Clean Energy

Puerto Rico, now's your chance!

gregladen — Thu, 05 Oct 2017 07:06:25 +0000

Puerto Rico, now's your chance!

Puerto Rico can become the first significant size polity to rebuild itself from the ground up to be totally Carbon free. Or at least, that seems like a good idea. If only the US Government wasn't so anti-Puerto Rico, owing to the president being, well, Trump.

Anyway, there is now a pile of money and effort pouring int Puerto Rico and this can be used in part to give Puerto Rico sigificantly more economic and energy security in its future, if only energy-smart decisions are made now. So let's see what Get Energy Smart Now blog has to say about this!

Puerto Rico’s electricity system, prior to Maria, heavily relied on centralized diesel power generation with above-ground power transmission: very high cost electricity, dependent on continued fossil-fuel imports, with great vulnerability to disruption.

Post disaster, thoughtful policy and efforts would seek to maximize value in the Disaster 4R chain: relief, recovery, reconstruction, and resiliency against future impacts.

Rapid deployment/installation of solar-power centered micro-grids to Puerto Rico is a clear example of a Disaster 4R.

Here are some rapid thoughts as to such a Solar Disaster 4R package.

Go HERE to see the bullet pointed suggestions which could ultimately lead Puerto Rico into the next era of energy planning and development. As noted in the bullet points of the post, the success and validity of any such overhaul is based on it coming from the Puerto Rican society, economy, and local population.

gregladen Thu, 10/05/2017 - 03:06

Tags

Green Energy

Clean Energy

puerto rico

An article on Reuters pointed out how a farm on Puerto Rico is back in business because of a $300,000 investment in solar PV six years ago:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-puertorico-solar/how-solar-energ…

I believe that a certain amount of Puerto Rico's water supply is covered by solar as well, with plans to expand that.

https://electrek.co/2017/10/05/elon-musk-tesla-rebuild-puerto-ricos-pow…

Musk wants in

They should build a passively cooled nuclear power plant, to provide baseload power when it is dark and not windy.

They could install tens of thousands of solar PV and battery backup systems for the $10 billion it would cost to build a nuclear power plant and they wouldn't have to have backup for when the nuclear plant is down for maintenance.

And on top of that Puerto Rico's problem is far more with the distribution system than it is with the power generation. Distributed solar would be far more resilient than a single large power plant.

Don't mistake rickA for someone who understands a rational argument.

I've been around here for a while so I'm familiar with the usual suspects. I wasn't really talking to him. I'm not against nuclear just because it's nuclear. But in today's world it has to be one of the most expensive ways to produce power and they haven't solved the waste disposal problem yet.

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

gregladen — Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:47:08 +0000

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Sorry for the inconvenience, this post has been moved HERE.

gregladen Wed, 10/04/2017 - 04:47

Tags

States Can Lead the Way on Climate Change

gregladen — Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:03:50 +0000

States Can Lead the Way on Climate Change

True that. In the US, energy policy and regulation happens much more at the state level than the federal level, and our federal government went belly up last January anyway. Some states will not lead, they will go backwards, but others will lead, and show the way.

So, here I want to highlight this new item in Scientific American by Rebecca Otto.

States Can Lead the Way on Climate Change
The Trump administration's threats to abandon Obama's Clean Power Plan and exit the Paris accords don't necessarily mean all is lost

The word “corporation” does not appear in our Constitution or Bill of Rights. But as Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse notes in his book Captured, corporations had already grown so powerful by 1816 that Thomas Jefferson urged Americans to “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Today the conflict between the unfettered greed of unregulated capitalism and the right of the people to regulate industry with self-governance has reached extreme proportions. Corporations now have more power than many nations and feel justified in manipulating democracy to improve their bottom lines instead of the common good.
Nowhere is this problem more pronounced than...

Then where? THEN WHERE??? Go read the original piece!

gregladen Wed, 09/27/2017 - 09:03

Tags

Indeed, and we the States MUST tale up the ball and run with it. My state, CA, is doing quite a bit as you know, but we could be doing more. The power of those who wish to frack out every last drop of oil is strong here in CA, and the tax revenues and campaign donations from that industry are not lost on Sac politicians.

Those darn corporations.

If only state law hadn't created them and gave them the right to own personal property.

Why if it wasn't for ExxonMobile, and their climate denial advertising, nobody would even buy gasoline for their car!

Rebecca Otto's Clean Energy Plan for Minnesota

gregladen — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:31:35 +0000

Rebecca Otto's Clean Energy Plan for Minnesota

Earlier today, Minnesota Gubernatorial candidate Rebecca Otto released her energy transition plan. It an ambitious plan that puts together several elements widely considered necessary to make any such plan work, then puts them on steroids to make it work faster. To my knowledge, this is the first major plan to be proposed since the recent dual revelations that a) the world is going to have to act faster than we had previously assumed* and b) the US Federal government will not be helping.

Here's the elevator speech version: Minnesota residents get around five thousand dollars cash (over several years), monetary incentives to upgrade all their energy using devices from furnaces to cars, some 80,000 new, high paying jobs, and in the end, the state is essentially fossil fuel free.

About half of that fossil fuel free goal comes directly from the plan itself, the other half from the economy and markets passing various tipping points that this plan will hasten. The time scale for the plan is roughly 10 years, but giving the plan a careful reading I suspect some goals will be reached much more quickly. This means that once the plan takes off, Minnesotans will have an incentive to hold their elected officials accountable for holding the course for at least a decade.

The central theme of the plan is to use a revenue-neutral carbon price, which is widely seen by experts as the best approach for cleaning up our energy supply. The simple version of the carbon price works like this: Releasing carbon is saddled with a cost, way up (or early) in the supply chain. So you don't pay a gas tax or any kind of energy tax, but somewhere up the line the big players are being charged for producing energy reliant on the release of fossil carbon. They, of course, have the option of producing electricity from wind and solar.

The campaign notes, "Rebecca's Minnesota-Powered Plan doesn't raise taxes a single penny. It levies a carbon price on fossil fuel companies, and pays 100% of the revenue back to Minnesota residents, so we can take charge of our own energy."

That money is then distributed to any citizen who wants it (of course they will all want it), evenly, across the board. So, in theory, your cost of living is a little higher if dirty energy producers are in your own personal supply chain, but lower if they are not, and in any event, you are paid off to not care. The point is, if you personally eschew fossil carbon releasing products or energy sources, you get the payoff and someone else is paying for it. That would apply to both individuals and companies, because companies can often make those choices. For example, a school bus company would be more likely to replace an old dirty bus with an electric bus rather than a propane bus. (Just yesterday, an electric bus set a record, going over 1,000 miles on a single charge! Electricity is some pretty powerful magic.)

The Otto plan has a twist. While 75% of the carbon price is distributed evenly and directly to all citizens, 25% is distributed as refundable tax credits intended to cover 30% of the cost of clean energy improvements that use Minnesota companies. This may include solar panels, heat pumps for heating and cooling, insulation, new lighting, etc. New or used electric cars count. So it all goes back to the people, but some of it is directed to support the energy transition for individuals and families.

(A "refundable credit" is a tax credit that you still get even if you did not pay enough taxes to use it, so people of any income will be able to access the clean energy benefits.)

The conservatively estimated potential cash gain for a typical Minnesota family is laid out in this table from the Otto campaign:

That is for one year. As the plan matures, a decade down the line, we can assume the carbon price component will diminish, but the household payback for being off fossil fuels will increase, and, guess what? The plant gets to live and your children don't have to live in as much of a dystopian future!

The clean energy technologies that will need to be deployed mostly already exist, and most of them can be processed and supplied right here in Minnesota. Indeed installing PV panels and car chargers, or efficient heat pump based furnaces, etc. is the kind of job that can not be outsourced to some other country, because your house is here so the work gets done here! It is estimated that some 80,000 long term high paying jobs will be generated from this infrastructure redo. That will in turn increase revenues to the state and quite likely, will spell surpluses, some of which are likely to be tax rebates or other sorts of payoffs to the citizens of the state.

A quick word about the Coal-Car Myth. Some will read about this plan and say, "yeah, but ... if I drive an electric car and stuff, that electricity is even worser because it is made with dirty coal and stuff." (Yes, I make the Coal-Car Mythers sound a bit dull because, at this point, you'd have to be a bit dull to still be thinking this). First, know this: There are circumstances under which burning coal to make electricity to charge a car will be more efficient than running a gasoline car. To conceptualize this, imagine two engineering teams in a competition. One is to make an energy plant using coal, the other is to use an energy plant using only 6 cylinder Ford motors. The winner builds the plant that is more efficient. The team using the thousands of internal combustion engines will lose. Second, know this: It is simply not the case that all of our electricity comes from coal, and every week there is less and less of it coming from coal. Electric cars have the promise, by the way, of outlasting internal combustion cars on average. So, over perhaps half the lifespan of a given electric car, what might have been a tiny increase in efficiency for a small number of electric cars (the rest start out way more than tiny) will become a great efficiency. It is time to switch to electric cars in Minnesota.

You can expect opposition to this plan from the likes of the Koch brothers, who are currently spending just shy of a billion dollars a year, that we know of, to keep fossil fuel systems on line and stop the clean energy transition. I asked Rebecca Otto what she expected in terms of push back. She told me, "Investing in clean energy means investing in our communities and taking charge of our own energy, instead of subsidizing big oil. Hence, big oil will be the stumbling block, as this will affect their bottom line over time."

I asked Rebecca why this is something that needs to be handled by the states, rather than at the national level. She told me, "The crippling dysfunction in Washington is persistent and we need to act now. Oil companies are spending billions of dollars to rig the system against clean energy solutions. We need to break their stranglehold on our democracy and put people, not oil companies back in charge."

She also noted that "we also have a moral imperative to do something and the federal government has become paralyzed by big oil propaganda and political spending. The states could become laboratories to begin to tackle climate change. And whoever does is going to reap the economic benefits from the job creation. These jobs pay 42% higher than the state’s average wage."

Economists say the carbon price is the best way to make the energy transition happen. Regular Minnesotans benefit the most, the Minnesota economy benefits, and the environment benefits. This is a good plan. I endorse it.

This plan, which you should read all about here, has also been endorsed by the famous and widely respected meteorologist Paul Douglas, by Bill McKibben of 350.org, St Thomas scientist and energy expert John Abraham, and by climate scientist Michael Mann.

I've got more to say about this plan and related topics, so stay tuned.

Here's a video of Rebecca Otto discussing energy from the roof of her solar paneled home, with her windmill generating electricity in the background. Apparently, she walks the walk!

Tags

Green Energy

Clean Energy

Electric Cars

Minnesota Climate Plan

Rebecca Otto

solar

wind

A revenue neutral tax plan, that the average household will end up gaining money. Where are the losers?

Australia Solar Thermal Plant: Messed up reporting

gregladen — Tue, 15 Aug 2017 10:55:42 +0000

Australia Solar Thermal Plant: Messed up reporting

SolarReserve will build, for the South Australia government, a solar thermal plant rated at 150 MW, which is about 25 MW more than that government uses currently. Over time, assuming Australia goes all on clean and green, the amount of electricity used by South Australia will increase substantially, but for now, this plant will provide the extra to the regional grid.

A solar plant is a way of making the use of solar more full time. Instead of just producing electricity by sunlight, perhaps storing some in batteries, it uses sunlight to produce heat, which is then used to run a turbine all day and all night, and across periods of cloudiness (which are rare in the case of this particular plant's location).

