Here, in sunny (but windless) Israel, peak electricity demand is on summer workdays, in the afternoon, when all factories, businesses and offices use lots of air conditioning. At this time, the sun shines, regularly and reliably. It makes sense (maybe even economic sense) to use solar PV. But these peak hours are just about 300 hours, out of the total 1800 hours a year that solar panels produce power. Yet, to make the panels profitable, you need to pay them top rate for the whole 1800 hours.
The fact that they are useful for short intervals of time doesn’t yet justify their installation.
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by jacobress
↧
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Roger Pelizzari
Judith, no need to keep abandoning science for a right-leaning political ideology. Most of us know the facts by now.
Give a listen to Peter Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a former lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the co-author of a recent study on climate science and policy—
“The ocean is absorbing much of the excess heat from human emissions. If the model Curry and colleagues discussed had incorporated the latest ocean heat content data, their relatively low best estimate for climate sensitivity would have been more in line with previously reported, higher estimates.
“It would be a mistake to set policy based solely on low estimates. That’s why we have advisory bodies like the IPCC and National Climate Assessment that examine all the available science, including higher estimates. The risks of far greater climate sensitivity can’t simply be discounted or dismissed.
“The bottom line is that we know enough about where we’re heading to reduce emissions even as scientists grapple with homing in on precisely how much the Earth is expected to warm.
“It’s also worth pointing out that current emissions are currently on track to be higher than any of the scenarios the IPCC examined. Further, the path we are on does not take into account the amplification of carbon release to the atmosphere from Arctic permafrost that is likely to dramatically accelerate over the next decades.
“It would be great if climate sensitivity were as low as Curry thinks it is. But we can’t base climate policy on wishful thinking. Using arguments about low climate sensitivity to delay action is like refusing to treat a patient because you can’t tell if their fever is 103 or 104 degrees. The risks are clear, even if we’re still figuring out just how big they are.”
For more on the subject see RealClimate’s in-depth examination of Curry’s recent research and the Scientific American piece from Dr. Michael Mann.
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by jacobress
There are thousands of enterprises who use much energy and pay many millions of dollars in electricity bills, per year. They could install solar panels for self-use, just to reduce their power bill, without the need to use grid services to feed “excess” power into the grid. They would be saving money at the consumer price of electricity (not the lower wholesale price). They would need no permits, be subject to no regulation.
There are no such installations. It doesn’t work, economically.
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
What does Peter Frumhoff consider to be the latest OHC data? I believe the “latest” is about a month old and has the ocean energy imbalance estimated at less than 0.4 Wm-2.
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Peter Lang
Planning Engineer,
Yes. I agree. Carbon pricing is preferable to mandated targets.
Correction to my previous comment. Your question was not hypothetical. There are many cases where countries and regions have decided to cut emissions (of something) and used pricing mechanisms. Examples are: fuel taxes, the US SO2 emissions trading scheme, and of course, the EU and Australian GHG emissions trading schemes (ETS) and Chicago Carbon Exchange (now defunct). (Australia has repealed its ETS after just 3 years in operation.)
However, in most of these cases, they clearly deliver benefits. But as my post argues, pricing of GHG emissions cannot deliver benefits at acceptable costs unless it is global and there is high participation. Therefore, it will not be politically sustainable. There is a better way, I believe. More to come. Watch this space …
The solar energy has stopped over here, so I am going to bed to save some CO2 emissions from our coal power stations. :)
↧
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Mi Cro
Roger Pelizzari commented
A bunch of worthless drivel Roger. They are not just a little wrong, they are a lot wrong.
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by AK
@David L. Hagen | <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/22/myths-and-realities-of-renewable-energy/#comment-640256" rel="nofollow">October 22, 2014 at 7:17 pm</a><blockquote>AK,
Please quantify “Methanogens do it with very good efficiency”. Hopefully that could show commercial competitiveness!</blockquote>According to the thesis you linked, methane has a <i>"high heat of combustion (56 MJ kg-1, 28 MJ m-3 at STP)"</i> (in air/oxygen), which works out to about about 900 KJ/mole (56MJ/Kg divided by 62.5 moles/Kg = 0.896). When I <a href="http://artksthoughts.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-methane-game.html" rel="nofollow">researched the reaction</a>, I discovered:<blockquote>4H2 + CO2 → CH4 + 2H2O with an energy yield of "−131 kJ (per mole of CH4)"[3]</blockquote>(Ref 3 copied at bottom of post, paywalled now.)
This works out to a roughly 85% efficiency (14.62% lost energy), which compares very well with the typical <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle" rel="nofollow">60% efficiency</a> for combined cycle gas turbine. Combining these offers a rough energy efficiency of 50% from H2 to grid-ready energy. (Wiki offers 50-80% for energy efficiency of electrolysis, link not included here.)
