.91 gallons of gas (not diesel fuel) the 528i would have gone about 204 to 207 (not 238 so a little less); however, if the 528i had been a diesel it would have gone a lot further on the same amount of diesel fuel –e.g., instead of the 528i’s 30.1 mpg, the Mercedes E250 BlueTEC comes in at 28 city and 42 highway. The combined mpg is somewhere in-between.

In one E250 BTC review the results were as follows: “by the end of our five days with the E250 BlueTec, we’d averaged an indicated 40.6-mpg over 595 miles. At that time, the instrument display was still showing a remaining range of 235 miles—so from the 21.1-gallon tank a total driving range of more than 800 miles would be within a real-world (non-hypermiling) reality.”

Accordingly, using the 40.6 combined mpg of the E250 BTC puts the mileage at 275 – 277 miles (not just 238 miles) on 6.78 – 6.91 gallons of diesel fuel (and, the E could be driven over 500 additional miles without having to refuel).

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Political Junkie

$
0
0

Good read!

My favourite (yes, we spell it that way!) myth is the amount of solar generation in Germany. One frequently sees in print that ‘Germany gets over 50% of its energy from solar.’ This did happen – ONCE for ONE hour on a holiday.

The annual average is about 7% and during the totally predictable peak demand at supper hour in the winter solar, equally predictably, provides ZERO.

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Hal

$
0
0

Planning Engineer—Any thoughts on energy storage? Gildemeister’s CellCube can provide up to 14 hours of power, level load, reliable etc.

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Planning Engineer

$
0
0

Joshua I have not. I would say my use of the word “ridiculously” high referred to magnitude of the number imposed being so large that it would not be credible for any policy initiatives. I would suppose such a valuation would stop our use of automobiles and extend to many other areas as well.

I’m out of my area here and just discussing this with you person to person. The enormous geo-political and financial resources that were expanded in the past- I would call a sunk cost. Sunk costs apply to either renewable or conventional futures. Changing to renewables won’t undo what has been done. Since we have technology and resources for domestic natural gas I would hope that “investments” associated with geo-political and other financial resources would be minimal.

As for my position on the variety of “negative externalities”, please re-read my opening sentence. I leave someone else to weigh in there with expertise not emotion. Hopefully such examinations will not only include the externalities of conventional technology but also renewable resources. My un-expert suspicion is that the “negative externality” information we get is highly skewed as well.

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by brent

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Planning Engineer

$
0
0

Pumped storage hydro push water uphill at night when energy is cheaper, so it can flow down during the peak (expensive) times during the day. These facilities use a spinning generator and can be very helpful not only in providing MWs of power but also they support the system (with inertia, frequency control, vars, etc). In many places these are economic good additions, in other places not so much.

Batteries can help a lot in integrating intermittent resources (resources that provide power when the sun shines or wind blows) by smoothing their output so it’s not jagged and that it a great thing because that stops your generators from having to swing back and forth to adjust. Like the renewable resources they themselves don’t support the system with inertia, frequency control, vars, etc. unless additional equipment supplements their operation.

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by GaryW

$
0
0

I just can’t seem to proof read my own writing: The sentence should read “the people of California DO NOT need to pay for and ‘excellent’ power system when all that is needed is a ‘good’ one”


Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by Pierre-Normand

$
0
0

And I had forgotten another gem: “Temperature is the result both of the average kinetic energy of the molecules and the number of molecules hitting a surface.”

Another probable consequence of Hamiltonian-Ellisonian symplectic statistical-mechanics.

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Wagathon

$
0
0
Myth: the supposed efficiency of a Tesla (which is heavily subsidized in California where fully half of these cars are sold) or that it uses some kind of special battery technology (they're relatively inexpensive laptop computer batteries). Consumer Reports said from the beginning that the Tesla's did and a big idea in the electric car arena: add more batteries. Marketing articles have talked about the genius of the founder has more to do with seeing an untapped niche of potential enthusiasts. Analysis: | <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/21/ethics-of-communicating-scientific-uncertainty/#comment-639974" rel="nofollow"> October 22, 2014 at 10:29 am</a> | Interestingly, Mercedes in a surprise sale yesterday evening, sold its 4% stake in Tesla for $780M

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Michael

$
0
0

“Ignoring C02 emission issues, there is no question….” PE

Well yes, ignoring the question, there is no question.