Putting it another way, this kind of plant solves the problem that clean energy tends to be intermittent. Putting it still another way, this kind of plant reduces the need to store electricity that may be overproduced or produced irregularly by photovoltaic solar or wind plants.

But the reporting of this story sadly demonstrates counterproductive lousy anti-clean energy commentary delivered in an envelope of crap reporting (because the reporter did not understand the story enough to ask the right questions). Here is a quote from the story in The Guardian

“The significance of solar thermal generation lies in its ability to provide energy virtually on demand,” he said.

But Dr Matthew Stocks, a research fellow in the research school of engineering at the Australian National University, said solar thermal also had limits.

“One of the big challenges for solar thermal as a storage tool is that it can only store heat. If there is an excess of electricity in the system because the wind is blowing strong, it cannot efficiently use it to store electrical power to shift the energy to times of shortage, unlike batteries and pumped hydro,” he said..

No. Investing in this kind of plant is a move to reduce the problem of storage.

Show me an article about a new nuclear power plant, an upgrade to a coal plant, or a new natural gas plant, that mentions that these technologies are not batteries. This is nothing other than a senseless contrary opinion pulled out of the nether regions of a reporter's notebook. The search for false balance continues even at the Guardian, which really should know better.

gregladen Tue, 08/15/2017 - 06:55

Tags

Nuclear has a capacity factor of 92%, meaning almost full time. So the fact that it does not include a battery is not an urgent problem.

And thermal solar is meant to operate full time as well, so the fact that it does not include a battery is not an urgent problem. Yet, because it is not coal or nuclear, it is required to dance backwards and in high heels.

Right now, SA is generating 2155MW, 1350MW of which is coming from Wind, and 285MW from rooftop solar.
An extra 150MW of thermal solar is a step in the right direction, especially if the government thinks that a maximum of $78/MWh will cover the costs - that actually sounds incredibly cheap for solar thermal.

"Nuclear has a capacity factor of 92%"

The USA reports it as that, and only for the old designs (easy now they haven't made any new ones). DAWES gets 60%, and France ~65%. The USA is an outlier. Mostly because they don't include scheduled outages or the downtime during the summer when they stop the production to do maintenance (because it would likely fail in several placed due to not enough or cold enough cooling water, same as happens in France in summer).

So, yeah, 92% is a load of bullshit. It's closer to 60%.

"meaning almost full time"

Wrong. See above.

"So the fact that it does not include a battery is not an urgent problem."

Wrong again. When a nuke station does offline it does so unexpectedly and therefore needs sufficient backup in alternative generation.

It doesn't use batteries, it uses several complete generators standing by, some able to come up in minutes that last a couple of hours, and others that take a couple of hours to come up.

Generators are more expensive than batteries.

Wow #5:

Here is a blurb from xcel about a nuclear power plant from Minnesota:

"Prairie Island is among Xcel Energy’s lowest-cost sources of generation on a per megawatt-hour basis, and it does not produce any greenhouse gas emissions. The plant runs essentially 24 hours a day, seven days per week, except during refueling outages, which occur approximately every 18 months and last about four to six weeks."

18 months is 72 weeks.

taking six weeks of outage every 18 months means 66/72 = 91.66% uptime.

I think Robert is correct, if you round to the nearest whole number.

We should be building more nuclear in the USA.

Here's a link that shows live grid operations, including all regions of Australia. I don't see how long this thermal takes to charge up and how long it can output 150MW when the solar panels are not producing? http://data.reneweconomy.com/LiveGen

Yeah, they don't include expected outages, such as during summer or when they plan to take it down for maintenance or refuelling. You DO know they need fuel, right, dick?

Frequently they do this during the summer which is a reasonable thing to do.

But it still means it's not "almost full time". It's almost full time it's planned to be running. 8% unexpected failures.

And with new designs their figures drop to about the 60% mark that every other nuclear first world country does.

"We should be building more nuclear in the USA."

You should pay for it, then.

Don't make the taxpayer pay for it. Companies aren't paying for it, hence the closure of two planned nuke power stations in the USA.

Oh,and don't make anyone have to buy nuke power. Sign up for the nuclear power and get your bill portion of the running costs of the site (and their ROI) but people who don't sign up don't get billed for the much more expensive nuclear power.

Looks like South Australia solar capacity factor is about 22% (1900kwh/kw capacity) http://globalsolaratlas.info/

"how long it can output 150MW when the solar panels are not producing"

Pretty much 24/7. They size it for that use. Make the thermal source big enough and make extraction rates small enough and you never drop overnight.

Make the thermal source smaller (cheaper) and it won't manage longer nights.

Make the extraction rate higher (more coolant pushed through) and it will produce more power, but it won't manage longer nights.

It's sized to manage 24/7 if 24/7 operation is what it's wanted for.

"solves the problem that clean energy tends to be intermittent."

Of course the problem nuclear has is it is unresponsive or more expensive.

The problem fossil fuel plants have is they either peakers and therefore much more expensive or they're unresponsive.

All power forms have problems.

We found ways to deal with fossil fuel powers' problems. Suck up the fact of brownouts or paying more. We found a way to deal with nuke's unresponsiveness by inventing "baseload" and using nukes for that only.

We'll find (and are finding) ways around renewables' problems.

PS geothermal, tide and biomass are not intermittent. So it'snot even a problem for "renewables". It's only a problem for solar and wind, both of which are very predictably intermittent (on the order of days). Much like outages for refuelling in other power generators.

And it's as moronic to whine about "solar intermittency" when exactly as many people are calling for all power to be done by SPV alone as are calling for it all to be nuclear power alone. But you never hear anyone complaining about nuke fluffers demanding that asinine case, do you? Because renewable proponents have better arguments than that and nuke fluffers have nothing better than such stupid claims.

USA's Energy Information Administration has been reporting on monthly capacity factors since January 2015 (yearly since 2013). This one is for non-fossil. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_…
A critical metric, for anyone concerned about CO2 emissions is how many grams of CO2 are emitted per kilo-watt hour. This link contains most of Europe, interesting to compare Alberta and Ontario in Canada electricitymap.org .

They don't include the CO2 produced in getting the fuel. Since wind, solar, tide and geothermal at least have the fuel come to them for free, there's zero footprint there.

You are referring to "Life Cycle Analysis" which you can read the details about here from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The median numbers are used in the electricitymap.org https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html For example it would include the mining of iron and producing into steel that wind turbines need https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/can-you-make-a-wind-turb…

Aye, but that report is almost never repeated in claiming CO2 figures per kwh.

And please note that when you make the wind turbine, you are no longer calling it "per kwh" since when building you are not producing anything, so any CO2 produced, even a sparrow's fart, is infinite CO2 per kwh.

Hence that report is lifecycle. And rather depends on a whole slew of assumptions any of which can be disputed or wrong going forward.

But if you do per kwh, then you know it's basically when 100% of the generator is fueled 100% of the time, so you need to include CO2 per kwh of fuel. And the assertion is therefore much less open to fiddling and misrepresentation.

OK, this was where I originally tried commenting.

This guy Stocks, who is supposedly a research engineer, says:

“One of the big challenges for solar thermal as a storage tool is that it can only store heat. If there is an excess of electricity in the system because the wind is blowing strong, it cannot efficiently use it to store electrical power to shift the energy to times of shortage, unlike batteries and pumped hydro,” he said..

But actually, you could simply add a resistance heating system to such a plant, so that on a cloudy day, excess wind-generated electricity could be used to heat the existing storage fluid. That's as close to 100% efficiency as you can get.

(Obviously you work out the cost/benefit based on projections of local weather conditions, but certainly there would be locations where it could work,)

But actually, you could simply add a resistance heating system to such a plant, so that on a cloudy day, excess wind-generated electricity could be used to heat the existing storage fluid. That’s as close to 100% efficiency as you can get.

Speaking of energy storage, in South Africa we're a water stressed country, so we have a lot of dams, so we use pumped storage.
If there is a sudden drop in demand, there is still a lot of spare energy in the power plants, even if they switch some of them off. What they do to save energy is pump water up from a lower dam to a higher dam. When energy is needed again, the water in the higher dam is released and run through turbines to generate power.
Now, I know this isn't always practical or possible, but it could be adapted for solar power stations and the like.

It was done because of nuclear power, Julian. Nukes only become cheap if they run all the time. And if demand drops below "baseload" (eg. after people buy LEDs and replace their incandescents), then they have to sell the power below cost or have grid problems due to overproduction.

And hydropower was used massively to back up nukes since a single nuke was much bigger than a single other type of power station so if it went out it would do so in minutes and the only source big enough to respond that fast is hydro. It can't operate for all that long, but it only has to last long enough to bring up slower plants and execute rolling blackouts if there really isn't enough to go round.

# 17 zebra

Yes, that was my initial reaction to the Stocks quote too.

I tend to think that a combination of very large scale CSP and thermal storage with HVDC for long-distance export is going to be a big part of the energy transition.

Prediction: another Zebra and BBD goround obstructed by Wow.

Yet more meaningless whinge from a retard.

It's an ad hominem too. How many times I post has nothing to do with what others post, nor with whether the posts are valid or not.

All you do it for is to berate me and poison the well because, well, frankly, you don't think too good and can't come up with anything that survives outside your cavernously empty skull.

Cheap Books, Random Thoughts

gregladen — Fri, 09 Jun 2017 10:41:34 +0000

Cheap Books, Random Thoughts

ADDED, ANOTHER CHEAP BOOK YOU MIGHT WANT:Dune

The following random thought will eventually become a more carefully written blog post, but I want to get this out there sooner than later.

Mention electric cars, or solar panels, or any other kind of thing a person might buy and deploy to reduce their Carbon footprint.

Mention that to enough people and some wise ass will eventually come along and tell you how wrong you are. About how electric cars are worse for the environment than gas cars because bla bla bla, or how solar panels are worse for the environment than burning natural gas because of yada yada yada.

I guarantee you that in almost every case, said wise ass is either using bogus arguments they learned form the right wing propoganda machine and that they accepted uncritically, or they are working with two year old information or older.

The electric car, or electric bus, or what have you, is very often, most of the time, and in the near future, always, the better option. If you are reading this sentence and don't believe me, let me tell you now that your argument from incredulity does not impress me.

I'm particularly annoyed about the anti-electric bus argument. Electric busses already usually pay for themselves well before their lifespan is up using today's calculations, but a machine designed to run for decades is going to be in operation years after we have almost totally converted our power system over. If you are a state or school board or something an you are currently working out the next five years of planning, there is a chance you may be thinking now about buying a bus that will be in operation in the 2050s. Are you seriously thinking about buying an internal combustion vehicle for that? Are you nuts?

Anyway, that was that thought. Now, for your trouble, a book suggestion. Have you read "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold" by John Le Carré? In some ways this is Le Carré's best novel, but it is also totally different than all his other novels, in that it is short, a page turner, quick, not detailed. It is like he wrote one of his regular novels then cut out 70% of it. If you've never read Le Carré and you read this, don't expect his other novels to be the same. They are all great, but they are also denser, longer, more complex, demand more of the reader.

I mention this because right now you can get the Kindle edition of The Spy Who Came in from the Cold for $1.99. I've not read this novel in years, but I think I'm going to get this and add it to my growing collection of classics on Kindle, which I may or may not eventually read.