3. Physiology, Ecology, Phylogeny, and Genomics of Microorganisms Capable of Syntrophic Metabolism by Michael J. McInerney, Christopher G. Struchtemeyer, Jessica Sieber, Housna Mouttaki, Alfons J. M. Stams, Bernhard Schink, Lars Rohlin, Robert P. Gunsalus <i>Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences</i> (2008) DOI: 10.1196/annals.1419.005 Paywalled.
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by miker613
Roger, is there some reason why you think that quoting one scientist’s op-ed refutes another scientist’s op-ed? Just that you like the second one better? Why do you think that should influence anyone else?
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by popesclimatetheory
warm, thawed oceans do provide more moisture for snowfall.
warmer does mean more snowfall. more snowfall does lead to colder
warm times have more snowfall and colder follows.
colder times have less snowfall and warmer follows.
The Little Ice Age followed after years of more snowfall during the Medieval Warm Period. We are warm now and the more snow is falling.
↧
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by AK
@David L. Hagen…
I have a comment in moderation (despite removing a link) answering your request for quantification.
Meanwhile, I note that the paper you link says, in its abstract:
The results presented here suggest that mixed cultures are able to accept electrons directly for methane formation and indirectly via the intermediates H2 and acetate at a cathode potential of -0.7V. At this cathode potential, methane was produced at production rates up to 7.6 ml CH4/L reactor per day with cathodic electron efficiencies that reached up to 99%.
I suppose the difference between current results and theoretical can produce such discrepancies.
Note, too, that the process studied involved direct electricity to methane conversion. I’ve been looking at using hydrogen already produced by electrolysis.
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by curryja
I would appreciate if you can link to anything publications that Frumhoff has related to climate change detection and attribution. I’ve looked – I find none. He is an ecologist. Further he works for an advocacy group, which makes me more inclined not to take what he says at face value.
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by RiHo08
ordvic
In crude terms you are correct; i.e., that in 1900 all men did not dropped over at age 45 years.. And yes, there were old Romans, yet the life expectancy for those times was around 25 years.
If we look at the US in 1900 again, the numbers roughly are: 40% infant mortality; i.e. death in the first year of life. Of those who survived beyond infancy, 20% death for those <5 years of age. And of those survivors 1/3 died before age 30. One ends up with life expectancy of 45 years for men and 48 years for women.
There are regions of the world today where the life expectancy is about 45 years. Those people need a modern source of energy;i.e. electricity for cooking that will change dramatically their life expectancy, quality of life, and have a positive impact upon the environment; i.e., no more chopping down rain forests to make charcoal to sell to mostly women who walk to buy the charcoal to cook for multiple hours their one meal a day.
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Wagathon
Now we see the myth:
<blockquote>They [the computer models] created an illusion of possible resolution, with the claim that the only limit was computer size and power. ~Dr. Tim Ball</blockquote>
↧
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by kim
Frumhoff holds the thermometer bulb over a flame of hot GCMs.
=============================
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Joshua
==> “There are regions of the world today where the life expectancy is about 45 years. Those people need a modern source of energy;i.e. electricity for cooking that will change dramatically their life expectancy, quality of life, and have a positive impact upon the environment;”
If the goal is dramatically increasing life expectancy, than focusing on reducing infant mortality rates, specifically, would produce the greatest returns. It is good to see that in this discussion of what increased life expectancy in the U.S., someone finally mentions the most significant factor (albeit, indirectly).
That isn’t to say that increasing energy access wouldn’t improve infant mortality rates – so the two issues aren’t mutually exclusive, but as always, the simplistic reductionism so often seen in these threads of fossil fuels = long life and an end to poverty and the associated alternative energy = billions dying and starving is, well, simplistic reductionism.
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Joshua
kim –
A gift for you – assuming that you have the humility to laugh at your own inane arguments:
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/uebndp/abandoned-wmds-in-iraq
↧
Comment on Ethics of communicating scientific uncertainty by .Physicist.
I will, and I’ll take on Judith. Water vapour cools – temperature data proves it. But the IPCC wants you to be gullible enough to believe that a mean of less than 2% water vapour raises the surface temperature about 30 degrees. So 4% in a rain forest raises it 60 degrees does it? But 1% in a desert raises it 15 degrees does it?
↧
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by kim
It’s all good, J.; the New York Times has found WMD in Iraq. Joe Wilson, in a Feb. 6, 2003 Op-Ed in the LA times, warned us not to invade Iraq for fear that Saddam would use WMD on our troops. Yeah, that Joe Wilson, bumbling envoy to Niger.
===============
↧
Comment on Myths and realities of renewable energy by Wagathon
Modern self-proclaimed climate scientists (the IPCC and the supposed consensus of official government-funded Western scientists) — with their fixation on the twin myths of single-mechanism causation and uniformitarianism — have turned the information age into the regression age.
↧
Comment on My WSJ op-ed: Global warming statistical meltdown by Joshua
Be sure to watch the interview with Chivers, also.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