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Rud Istvan

$
0
0

Nice, clear essay. One of the things that is irksome is that the EIA’ s own estimates of levelized cost of wind and solar expressly DO NOt include the consequences of intermittancy, hence omit the cost of necessary provision of equivalent dispatchable backup generation. If the proportion of intermittant renewables is small, that backup can be just the normal grid reserve margin. (depending on interconnections.) But as renewables grow, it must be expressly provided–but not by the wind farms, rather by the utilities forced to take the power at some feedin tarrif.
That is a huge further hiden subsidy on top of the official ones.

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Fernando Leanme

$
0
0

This is Earth, Jacob. Here we read the following

“Israel has laid out targets for 5% of energy from renewable sources by 2014, and 10% by 2020, the latter translating to roughly 2.7 GW of installed capacity. (The EU’s own goal is 20% by 2020.) Right now renewables account for less than 1% of Israel’s energy mix, and Israel’s solar capacity as of last fall was just over 200 MW so there’s a long way to go to meet 2015 goals.”

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/03/scaling-up-solar-in-israel

I decided to do a quick search using “Israel solar power” because I knewthe 20 % you stated is nearly impossible to achieve. This is more so when we consider that Israel has offshore natural gas in large quantities. Their money will likely be spent first trying to develop a strategic natural gas storage facility rather. Than solar panels.

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Fernando Leanme

$
0
0

Most energy isn’t spent driving or flying for leisure. Nor are energy costs the majority of the costs for most activities. Let’s take this to an extreme: do you think that if my electricity bill dropped from €100 per month to €10 per month due to a magic increase in efficiency i would use TEN TIMES the electricity? This is an extreme example, but it does help us understand you are using a poorly supported generalization.

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Fernando Leanme

$
0
0

Danny, relying on “potential resources” isn’t wise because this requires we assume unsupported asumptions about our internal costs, technology,, market prices, and the tax environment. Nor can we reasonably prepare solid plans assuming a yet to be defined technology with unknown internal costs and undefined enviromental impacts (fried birds, excessive noise are examples).

Don’t forget the EU stated they wanted 20 % renewables in a few years…the economy is shot to hell, there’s high unemployment, we see the rise of radical parties on the left and the right, and yet they insist on a course which destroys the economy even more?


Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Planning Engineer

$
0
0

Peter Lang – I suspect you have a much better grasp of the realities of carbon markets than I do. You might be correct and have considerable reasons and evidence to believe that they will not work in practice. I have no reason or evidence to believe that they would work. I just know they have the potential to be useful. IF they did work, they would be something planners could use to successfully differentiate between various supply alternatives and make more optimal/defendable choices. If however carbon markets can not send reasonable price/environmental signals – then I’m in your camp. I will look for more information on the subject.

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Fernando Leanme

$
0
0

Tom, they made a core assumption that renewables could be 25 to 30 % of the total…and how much of that was hydropower? I ask because I see many articles and comments which either use unsupported asumptions or blend in hydro while advocating massive solar and wind.

I’d rather go by the Israeli goal to eventually achieve 10 % penetration. That sure sounds more achievable. If a new storage technology evolves this fraction can increase. Which leaves us with two long term choices: nuclear power or living in Naomi Klein’s communist bliss in a prefab apartment with a single light bulb.

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Peter Lang

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by ordvic

Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by jacobress

$
0
0

“My problem is that so many people are assuming that things won’t change in 2-3 decades.”

The problem is that many want, and do, spend hundreds of billions of $ right now, hoping for technologies that don’t exist now (storage) and will exist, maybe, in 2-3 decades (and maybe not).
It makes no sense to invest enormous $ in wind and solar until the complementing storage technology is available.

Viewing all 148687 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images