By the way, there was a movie.

Two other books, both sciency, both cheap in Kindle form, I've not read either one, but maybe you know of the book and are interested.

Dirt: The Ecstatic Skin of the Earth

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Saint Phocas, Darwin, and Virgil parade through this thought-provoking work, taking their place next to the dung beetle, the compost heap, dowsing, historical farming, and the microscopic biota that till the soil. Whether William Bryant Logan is traversing the far reaches of the cosmos or plowing through our planet’s crust, his delightful, elegant, and surprisingly soulful meditations greatly enrich our concept of "dirt," that substance from which we all arise and to which we all must return.

Pandora's Seed: The Unforeseen Cost of Civilization

Ten thousand years ago, our species made a radical shift in its way of life: We became farmers rather than hunter-gatherers. Although this decision propelled us into the modern world, renowned geneticist and anthropologist Spencer Wells demonstrates that such a dramatic change in lifestyle had a downside that we’re only now beginning to recognize. Growing grain crops ultimately made humans more sedentary and unhealthy and made the planet more crowded. The expanding population and the need to apportion limited resources created hierarchies and inequalities. Freedom of movement was replaced by a pressure to work that is the forebear of the anxiety millions feel today. Spencer Wells offers a hopeful prescription for altering a life to which we were always ill-suited. Pandora’s Seed is an eye-opening book for anyone fascinated by the past and concerned about the future.

gregladen Fri, 06/09/2017 - 06:41

Tags

Taxis are getting more and more electric. They're cheaper to run, which a taxi driver really likes, they are better the more stops and standing in traffic you do, which taxis have to do more often than any other form of car driver (like with busses), and they are more reliable, which for a business that relies on the car to make any money at all is quite important. The cost of the car is fairly irrelevant, so they've been ahead of the curve for years.

The future ain't what it used to be. I just feel like writing a comment here because last night I was on an eight-hour AI coding jag and now I need to relax. Is it true, or is it not true, that in the early nineteen-thirties, the American automobile industry conspired to replace the widespread electric trolley systems in American cities with fossil-fuel buses? Apparently it happened here in Seattle, and I hear it also happened in Los Angeles. And did anybody read about the "Predator in Chief" today in the Fri.9.JUN.2017 New York Times? (Hang on while I go fetch it :-)
Ah yes, on page A27 of the national edition, "James Comey and the Predator in Chief," by Nicole Serratore. Good work, Ms. Serratore!

I get a kick (well more like an urge to commit serious mayhem) when people raise the "economy" argument - as in it will ruin the economy to go green. I like to remind such people that if they believe that man made global warming climate change is real then there won't be an economy when everything is dying from numerous causes - such as no ocean phytoplankton left to create oxygen for the atmosphere, and food for everything further up the food chain (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-s-oxygen-starts-runnin…).- economics is the very last thing that should be considered, if considered at all other than to choose the best bang for buck - when it comes to climate ,mitigation. Unfortunately under our current economic systems it appears to be the first (if not only) consideration.

It's not really the economic system, it's what that system promotes in humans. Capitalism means money is power therefore those who gain capital gain power. And after a point, money is pointless, it's the power it represents that is important. So spending money is losing power.

Therefore those who are greedy gain power and use the power to satisfy higher greed.

Greed is rewarded.

This would be OK if government were allowed to act against capitalism, but since Reagan/Thatcher, this has been a tenet of faith that government MUST NEVER interfere with captialism.

It was at that point that corruption was inevitable.

The economic system would not do it, it is the political system that the economic system engendered and allowed to happen that is the problem.

Hence, as always, the projection of deniers that it's all political. It's what they do, therefore "everyone does it".

As noted many cities had trolley bus systems in the 1940s and 1950s. I recall riding them with my grandmother in Fort Wayne In, in the late 1950s. They eventually got ripped out in favor of buses, because it was easier to change/extend routes than with trolley busses, to extend you had to put new poles along the sides of the street and then string the wires. Cities were growing rapidly at the time, and the flexibility of the buses that won. (note that in a lot of cases trolleys replaced streetcars in Fort Wayne that process was started before WWII and completed afterwords).

Mentiflex, I just read "Predator In Chief"

Apparently (according to Comey's testimony), Comey is a woman and Trump was sexually harassing him/her...

Good stuff.

You've outdone yourself Mike . That's the shortest dishonest misrepresentation of the written word you've ever done

Oh, it was betula with the dishonest comment. It was the complete sentence that tricked me - it's usually not capable of them.

Reports from Denmark show that when subsidies on electric cars went away the sales went to zero, so they restored the subsidies.

Our local garbage trucks seem to have just two positions for the accelerator and brake pedals - full on and full off. I would have thought they would be an early choice for electric or hybrid power.

The sort of mathturbatory bullshit that anti-evs will go to to "prove" that we cant use them are insane. This example from slashdot:

Assume on average a 85 kWh battery pack getting a 50% supercharge. 85 kWh * 0.5 = 42.5 kWh. Real-world charging efficiency is about 80% [tesla.com], so 53.125 kWh is needed to put 42.5 kWh into the car's battery.

Assume 160 W/m^2 commercial panels. PV solar capacity factor in the desert Southwest is about 0.185. That is, over a year, a 100 Watt panel will produce the equivalent of a constant 18.5 Watts. So the 160 W/m^2 panels will produce 160 Watts * 0.185 = 29.6 Watts average over 24 hours, or 0.7104 kWh / m^2 in 24 hours.

This means to supercharge a single Telsa S requires 53.125 kWh / 0.7104 kWh/m^2 = 74.78 m^2 of solar panels.

Oh wait, you're gonna store that solar energy in a battery first? That's going to introduce more charging and discharge losses. If you figure 90% for both, that's 74.78 m^2 / (0.9*0.9) = 92.32 m^2 of solar panels needed for every car you want to supercharge that day.

How busy is a Supercharger station? Summary says 6-20 stalls per station, so say 13 average. Figure they're half occupied during day hours, empty at night. At 30 minutes to charge, that's 2 per hour per bay, or (6.5 bays occupied)*(2 vehicles per bay per hour)*(12 hours) = 156 vehicles charged per day.

So to generate enough electricity to supercharge those 156 vehicles requires (156 vehicles)*(92.32 m^2/vehicle) = 14,401 m^2 of solar panels per Supercharger station. Or approx 120m x 120m of solar panels. Or put another way, the average home solar installation is about 30 m^2. So each Supercharger station would need as many panels as 480 homes.

All seems rigorously correct, right?

Look for the hidden assumption. That every day every car has to fill up all the battery, indicating that the average US commute is 200-300 miles per day....

Ironic considering that the post was titled "Did someone do the math on this first?".

Lyle, so you're saying that people will buy on a sale?

Do we need a "News at 11" tagline here?

This may be of interest to some here: http://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/new-numbers-are-in-and-evs-are-cl…

Look for the hidden assumption. That every day every car has to fill up all the battery, indicating that the average US commute is 200-300 miles per day….

The example you posted only concludes that a supercharger station with 14,401 m^2 of solar panels per would be capable of fully charging 156 EVs a day.

That's not by any stretch of the imagination "every day every car has to fill up all the battery".

Plus it's a 50% charge, so 200-300 becomes 100-150.

How big is a supercharger station? If you have 13 stalls, that is room for quite a bit of solar panels.

"That’s not by any stretch of the imagination “every day every car has to fill up all the battery”."

Yes it is. It's right there in the assumptions. Try reading it.

"How big is a supercharger station? "

The ones Musk is designing have 20. Again it's in the assumptions there too.

Yes it is. It’s right there in the assumptions. Try reading it.

Where? I'm not seeing it, so can you quote what you are referring to?

Don't get me wrong. Given the problems with particulate emissions from ICEs I'd advocate for a shift to EVs even if CO2 wasn't a GHG.

Right there.If you can't see it there then putting it here will not work, since you're deliberately not seeing it.

Just quote the bit where it says the same as:

Look for the hidden assumption. That every day every car has to fill up all the battery,

Help me out here. I'm on day two of a celebration of the moment the Tories bit themselves in their own arse. So not making strong claims about my reading comprehension tonight.

It's already in the post. Looking there you see it. And since you claim not to, you'll claim not to see it when I post again.

Making shit up again, Wow bach.

Making bullshit claims again, I see.

Go read post #9, then read your asinine claim, dumdum. Then see where your issue lies. I know you don't know or want to know how to math, but try mathing it.

"92.32 m^2 of solar panels needed for every car you want to supercharge that day."

Quite different than every car.

I asked how big, and your answer was 20. Can you give some square meterage? If it's 20, then we need 21600 sq meters. Perhaps the superchargers is 500 sq meters then?

"Quite different than every car."

So every car they service is not every car they service????? Or that 156 is more cars than they are calculated to service in one day??

Come on, "mike", tell me in what way is it quite different from what it says it's working out?

Oh, you're talking bullshit. Got it.

Wow, you are bullshitting again.

The quote you provided presents a calculation showing how many 50% supercharges are possible per day based on

The example you posted only concludes that a supercharger station with 14,401 m^2 of solar panels per would be capable of 50% charging 156 EVs a day.

Look for the hidden assumption. That every day every car has to fill up all the battery,

So the 'fill up all the battery' claim is obviously wrong and the 'every car' claim is misleading. The calculation presents a maximum number of cars that can be 50% recharged per day given assumptions about SPV area and number of stalls. That's it.

The problem with being a paranoid nutter is that you see enemies even when none are present.

What is a good daily use number? 30 miles? Then each car would need 2900 square meters correct?

Oops, divided by 156, so 19 square meters?

BBD, stop making blatantly unsupported cries. Its pathetic.

"Mike", find a thought then explain it.

"So the ‘fill up all the battery’ claim is obviously wrong "

Obviously you don't know what "obviously wrong" looks like, dummy.

"The problem with being a paranoid nutter"

Irony.

I take it that the only model S tesla is the one with the biggest battery and that there are no other cars, right?

I saw the 40+kwh which is the current state of an "empty" ev. Hell, remember when you whined and bitched about using 70kwh for gernany? Remember when using mor9e than a tiny fraction was impossible for them as reserve?

Yet here you are whingingand bitching and moaning that something is "completely different" and "obviously wrong" and base your petulant bullshitting on going far more extreme than the case you considered ridiculously overstated when someone else used it.

Hey, dumdum, "mike", go and justify the other assumptions while you're at it (and go look up average daily drive stats, moron, they ARE available in your country, dipshit), after all, you wouldn't be going round complaining about accuracy from me without having checked the argument you support, right?

Here's a starter for 10: the assumption that claiming x cars per day is right. Tell me when you have EVER heard of petrol forecourts measured in cars per day. And why would it ever be used? What is used and will be more informative of the operation of that petrol forecourt?

I just took the most blatant bullshit. The claim that the daily commute is ~200 miles.

"The example you posted only concludes "

But based on a bullshit argument. Which was the point. YOU however quite like that because it puts solar in a bad light. Pun irrelevant. And you don't like my point because it refuses to allow solar to be painted falsely in a bad light and basing the arguments on BS figures, then calculating a figure "accurately" on that garbage then you, as you did with Mackay, going "But show where the maths is wrong!" when the problem is the garbage going in to that maths.

As an example of another fake garbage statement to refuse solar a place, one argument in a post went in response to the idea "put the solar panels on roofs and it takes up no space" was approximately that it had to go on top of roofs (though the thread also pointed to the solar tiles which replace roofing tiles), and therefore "no space required" was a lie.

Which is only "true" if you're talking about 3d volume. Where that falls over as even vaguely correct is if you then include the 3d volume of a traditional power plant when complaining about the space taken by solar compared to nukes or coal. Which is never done. Because solar panels are a lot shorter than a steam turbine run power station and makes them look much worse than they are if you take space as the ground occupied.

So the "argument" is specious by virtue of the proponent not even believing it consistently.

A common denier whine about paris is that china is worse and you should not use per capita, because it doesn't matter what individuals do, it's what countries agree to that is important.

If so, maybe the USA should drop to the levels of Saudi Arabia. Nobody can say they're not living lavishly and freely using fossil fuels. So the USA should agree to produce as much as Saudi Arabia. 500 million tons per country. Though in fact this would not reduce global production, but it could be a figure to start from for those producing more to agree to get to, if they don't like per-capita and want per-country figures.

>Obviously you don’t know what “obviously wrong” looks like, dummy.

Oh he does.

I asked for the area of a charging station.

>The claim that the daily commute is ~200 miles.
Other than being off by 50%, it means you assumed that they claimed every car is charged every day.

Wow

I saw the 40+kwh which is the current state of an “empty” ev. Hell, remember when you whined and bitched about using 70kwh for gernany? Remember when using mor9e than a tiny fraction was impossible for them as reserve?

No. That would be you lying as usual.

What I do remember is your wholly incorrect attempt to argue that VtG could power Germany for several consecutive days.

I recall pointing out that this was rubbish because:

1/ Entire German EV fleet has 70kV batteries

2/ Entire fleet's batteries are *fully charged* at the outset

3/ Entire fleet remains permanently grid-connected (no transport!) for 72 hours

4/ Entire fleet's batteries will be *fully drained* and nobody will care that there's no transport after 72 hours of no transport

You haven't got a fucking clue what you are yelling about and you would do well to learn a lesson in modesty. But as you are nothing more than a lunatic, I doubt you are capable of it.

==>I recall pointing out that this was rubbish because of invalidating assumptions including that:

But based on a bullshit argument. Which was the point. YOU however quite like that because it puts solar in a bad light.

The commenter used a very generous assumption for solar IIRC. (S)he also kindly did not point out that Elon's latest bit of self-promotion won't work at all well during cloudy winter weather.

As long as you continue to confuse marketing puff by the energy industry with workable proposals you will keep faceplanting like this and people will laugh at your naivety and lack of topic knowledge.

> >Obviously you don’t know what “obviously wrong” looks like, dummy.

> Oh he does.

Clearly he doesn't.

> >The claim that the daily commute is ~200 miles.
> Other than being off by 50%,

Wrong. 3.5 x 42 = 147

Obviously you don't know what 50% is.

> it means you assumed that they claimed every car is charged every day.

Only if you assume it's smaller than the smallest Tesla S. The biggest one has a300 mile range. Obviously you don't know what claims are. "mike".

As an example of another fake garbage statement to refuse solar a place,

More utter crap from the Deaf Fuckwit himself.

Nobody is 'refusing solar a place'. Lots of people think that Elon is a self-promoting prick though. Latest example: using this gimmicky and probably unworkable announcement that his charging stations will be off grid to garner publicity without really giving a shit whether or not it would be a much more technically sound approach to have the stations grid-connected.

But as I said, you know nothing, so this went right over your turnip.

> No. That would be you lying as usual.

No, that would be you claiming I'm lying when I'm not. As usual.

> I recall pointing out that this was rubbish because:

Obviously you don't know what "recall" means. It's not "making shit up".

>1/ Entire German EV fleet has 70kV batteries

Nope, that was under the assumption that if germany changed all their cars to EVs. Which could easily be 70kwh. What precisely are you calling rubbish????

> 2/ Entire fleet’s batteries are *fully charged* at the outset

Clearly you don't know what fully charged means. And you never claimed this one either.

> 3/ Entire fleet remains permanently grid-connected (no transport!) for 72 hours

Nope, you never said that either, and I never said it. What, precisely, is rubbish here, other than your claim you made this point?

> You haven’t got a fucking clue what you are yelling

You yell without a fucking clue....

> The commenter used a very generous assumption for solar IIRC

Clearly you don't know what "generous" means. SPV is about twice the figure quoted, and 500w/m^2 is close to production.

And nobody pointed out that petrol stations are pointless when there's a tankers; strike on.

You scream without a clue, dumdum.

> lack of topic knowledge.

Clearly you don't know what knowledge is.

> More utter crap from the Deaf Fuckwit himself.

Except you quoted me, not yourself, moron.

> Nobody is ‘refusing solar a place’.

Yeah, just like nobody is denying women rights or blacks and muslims rights.

Odd how bigoted arseholes never come out and say what they're doing. Just keep pretending that they're being "honest" when all they're doing is trying to kill opposition. Either figuratively or literally.

Sorry dumdum, your toxic anti-solar/renewable BS is patently clear. Just plain denial won't change it.

> Nobody is ‘refusing solar a place’.

Yeah, just like nobody is denying women rights or blacks and muslims rights.

Oh FFS.

your toxic anti-solar/renewable BS is patently clear.

The only thing I object to is idiots like you peddling misinformation while mistakenly imagining themselves as knights in shining armour. In fact you are a liability. Nobody wants you on their team.

> Oh FFS.

Oh you are crying again, dumdum.

> peddling misinformation

Clearly you don't know what misinformation is if you think it's not you doing it, dumdum.

BBD, is Elon claiming he will do it with solar panels, or he is going to use more diesel generators, as found at one supercharger station when a local channel conducted a sting over Memorial Day weekend to see how many people were using it(also the site of the 'invitation only' fake battery swap that Elon used to defraud California).

mikeN, the only references to those things that show up are from Watts' site, daily caller, freerepublic -- none of which anyone should believe. Do you have an honest source?

You're the one who included 200-300 miles. Unless you are saying that fully charged range is 400-600 miles, you messed up.
You again messed up by using this number and saying it's the hidden assumption of the author that they drive this much every day. The author makes no such claim in your excerpt, only about the equivalent solar panel area for the number of cars that are charging. Nowhere in your excerpt does it say anything about these cars need to charge every day, that for every 156 Teslas in the population you need this much solar panel, that the daily usage is 200+ miles per day, or anything like that.

Curse no preview.

I won't say yet that an honest source doesn't have references - but I haven't seen one -- especially for the "defrauding" assertion.

"You are posting too quickly. Slow down."

Who has taken charge of the running of SB?

'for every car you want to supercharge that day' is quite different from 'every car'.

You are implying that the author is claiming every car you want to supercharge that day has a daily commute of 200-300 miles.

"BBD, is Elon claiming he will do it with solar panels"

Uh, you can read his claims. Dumbfuck.

"You’re the one who included 200-300 miles."

You're the one saying 200 miles was twice over what it "really was".

"Unless you are saying that fully charged range is 400-600 miles, you messed up."

Nope, dumbass, 42kwh is about 150 miles for the Tesla S at rated. 200 is not twice 150. Maths, idiot. It works.

"using this number and saying it’s the hidden assumption "

WRONG! Lying little toad.

" that they drive this much every day."

200-300. Not 400 to 600, moron.

"The author makes no such claim in your excerpt"

Yeah, know what that is? A HIDDEN assumption. Not hidden if it's right there in the open, is it. Even you acknowledge it was claimed hidden by me. So even you say you're lying.

"Nowhere in your excerpt does it say anything about these cars need to charge every day"

Yes it does. See post #9 again.

"that for every 156 Teslas in the population you need this much solar panel"

WRONG. Indeed that is WHY I say that the hidden assumption is that the average commute is being claimed to be a full charge, fuckwit. Because the message being sent is what you just said there. And there you go proving yourself lying when you assert that no such claim is made.

"‘for every car you want to supercharge that day’ is quite different from ‘every car’."

WRONG, see your earlier quote from you above that. They are the same thing you want to claim.

That it's complete bollocks is why you assert that it's different in the wording yet insist on this being the case when you rephrase it. Hence it's hidden in the meaning of the claim, not explicit in the claim.

You do a good job proving both your own idiocy and the moron's asinine presumption and proving I'm 100% correct on it.

Not forgetting that you've also failed to actually check the maths assumptions that are explicitly written for being actually accurate.

Why?

Because it gives you an answer you LIKE, therefore you won't actually look at it skeptically.

"You are implying that the author is claiming "

Other way round, shitforbrains.

"use more diesel generators, as found at one supercharger station"

Nuke stations have diesel generators on site. I've posted this information before, but you don't like it so didn't care to remember it.

Funny how one sided the investigation is, innit.

In the OP

Ten thousand years ago, our species made a radical shift in its way of life: We became farmers rather than hunter-gatherers.

When I was an undergraduate student in the 60s, I recall my professor (J.L. Harper, an ecologist) saying "Agriculture is an experiment and we won't know if it's been successful until humanity reaches a steady state." It's something that's stuck with me and influenced my thinking ever since.

It's really unfortunate that you guys can't have a serious discussion about an interesting topic, for which there is actual data but always devolve into "but you said...nitpick blah blah..."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-the-typical-commutes-for-ever…

If I recall correctly, the distribution for all US commutes puts almost all below 40 miles, and this was the number that the Chevy Volt designers used originally. (You get to work and then you can recharge.) Been a while since I read this so corrections accepted.

Anyway, it has been demonstrated conclusively by now that you can build vehicles (ones with electric drivetrains, with or without a backup generator) that are superior to ICE.

That is, even if there were no pollution (local or climate-related), passenger cars at least will inevitably go electric.

So what are you actually arguing about??

zebra, "mike" preferred to ask people here rather than do the work himself because it meant more work to no avail. It's not like he's going to do anything with it. And it varies massively depending on where you are. The AVERAGE UK car journey is less than 2 miles. Me? I walk that, unless it's a monthly shop. Even if it's pissing down.

"So what are you actually arguing about??"

See post #9. Someone who has a post titled "did anyone do the math?!?!?" didn't do the math and missed out a huge assumption, along with wrong assumptions ensuring GIGO, both of which are ignored by dumdum and "mike" because they like the big scary impossible number for solar, because it means no change from the huge incumbents currently doing power.

You could have read the thread before complaining about it.

And, yeah, "you all are just nit picking" is a deliberate thing. These retards go nitpicking and "I didn't use precisely those words!" (cf the cheese-faced talking gonad in the US) and I'm just joining in. that it goes nowhere is kind of the point I'm making. And if they want to nitpick and weasel lawyer around to stop progression, why the hell should I not partake of the same obstruction to stop them getting anywhere?

Because if the conversation is stymied by one side, they get to control where it goes, and therefore it is a misleading technique to get a predetermined outcome in debate.

Gaslighting is dumdum's preferred technique which I had thought he'd outgrown, but was disabused of that hope.

Wow,

I did read-- or, started reading-- the thread, and then gave up when the silliness started. Which I guess supports your point about the intent of the usual suspects.

But my approach is to answer their kind of obfuscation by going back to the fundamentals and developing the argument rather than letting them set the agenda. This is something I admonish everyone about, not just the denizens here.

Don't let them frame the argument, don't let them redefine the language, and so on.

We need to talk about the physics and the technology and the economics and so on, in order to educate the (probably non-existent) "objective lurker". (And I also acknowledge that you do that from time to time as well.)

So, I want to discuss why diesel or gas generators at a charging station is actually a Good Thing, from an engineering viewpoint. Any takers?

Either you stopped before you found out what the conversation was about, or you didn't bother remembering it then.

It was #9 we were arguing about. That's it. If you didn't read all of that before getting bored, you need to recalibrate your attention span. If you did, then why did you ask?

"Don’t let them frame the argument, don’t let them redefine the language, and so on. "

But if you:

answer their kind of obfuscation by going back to the fundamentals and developing the argument

they can either obfuscate if they don't see advantage to the direction taken or let that one progress if they see advantage to the direction. So they get to choose your path by precluding all others other than the ones they think they can use.

Ergo your method refutes your stated aim to deny them the ability to frame the argument and redefine the language. It's letting them do just that by precluding anything other than the path they want.

Obfuscate yourself and they don't get to drive the paths they like. They can complain, but you can point out the hypocrisy and keep doing it anyway and let THEM give up on the tricks first. After all, "they started" it isn't a reason to do something, but it's a reason for them to give up before you. They can continue to nitpick or weaselese but they gain no advantage to that because nothing progresses, which means no progression for their ideology.

And if they want to continue just to make their opponent pay a higher psychic price (hat tip to Bill Hicks, PBUH), then return the disfavour.

But if nitpick and word games are going to be used by them, approval of that technique is inherent in it. So I will use it without worry or qualm.

"So, I want to discuss why diesel or gas generators at a charging station is actually a Good Thing"

Go read dean's posts.

#64,

Dean? I don't see much of anything on the topic from anyone.

But with respect to the other stuff: You ignore the truth that wrestling in the mud with pigs is pointless, because they enjoy it.

They can indeed continue to try to obfuscate, but putting out the facts lets people see the difference.

If every gas station existing in the US also had a few fast charging stations, even if driven by diesel generators, then "range anxiety" would become meaningless, and the transition to EV would accelerate, which would lead to a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions. Fast charging meaning you can get a partial charge in the same time it takes to fill your tank with gas.

Now, your wacky friends can't answer that. They can try to distract and handwave, but the fact is there.

"#64,

Dean? I don’t see much of anything on the topic from anyone."

That would require you read it. Try doing that, then come back.

"Now, your wacky friends can’t answer that."

And they won't. They'll ignore it. Much like you ignored the request to read dean's posts, you preferring instead to whine that "not much is on this subject!!!".

They'll then blast off somewhere else with a lie or misrepresentation to disregard. And nobody will read, because unless everyone else is banned from posting, your post that they "can't answer" will be ignored by some idiotic moron whining "Oh why oh why is this all just nitpicking?!?!?! Stop doing that and answer REAL QUESTIONS! They can't answer that and you win!!!!".

See the problem?

It doesn't matter what answer is given if people pretending, and I really do mean pretending here, to be wanting to listen to "something real" refuse to actually read what's written when they can get a good dose of "A pox on both your houses!" and a bit part as "Only Sane Man In The Room".

Go read dean's post instead.

And when we're done, reflect on how little it mattered that real things were said when someone can just pop up and complain there's not much to read and it's all pointless and pretend to themselves that this is so because that's the general sense they got from not reading it all.

Wow,

Seriously, what post from Dean?

Seriously, go read it. There's really only one, but two posts from dean. Read them both in case you miss something.

Go read it.

Read them all, tell me what you read. Feel free to predict what I will query you on to speed this up.

read them yet, zebra? They're neither hard to find (hint: Ctrl-F dean) nor numerous nor even at all lengthy. If your complaint about the lack of content is based on the amount you couldn't be bothered to read, it's not really the fault of any of the posters, even the asshats posting. It's your fault.

Dear zebra

Read #18.

And please stop sucking up to the lunatic wow. It makes you look like a complete arsehole.

Anyway, it has been demonstrated conclusively by now that you can build vehicles (ones with electric drivetrains, with or without a backup generator) that are superior to ICE.

That is, even if there were no pollution (local or climate-related), passenger cars at least will inevitably go electric.

Never in question and explicitly acknowledged by me at #18 where I wrote:

"Don’t get me wrong. Given the problems with particulate emissions from ICEs I’d advocate for a shift to EVs even if CO2 wasn’t a GHG."

So what are you actually arguing about??

Wow's the one doing the arguing because he is a nutter who will disrupt any conversation on pretty much any topic because he's a nutter.

So, please *stop* encouraging him. And stop blaming me for his lunacy.

Thanks.

Wow,

#49 and #51 do not address my information at all. We all know the sources used by the usual suspects are nonsense, but again my point: Put up good information so people can make the comparison for themselves.

Anyway, I achieved my goal of putting out some basic facts, so that readers who are so inclined can learn and perhaps use them in discussions elsewhere.

No need to continue for me.

"#49 and #51 do not address my information at all"

I know.

What do they say?

"Where is your evidence that the claim is true?"

See anyone answering that?

No.

You've run on to accept it however, and you've been driven into the path that the morons wanted you. Despite your clarion call to not let them drive anyone's narrative.

So you never answered dean, but you accept the claim of diesel generators as real, you ignore his question and pretend it never existed. You even cry off that it doesn't answer your question, when what it DOES do is make your question null and void.

The lack of any useful information is not the fault of any poster here. It's yours.

"but again my point: Put up good information "

So where is the good information that diesel generators were found running at supercharger stations on memorial day?

Put up good information you say.

So where is it?

"And please stop sucking up to the lunatic "

Ah, lunatic does not mean "refuses to let me talk bollocks", dumdum.

"and explicitly acknowledged by me at #18 where I wrote:"

Where, exactly does your #18 show that I was completely wrong? Nowhere. Where in that post is the information showing I'm wrong? Nowhere. Where in that post is any correction? Nowhere.

What you're doing is bullshitting again and going "LOOK!!!! SQUIRREL!!!!".

"Wow’s the one doing the arguing"

Ah, right, so you haven't posted anything? Or haven't posted an argument? Because I totally get the idea of the second option. But it didn't stop you posting and crying as if you WERE making an argument.

"nutter who will disrupt any conversation on pretty much any topic"

Ah, right, so numeracy is again out of the window, nutbag (oh, and male gender? Again? Just because you have a cock fixation doesn't mean you get to imagine being a cock is involved with everyone you argue with), because post #9 was the topic, and then you complained (remember, you haven't argued a thing you say) and disrupted it because you are projecting again.

LOLworthy indeed.

"And stop blaming me for his lunacy. "

And again you are getting the target wrong again. You're the lunatic, dumdum, you are the one who disrupted. You#re the one making asinine claims as if you have an argument then disclaim having made any argument at all.

zebra is blaming you for YOUR lunacy. That I provoked your lunatic ranting because I dared point out the anti-renewable idiocy out there is not my fault alone, even if I were doing it deliberately to troll your sorry flabby arse.

Dumdum, your "technique" is to trash talk solar and wind and then hide behind the "but I'm FOR solar and wind!!!!" when called out on it.

Works in high school between Valley Teen girls who want to bitch about others, but doesn't work with people able to see past the words and have memory for more than the squirrels pointed at.

Oh, and #9 has moved to #11 since I posted.

Wow,

You just want to argue. Not interesting.

My information is that diesel generators are a good idea, not a bad one.

So, who cares if the usual liars are lying one more time?

If it's important to you, carry on. I want to discuss real physics, engineering, and economics. They are all on our side.

No, zebra, I want an argument:

a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory

So mike makes the claim based on fuck all that diesel generators were found in a shock inspection, dean asks where is this shown, because the only sources he has are unreliable at best, you then complain that there needs to be good information, but refuse to supply it, preferring to complain that "All you want is to argue, so I am morally better than you for pooh poohing the idea that I should provide any information".

Doesn't work like that cupcake.

You CAN refuse to provide what you want others to do, but you then lose the right to actually get what you want.

Dean wanted a link, you didn't even care to notice that nobody gave any good evidence. Instead you wanted to feel better than everyone else here by being the sanest person around and berate the conversation having nothing.

Guess what? Whining about how nobody is doing it the way you want is ALSO adding nothing to the conversation.

You COULD have added something. Like, oh, I don't know, an answer for dean. And left out nonsensical self aggrandizement like "All of you have provided nothing!".

What makes it even more ironic is that you complained that "real information" cannot be answered, ignored me pointing out that it would be ignored, making it as if it never existed and therefore rendering it pointless and a waste of time, then treated dean's attempt to get some "real information" into the thread precisely like I predicted would be done with any real information.

And rather than own up to this, own up to you doing it yourself, own up to how your fluffy bunny optimism only works in your mind under your precepts of what it means to work, but fails even with you if you don't like to consider it.

Moreover you double down on the ignorance because your ego wasn't fluffed and, because you have to make it someone else's fault, twisted it to be my moral failing for wanting to argue,rather than ask that you actually MAKE AN ARGUMENT rather than whine about other people not making one.

Lead by fucking example, idiot. It adds a hell of a lot to your precepts if you live by them.

"My information is that diesel generators are a good idea, not a bad one."

Nope. You can concoct a scenario where it is. You can concoct a scenario where it isn't. There's no scenario, since there absolutely no information to inform anyone of it.

Here:

Instead of running solar panels, they run the diesel generators.

Bad use of them.

To keep the security system working they have a backup generator for when the batteries are low.

Good use for them.

My information was that nuke stations have massive diesel generators in there too. As power backup. That's a real fact.

Made not a single fucking difference. It was as if it was never said. YOU ignored it. And so if I'd banged on and on about it until that path was open to pursue? Oh, that would be me being a nutter wanting to argue, right?

Dean queries "Any reliable source?" and you ignored it. You even accept the claim as valid for no effort. Because you don't care about what dean wanted, you only care what you wanted, and you didn't want to know if it was a real story or not.

But when you assess whether the thread is pointless arguing or valid argument and counterarguments on whether YOU want to know or not, again, the lack of point to arguing in a thread is not inherent to the thread but inherent to you. It's not an objective assessment but your subjective feeling on it. And there's fuck all anyone here can do about your feelings, and nobody cares if you think it's subjectively unsatisfying, there's bugger all WE can do about it. Unless you want a cheap lobotomy by untrained non-surgeons.

Your clarion call to "post real information" is as fake as dumdum's clarion call "But I LIIIIKKE solar!!!". It's an assertion not backed up by any jot or tittle of support outside the claim. It's certainly not a thing you will bother to change yourself. Much better to complain that nobody else is changing.

"So, who cares if the usual liars are lying one more time? "

Because without honesty or if there's hypocrisy, no argument can take place.

If I use an argument for me one time then use the opposite argument another, there's no way EITHER argument can be taken as valid argument, since they are both demonstrably not accepted by me when I use them if I find them inconvenient. So there IS NO ARGUMENT, only whether I can excuse my desire.

That's not an argument. There's no way to change someone's point of view if their point is "I wish to excuse my preconception".

See creationism and especially YEC/flat-earthers for how little an argument means, only the conclusion matters, therefore there is no argument with them. You have to argue with their audience instead.

With hypocrisy, there's no way to tell if any claim or position is the topic of discussion, because they will gladly SAY anything and arguing against that point will find that the position wasn't there in the first place.

See the Gish Gallop for the memetic example of this.

And if lies are lied and left, go read up about Goebbels.

Who cares? If someone can lie then it is an eternal game of whack-a-mole. With the added "bonus" of people complaining about you pointing out it's lies as if somehow that's your fault.

"Who cares if they're lying one more time?" is also self-defeating BS. Because who then cares if the liars lying one more time are being ridiculed or pointlessly argued one more time? Especially if it's the same culprit again doing the pointing.

Hypocrisy and dishonesty kill any case for an argument. But hypocrisy makes it pointless to even start trying. At least lies can be pointed to, but hypocritical posters are mist and reform anywhere the counter is not.

And if honest argument is not worth worrying about, what the fuck is the point of any of these blogs or comment threads? That's what WtfUWT runs on. They don't CARE about honest argument. I don't post there (I tried for a very short while) not because it's idiotic stupidity, not because of the lies passed about in that echo chamber, nor even that it's an echo chamber, but because of the massive hypocrisy.

And if they gave up the pretense of being "honest", I would count them as at least theoretically useful to see what the echo chamber is creating today. I'd actually read it. Laugh my arse off, but read it nonetheless. Their hypocrisy just kills any point of doing that, though, since there is no meaning to anything stated. It's what hypocrisy means in an argument: abnegation of any meaning in the discourse.

And THAT is a waste of time when you engage in it, even to consume.

Dean, if I remember correctly, the WUWT post about the diesel generator was based on a local news report.

The extra credits from CARB, I remember reading about California getting upset and cancelling them, but I think you are right that the sourcing is almost entirely self contained.
It is why I tend to include an invitation for someone to disprove this claim by getting a fast battery swap with a Tesla.

Zebra, it's not much to argue about. See post #11. Wow stated this has a hidden assumption that every car must be going 200-300 miles a day, the full range of a single charge. BBD pointed out the calculation is for the equivalent of the number of cars getting charged there daily, which is smaller than the total number of cars being serviced there over time, and thus no assumption about the daily commute. I pointed out an extra error that Wow missed the 50% charge in the first part of the calculation.
Wow responded in his usual way. Somehow this time you fell for it.

"Dean, if I remember correctly, the WUWT post about the diesel generator was based on a local news report."

If all you have is reference to WUWT we know it's bullshit.

"Wow stated this has a hidden assumption that every car must be going 200-300 miles a day"

So no longer 400-600? You did say "Oh, half that", but that makes it 42kwh, 150 miles. So they assume a daily commute of 150 and THAT'S fine?

Oh, and no, that's not the only thing wrong with it. The solar panel output? Wrong. The loss for powercycling with the supercharger? Wrong. The amount of power per car? Wrong. The idea of measuring it in cars? Wrong.

"BBD pointed out the calculation is for the equivalent of the number of cars getting charged there daily"

Except that wouldn't be 156 crs, would it. If they used up 4kwh, that would make it about 1600 cars. If they used up 2kwh, over 3000 cars. 12kwh? Over 500.

So it was a bullshit number for the area needed, overestimating by a shit-ton the amount of space needed and a bullshit claim of 156 cars, minimising the usefulness of them.

Two massive conclusion errors that both denigrate the solar powered supercharger stations?

One massive mistake is just idiocy. Two is malice.

"I pointed out an extra error that Wow missed the 50% charge in the first part of the calculation."

But that would be 50% of an inflated number: it was 60-65% efficient in the assumptions compared to reality of over 93%, and the figure for power per car was wrong too.

So if you were wanting to be ACCURATE rather than defensive of a moron's post on slashdot, that would be 145 miles/0.62*0.93 = 217 miles.

So when I corrected it for the shorfall and claimed "~200 miles", how wrong was I? 50%?

Nah.

But you wanted me to be hyper accurate yet didn't bother if the anti-solar retard I was quoting was. You didn't even care to check his figures, did you, despite my pointing out in post #34 one problem with it and exhorting you to check over the maths.

So your claim of error on my part was nowhere near what your insistence made it and the errors in the piece you were defending meant nothing to you.

Which puts the kybosh on any claim you may make for wanting accuracy. You didn't want accuracy, you wanted blood.

MikeN #85,

I didn't "fall for"anything.

My point is that all the numbers are meaningless and that charging EV using diesel generators at charging stations is a good idea, not a bad one, and so the argument about whether that happened is also meaningless.

EV are better than ICE as cars, and if we had charging stations everywhere that we now have gas stations, EV would become the choice for most passenger cars.

My point is that all the numbers are meaningless and that charging EV using diesel generators at charging stations is a good idea, not a bad one,

Or the stations could even be grid-connected. Someone should tell Elon.

BBD,

The thing is, diesel generators are...wait for it....

dispatch-able!

"so the argument about whether that happened is also meaningless."

From the point of view of the value of EV, yes. From the point of view that seemingly fake stories like that, or the fraud assertion, get passed around by the usual dishonest spots and picked up by people who visit them, it isn't meaningless, because now the people who dismiss EVs will have more "evidence" to support their stance. As with climate change, once dishonest stories get passed around by the deniers, facts have a difficult time getting to the front of the discussion.

"Or the stations could even be grid-connected. Someone should tell Elon."

He already knows, dumbass.

But what he's doing is considering disconnecting from the grid some of the charging stations so they're not on the grid. Quite possibly because he's being charged a shitload for connection that he doesn't need.

zebra

The thing is, diesel generators are…wait for it….

dispatch-able!

They're also filthy. Gas via the grid would be better both in terms of GHGs and particulate emissions, but of course there will be exceptions where diesel generators are the better option.

@ wow

He already knows, dumbass.

Fuck off, nutter.

"Fuck off, nutter."

No, you're the nutbag, dumdum. He already knows. It is not news to him. They're already grid connected. That means he knows.

Fucking idiot.

Edit:

They’re also [inefficient and] filthy. Gas [generation] via the grid would be better both in terms of GHGs and particulate emissions,

BBD,

No, you are incorrect.

First, diesel generators can be cleaner than diesels in vehicles.

Where the infrastructure exists, as in many cities, natural gas generators at charging stations would be even better, of course.

But keeping a thermal plant running so that people can get an occasional quick charge is just silly; it isn't at all clear that it wouldn't be worse in terms of CO2.

Or biodiesel. Or synthetic gas. Or hydrogen cells. Or....

But still this isn't the plan. Elon already has them connected to the grid and he's not planning to disconnect them all, because some of them cost more to have connected than they need connecting. The ones still connected and needing that connection will use the grid. The ones that don't won't need diesel generation.

And like I said, nukes have colocated diesel generation to act as local backup. Nobody seems to think this is a problem with nukes.

"First, diesel generators can be cleaner than diesels in vehicles."

But cleaner isn't clean. Just not as dirty. And nothing indicates it's actually happening, only an unsourced claim. A nonexistent diesel generator is cleanest of all.

" it isn’t at all clear that it wouldn’t be worse in terms of CO2."

Diesel generators can be thermal plants. And gas generators can be combustion engines.

It isn't at all clear what you're on about.

No, you are incorrect.

News to me. Last I looked, DGs are just above coal in the least-preferred bracket of generation technologies.

Where the infrastructure exists, as in many cities, natural gas generators at charging stations would be even better, of course.

Why are they needed *at* charging stations? The point is to strive for efficient decarbonisation - but this isn't really about that, it's about Elon self-publicising again, regardless of the actual engineering best path. He wants to sell Tesla EVs and *that* is what this nonsense is all about. It's advertising puff for his own business.

But keeping a thermal plant running so that people can get an occasional quick charge is just silly; it isn’t at all clear that it wouldn’t be worse in terms of CO2.

Except nobody is suggesting that - it's just silly. The sensible suggestion is that grid-connected charging stations are just like anything else grid-connected - a part of overall demand. Please, no more straw.

"Why are they needed *at* charging stations?"

ARE they needed at ANY charging stations?

"He wants to sell Tesla EVs and *that* is what this nonsense is all about"

And it's not about whether diesel generators are clean.

"Except nobody is suggesting that – it’s just silly."

No more silly than insisting that diesel generators are being used at all charging stations. But, yeah, you hate the renewable option, any old shit to keep those waters muddy.

"The sensible suggestion is that grid-connected charging stations are just like anything else grid-connected"

And do you think that none of them are?!?!?!?

So, zebra, you see the problem of accepting a claim that is unsupported because you can't be arsed to find out or even require someone find out whether it's actually true or not.

Zebra, diesels may be good at generating stations and I have no objection. I brought it up because I don't think that is the vision Elon was trying to sell there, but it is consistent with what he said and what he has done.

Wow, if you want to bring up other objections fine. I am not wedded to the idea that solar powering of superchargers is impossible, and the math I did above was actually in your favor if you could stop long enough to realize it. You brought up 200-300 km, as the daily commute, and I pointed out that you ignored the 50%. Now you change some numbers around to claim you never made this error. You still don't concede BBD's original objection that there is no hidden assumption.

And do you think that none of them are?!?!?!?

Christ on a crotch.

Elon Musk is proposing to dis-connect them. As a PR stunt this is fine; as an engineering approach to efficient decarbonisation it is bollocks.

If you shut up, the adults could actually have a sensible conversation.

" I brought it up because I don’t think that is the vision Elon was trying to sell there"

No, you brought it up to claim that it was a scam, "greenwashing". It's not the vision he has.

"Elon Musk is proposing to dis-connect them."

FFS, idiot, then why are you insisting that he should CONNECT them to the grid?????

"As a PR stunt this is fine; "

How the hell would you know? Please provide proof it's a PR stunt.

"as an engineering approach to efficient decarbonisation it is bollocks. "

It's nothing to do with efficient decarbonisation. It's about making the supercharger stations widespread and cheap to run.

You DO know he employs engineers, right?

"If you shut up,"

You'd be able to BS.

Sorry, toots, not gonna happen. I'll point out the childish idiocy you spout every time.

"Wow, if you want to bring up other objections fine. "

So you don't care if the poster was inaccurate. Therefore your complaints about me were not merely incorrect, they were a smokescreen and not about accuracy.

"You still don’t concede BBD’s original objection that there is no hidden assumption."

Well, yes. Because his objection is bollocks. There IS a hidden assumption. As evidenced by you going "But there's no mention there of the daily range of the cars being 200 miles!!!" but the assumption being that they'd use the same power up each day as travelling 200 miles.

You know, an assumption that isn't written there but hides behind another assertion. A hidden assumption as it were.

So why should I concede the objection dumdum had when his objection was false?

>So you don’t care if the poster was inaccurate.

No I don't care about the accuracy of a random comment to a Slashdot post. That the single error you pointed out(initally) had two errors within it was more interesting, though I will concede not nearly interesting enough to fill up this thread.

> Because his objection is bollocks.
Nope. he is correct. The excerpt you cite works just as well if they leave out the 156 car number. If there are less than half charges, you get more cars, but still the same amount of total energy for charging. The variables were number of stalls, amount of time occupied, size of battery, time of charge. How often people need to charge is nonexistent in the calculation.

"No I don’t care about the accuracy of a random comment to a Slashdot post. "

Therefore the accusation is accepted: you complained because you wanted blood, not accuracy, you liked its result, and that was all you cared about.

"That the single error you pointed out(initally) had two errors within it was more interesting"

What? Which two errors? The battery pack size directly relates to the fact that the hidden assumption of unrealistic daily commute. That's one error. The other errors (more than two, so I don't know how you munge several into each other) came later. None of which you cared about.

> > Because his objection is bollocks.
> Nope. he is correct.

Nope, he's wrong.

"The excerpt you cite works just as well if they leave out the 156 car number"

They don't, though. That's why the assumption is there, hidden in that count: that the 156 cars all drive 200 miles between "filling up".

". If there are less than half charges, you get more cars"

Correct. Which is why you wouldn't do "how many cars does it fill up?" as a metric. It's only trotted out to make it look like you'd need a billion acres to make it work.

"but still the same amount of total energy for charging"

But still a greater number of cars. So their assumption hidden behind that claim of 156 cars is that they are the only cars they do that day.

"The variables were number of stalls, amount of time occupied, size of battery, time of charge."

Correct. Now if it were to be claimed that it would be a lesser charge, it's not 156 cars they can hold, is it, because that figure is the result of staying there charging for 30 minutes.

Occupancy would therefore change. That's one of the assumptions. So they overinflated their count of factors to assume. In a post complaining about nobody having done the maths, he didn't do it either, but made more work by that claim.

"How often people need to charge is nonexistent in the calculation."

And therefore the conclusion he relied on is hidden in the assumption: 42.5kwh needs to be charged up. You see, he added in the unnecessary occupation guess then didn't add in the consequent requirement (if he wanted to keep that assumption as relevant) of how frequently they'd have to come back.

If it's every week, then that would be 7x156 cars.

Complaining that dumdum's objection is valid because the assumption I claim is hidden isn't in the text quoted is kinda stupid. It's hidden. Do you require something written between the lines before you can "read between the lines"???

What the moron could have done, and if you wanted a conversation rather than arguing, is relate how many cars whatever acreage of solar panels could service.

1) Power produced by that acreage in one day
2) Power loss in charging
3) Power used on average in an EV's daily commute

If #1 doesn't do daily amount of power, then #3 should be given in the exact same time period.

Why is the occupancy required then? It isn't.

But it's added in to fake out that this poster was "serious" and "educated" and "rigorous". When all they wanted was to fake authority in his asinine claims. Because without that fake authoritative appearance, his errors of assumption would be harder to ignore.

Such as the solar panel output. Or the charging loss.

Hell those three I give don't even rely on the size of battery used.

And then the occupancy rate is merely how many stalls do you build to get enough people through in a day when demand for charging is uneven and peaks. Which is a business case for the design, not an engineering case.

You have been misled by a shortcut into incorrectly thinking you have found a hidden assumption. It could be the supercharger station is serving a population of 156 cars recharging daily, 1000 cars recharging once a week, 10000 cars, or a million cars. They still would have reached the same calculation of the area of solar panels needed. An alternate way of reaching the same number is to say(I'm not scrolling up to make sure the numbers are accurate) it takes 30 minutes to do a half charge, That is 85 kilowatt hours per hour per station. The occupancy is about half at daytime and empty at night. So a total of 13 stalls used 8 hours a day 8800 kilowatt hours per day. It requires 14,400 square meters of solar panels to produce 8800 kwh in an average day. No assumption of how often cars are charging, only that the stations are half full and number of stalls.

They never said you need 14,400 square meters for every 156 Teslas did they?

"Mike", you're making shit up again. I can prove that with your own words:

"You have been misled"

Certainty. HAVE been.

"It could be"

Suddenly no longer certain.

No, the 156 cars is the same bollocks that "range anxiety" uses to scare people off the idea. And it;s the use of 156 cars that is the fact that shows the assumption. If they'd said 1560 cars, then that would indicate something around 15 miles a day. Saying 156 cars, that would indicate 150 miles a day, which is bullshit. The other errors mean the range is actually about 200 miles from the solar panels, and the power of the solar panels is twice that given. It is the second error that indicates the intent of the "error".

"They"

????

Only one dude posts one at a time. Unless you are hinting that the post was the result of an astroturf organisation who wrote the text and got someone to post it to slashdot...

"never said you need 14,400 square meters for every 156 Teslas did they?"

Yes they did.

The occupancy is also moronic. What's the occupancy of a petrol station? 10%? 20? Go on, find it. I did a quick look couldn't get a figure. Someone who runs a franchise might hire someone who has that figure, nobody else does.

If it's 30 minutes per car for "half charge", then why use the 85kwh figure for the battery? At that rate it's 21 minutes for the smaller batteried tesla and therefore 221 cars. For a Volt, much less time and more cars.

What the two cars have in common is (very nearly) the same miles per kwh figure.

But they didn't use that.

For someone whining "Did anyone do the maths on this!?!?!?", they didn't do the maths. They did a lot of seeming maths, all based on ass-pull assumptions. And the one they didn't say is how many miles those cars did on average under his assumption. Because that would have shown how dumb and half-assed the assumptions were and how stupid the method taken was.

Daily EV power use average
Daily charging station power average
Efficiency of charging

Done.

But no, convoluted with assumption stated after assumption, but no explaining that one assumption is an unfeasibly huge daily commute.

Where, for example, do they say how long a period between "refills"?

Nowhere.

And given that even you know that cutting charge requirements reduces charge time, making no difference to the end result in feasibility, why not use the rational charge rate and make it easier?

Because that way there's no 144000m2 per 156 cars "conclusion".

That 144000m2 being off by a factor of 3, by the way.

Note too that Elon Musk hires people to do this and he DOES have the figures for the solar power utilisation and shortfall rate, both of which are required to work out if the solar panel can and should be disconnected.

Someone hated EVs, Tesla, Musk or solar, or maybe all the above, and had to whine.

Wow and MikeN,

Wow: "power produced by that acreage", "power loss in charging", "power used in daily commute".

MikeN: "85kW-hr per hour per station"

Come on guys.

"Electric power is the rate, per unit time, at which electrical energy is transferred by an electric circuit. The SI unit of power is the watt, one joule per second."

When you divide... kW-hr (per means divide) by hrs, you get kW.

So, the charging circuit has a capacity measured in kW. If it is hooked up to solar panels (through the appropriate circuitry), the solar panels themselves must have an equivalent capacity.

Now, I suggest you go and look at

https://www.tesla.com/supercharger

for a nice discussion of how it works.

Then, calculate, for one vehicle, a first approximation of the panel area that would be necessary, to have the necessary capacity, using info from a non-partisan source, rather than trying to work backwards from some post somewhere.

Completely pulling it out of my ass, as you guys would say, I guess 1,000 sq meters would do the trick.

So then, you can also work out different scenarios for the energy, not "power", that can be loaded into the batteries of vehicles.

Note that whatever the source (grid, local wind/solar, diesel), it is the charging capacity of the charging system that would constrain how many cars you can charge up to whatever level of charge in a given time period.

zebra #114:

You post was very fair and balanced.

Nice.

"When you divide… kW-hr (per means divide) by hrs, you get kW."

Yup, other ways of doing it. But the vastly overcomplicated method the moron used was designed to make it look more rigorous than it was and to stop people looking at the assumptions.

See mike and bbd. Not one cared about their accuracy but really cared about mine. Undermining their complaint into partisan BS.

"Note that whatever the source (grid, local wind/solar, diesel), it is the charging capacity of the charging system that would constrain how many cars you can charge up to whatever level of charge in a given time period."

And would your contention be that Musk didn't do the maths on it?

But, and this gets to the point of it, someone didn't want Tesla or Musk or solar power to get a good story, or even just a story, without making it a bad idea SOMEHOW.

Poisoning the well.

Zebra, the post was about area of solar cells needed for a charging station. The number of cars to be powered is something imagined by Wow as an error.

Ah, right,so

= 156 vehicles charged per day.

Doesn't exist.

Got it. This is a reverse hallucination.

156 vehicles charged per day is not the same as 156 vehicles in the city/area served by supercharger. Thus your 'hidden assumption' doesn't exist. It could be a thousand cars going in for the charge once a week, same resulting area of solar panels. BBD spotted your error instantly. Admittedly, I would have missed it.

MikeN,

I'm just trying to have you guys use the correct terminology and approach the problem in a direct way based on fundamentals.

I am not saying your numbers are way off, but why not establish your claim as I described-- show the calculation for one car receiving a specific amount of energy (Not! "Power"!) using clearly unbiased sources.

I came up with 1,000 sq meters to provide a capacity in the range described by Tesla. So with 10 charging stations, you would need 10,000 sq meters. So, orders of magnitude are correct, although I suspect 1,000 is a little high because Tesla is likely to be using premium panels, which might be double the capacity of "average" or "typical" ones.

But anyway, you are in fact assuming that the stations are charging continuously at that capacity for 8 hours, and each car is hooked up for half an hour, and then you do get a number of cars, which is 160.

I it seems unlikely that this is a realistic scenario at this time, so I think Wow has a point. Where are all these Teslas coming from to fill up this one station?

I would suggest that any off-grid solar-powered such facility would have much less total capacity, and the idea of a backup diesel generator (e.g. for nights) is both sound and still very green.

Also, I don't think that panel areas that are multiples of 1,000 sq meters is really that big a deal. I see big installations fairly often driving on the highway-- there's lots of land that otherwise goes unused on and adjacent to the rights-of-way, for obvious reasons.

Again, as Wow suggests, if there's an easy cheap hookup to the grid with sufficient capacity, then that's what they will use. But in a less populated stretch, where land is cheap, it may well make sense to go self-contained.

1000x300x0.185=55.5kw averaged per diem
55.5*24=1333kwh=4500miles travelled. At 15 miles per day average, 3,000 cars.

Or about 1 car every 30 seconds, near enough.

For you, per bay.

Hmmm.

When you made the claim it was supportable values, what value did you get for the power output and how did you apply it to car charging?

"But in a less populated stretch, where land is cheap, it may well make sense to go self-contained"

Some states have allowed power companies to levy punitive connection charges to "their grid" to disincentivise solar power outside their control.

So Tesla may find they don't get the value from the connection. Another reason not to bother with grid connection.

Remember, the idea is that the "best places" for solar will be disconnected, since they will be the ones that don't need the connection to the grid. That was why the slashdots poster used desert conversion rates for solar.

"156 vehicles charged per day is not the same as 156 vehicles in the city/area"

Indeed it does not mean that. But what it DOES say is that it;s the same as "156 vehicles in the city/area served by supercharger. ".

Because that's what it says in the words.

Remember too that the use of such charging stations will change as the system is built and expanded and used, along with the need of the EV fleet.

Zebra, I checked and I never used power incorrectly here. I was worried about the terminology and stayed away from energy too. Figured it would just be another way for Wow to call me a liar. Your numbers are about the same, since Wow's quote said 14,400 sq meters for 13 charging bays. Despite Wow's claims, I was never arguing the feasibility and asked the area of a supercharger with this in mind.

>I it seems unlikely that this is a realistic scenario at this time, so I think Wow has a point. Where are all these Teslas coming from to fill up this one station?

Not Wow's point, rather thinks there is a hidden assumption in the calculations(and now your calculation) that people will drive 200 miles per day. The number of cars that you get, 160, could be a larger number with less charge per car, or charging less regularly.
You ask where are this large number of cars coming from. Presumably Musk envisions a larger installed base of Teslas. It looks like you need around 1 station(10- 20 chargers) per thousand Teslas, unless they charge faster.

"Zebra, I checked and I never used power incorrectly here."

By dint of never using it at all.

". Despite Wow’s claims, I was never arguing the feasibility"

Where do you see that claim?

"rather thinks there is a hidden assumption in the calculations(and now your calculation) that people will drive 200 miles per day"

42kwh. multiplied by three over two because of the failure of efficiency assumption, that being the result of charging 156 cars.

So not an explicit assumption but the inevitable consequence of the assumptions stated.

" It looks like you need around 1 station(10- 20 chargers) per thousand Teslas, unless they charge faster."

And the optically evident source for that...?

” It looks like you need around 1 station(10- 20 chargers) per thousand Teslas, unless they charge faster.”

And the optically evident source for that…?

Your post of the range of a Tesla. 156 cars per day for the charger, and estimating a (half)charge once a week.

MikeN,

I think you just have the concept wrong.

The supercharger stations (currently) are there primarily to allow people to make long trips. Normally people would plug in overnight at home to keep up the charge for commuting and driving around town.

That's why I think, as Wow says, that Tesla's very smart engineers and mathematicians will plan the capacity of each facility based on expected traffic. There's plenty of data for them to use to do that.

So.there would be lots of facilities with two or three charging stations, with the total capacity provided by 2.000 sq meters of panels if it is off-grid.

It will be quite a while before any such facility would be "overbooked" by people taking 600 mile road trips, all arriving at the same time and expecting a super-fast charge.

>So.there would be lots of facilities with two or three charging stations, with the total capacity provided by 2.000 sq meters of panels if it is off-grid.

You are still reaching the same numbers, about 1000 sq meters per charging station(for at home charging, solar panels equal to the area of the car should suffice right?). Wow brought up the 'hidden assumption' of daily commutes and I went with that. Looks like they don't need that many then. However, if it is for long drives, then presumably the superchargers will be placed on highways and 2-3 chargers will be way too low, while city places can get by with just a few.

Zebra, by saying Wow has a point, you are saying that you are making a 'hidden assumption' that 'every day every car has to fill up all the battery, indicating that the average US commute is 200-300 miles per day' as Wow posted in #11.

Do you think that is an error in your calculations?
Wow obfuscating as usual. BBD pointed out this assumption is not in what Wow posted, and gets accused of not caring about accuracy.

The point to make, now we've all gotten the idea that "counting how many cars can it service" is a fucking stupid idea since it doesn't matter in calculating power supply, is that the engineers at Tesla have the figures that would let anyone know if it can be disconnected from the grid, and why it would make sense.

And they think that there's a case for it.

All we can do is discuss how society would change if there were more such stations around and more EVs using them. Would we charge up at the mall or supermarket, making fast charging needless? Would we accept "free parking with power" at work or shopping if our cars were used to stabilise the grid? Would supercharging become needless for 99% of travelling because we only need it along highways for long journeys to cut down on journey times? And could that be nullified if they were common enough that we could use the driving break to charge wherever we happened to be when we felt like it?

"by saying Wow has a point, you are saying that you are making a ‘hidden assumption’"

Nope. If he;s saying I have a point, which point do YOU think he's saying I have a point at?

"> And the optically evident source for that…?

Your post of the range of a Tesla."

So you're saying I have a point? That if you wanted to claim how many cars, it ought to be how many charging stations per tesla could it service? But the calculation doesn't require the range of a tesla. Or the range of any car. Just how many kwh is used per mile, and how many miles per day on average is used driving about. Range of the car isn't there. Only efficiency.

Hell, petrol stations aren't rated for how many you need per thousand cars. How many you need is more relevant for petrol cars, though, since you're not allowed to make your own petroleum distillates.

But at least you're getting that the number of cars should be in the many hundreds or thousands if you wanted to put some metric like that up and the slashdotter was underreporting, making it look worse even if you want to claim it wasn't malicious.

Per charging bay, solar panel acreage really only matters if you have no storage at all but need to supercharge based off the output straight out, but nobody is pretending that there's no storage at all.

" BBD pointed out this assumption is not in what Wow posted"

"mike" being a dumbass again and pretending that he doesn't know what hidden means. Or that it wasn't said.

"Wow brought up the ‘hidden assumption’ of daily commutes and I went with that"

No you didn't. You bloviated about how it wasn't written down that they assumed it was a daily commute of 200 miles. ONCE you asked what the daily commute was. You then ONCE reworked the figures to something around 1-2000, which would be 10-20 miles a day. Then continued on with your "but it doesn't say the assumption you claim it has hidden!".

"It will be quite a while before any such facility would be “overbooked” by people taking 600 mile road trips, all arriving at the same time and expecting a super-fast charge."

And if it ever happens, someone will open up another charging station if there's money to be made there.

Or people will stop driving 600 miles on a charge and stop pretending that their EV is the same as a mythically fast and efficient petrol car. And not take dangerous 5-10 hour continuous drives.

MikeN,

I think you meant to say that "solar panels the area of the house (not "the car") would suffice" for home charging. Which might be correct, except that you are doing your thing of being vague, because you don't specify what "home charging" would be quantitatively.

I've put in a fair amount of time trying to give people the foundations of what is needed to objectively and usefully discuss these questions (electric circuits 101). If you are too concerned about getting something wrong, or not maintaining your ideological purity, to even try to use the correct terminology with respect to power and energy, and look at this from an engineering design perspective, then I am truly wasting my time responding.

Wow's last paragraph at 136 sums things up pretty well.

There are multiple different scenarios and situations. You take the fundamental physical facts which I have laid out and apply them to each, based on the specific goal you are trying to achieve.

If you aren't willing to stipulate what the goal is in the first place, what is the point of having a discussion?

Zebra, no I meant the area of the car. 1000 sq meters per charging station, and probably each charging station supports 50 cars, comes out to 20 square meters or so.

>You bloviated about how it wasn’t written down that they assumed it was a daily commute of 200 miles. ONCE you asked what the daily commute was. You then ONCE reworked the figures to something around 1-2000,

Because they didn't make that assumption, hidden or otherwise. My calculation of 1000 cars was different from their use of 156 cars, which was to support it. You still don't get it, as usual. It's like how you say the range of the cars is irrelevant. Yet I used the range in my calculation. You are correct that kwh/mile is just as good and the range can be skipped. Yet if I had calculated the time of charge from the range, then arguing the size of the range is a wrong assumption would be flawed, because it is the same no matter what range I use. No matter the size of the daily commute, even if every car is coming in for a full(or is it half) charge, you still get the same 156 cars number.
Daily commute 1 mile per day, you still can have 156 cars per day getting a half charge.

"Because they didn’t make that assumption"

No, they still did.

" It’s like how you say the range of the cars is irrelevant. "

It is.

"Yet I used the range in my calculation."

That still doesn't make it relevant.

"You are correct that kwh/mile is just as good "

Nope, it's the only measure of any use. If the fleet of cars were magically upgraded to double the battery capacity by some weird alien overlord, the range of all the cars would double. But the number of cars possible to service would not change a jot. Despite the range doubling.

You don't WANT to get it. Ironic given your whining earlier.

"No matter the size of the daily commute, even if every car is coming in for a full(or is it half) charge, you still get the same 156 cars number"

Nope. You got 1-2000 for example from the same cars driven the same way.

And if the cars were doubled in range because it was more efficient by a factor of two, then you'd double that number.

Showing yet again that the number given is BS and the range is a nonargument.

Why is the US Government turning back to petroleum when clean energy means JOBS JOBS JOBS?

gregladen — Tue, 24 Jan 2017 18:03:51 +0000

Why is the US Government turning back to petroleum when clean energy means JOBS JOBS JOBS?

The solar energy field now produces the larest share of jobs in US Power generation. There are 374,000 jobs i Solar right now, compared to fewer than 190,00 in coal, gas, and oil.

This corresponds to shifts in the amount of electricity produced by these various sources, as indicated in the Department of Energy graph shown above.

The biggest states for this job growth are California followed distantly by Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina.

Given current trends inside the beltway, I expect the Department of Energy to make this report disappear so 2017 US Energy and Jobs Report_0.

gregladen Tue, 01/24/2017 - 13:03

Tags

energy

Clean Energy

Department of Energy Report

Energy Jobs

environment

solar energy

A majority of US citizens want more alternative fuels and less fossil:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/01/23/232240/two-thirds-of-ameri…

Well, two thirds of Americans are out of luck, because that is not going to happen. At least not for a few years.

America, n
A country where a majority of sheep are ruled by a minority of wolves.

You guys get that all the jobs required to produce the little bit of renewable compared to the much greater amount of energy provided by fossil fuels with far fewer jobs makes renewable less efficient - right?

Jobs are good - but we want efficiency.

Not people digging holes and other people filling them in.

Why does it take almost twice as many workers to produce such a tiny amount of energy?

Jobs are good – but we want efficiency.

Not people digging holes and other people filling them in.

Why does it take almost twice as many workers to produce such a tiny amount of energy?

Because solar is at the build-out phase. It is nascent, not a mature industry.

* * *

λ = dT/dF

#dishonestlittleshit

So jobs wanted, but not if they're in industries dick doesn't like.

Dick, you fuckbubble, you need those jobs to BUILD THE STUFF. Guess what you need if you want to build nukes or mine coal again? MORE NEW JOBS.

And those jobs are currently in China where they're employing people to do the work.

And when it comes to "efficiency", how frigging efficient is the DoD? How efficient was it when trump gave taxpayer handouts worth millions to one company to "save" 700 jobs for a few years?

You want jobs but NOT if they're in things that the hippies and lefties are calling for, because your libertarianism is just a smokescreen for your political bigotry.

And what the hell is it with goaposts and you, dick? KEEP THEM WHERE THEY ARE YOU MORON.

"Oh, we need a cheaper supply, though"
"Uh, I meant it had to be up all the time!"
"Uh, no, I mean that it has to be available everywhere!"
"Uh, no, it has to be job efficient, fewer jobs!"

Why? Because Trump's cabinet and backers want to wring every cent from their oil stocks. Nothing more complex than that.
That jobs thing? Pfft.

RickA is doing the same thing. He has plenty of oil stocks himself, and will sell his mother down the river to protect their worth. It's a matter of efficiency, you know.

Brainstorms #9:

I do own RDS.B, which pays a 6.43% dividend.

You buy what you want, and I will buy what I want.

That is the libertarian way.

Your ignorance and dishonesty are bad enough rickA, but your libertarian bullshit is disgusting. You destroyed any credibility you may have had on that when you crap out of one side of your mouth about the.mythical free market working wonders and them state that laws designed to mto alternative energies more difficult -- government interference in your market -- are perfectly fine.

It seems that there is no issue too small for you to lie and be massively hypocritical about.

λ = dT/dF

#dishonestlittleshit

I do own RDS.B, which pays a 6.43% dividend.

You buy what you want, and I will buy what I want.

So, you finally confess to having a vested interest in the matter of carbon emissions reduction. If you were a potential juror you would be disqualified, and yet you presume to assess the science of climate change and claim knowledge superior that to whole disciplines of professional researchers. And worse, you ply your lawyer experience to attempt to manipulate the evidence to favour your personal interests over the truth.

If this is a reflection of your own professional ethic more generally, you're a disgrace. Your endless and endlessly-refuted proclamations are terminally compromised by your pecuniary interest in maintaining the staus quo. And it's despicable that profit motivates you to act over the welfare of those less privileged than yourself, or of the rest of life on the planet.

There are plenty of terms that describe such as you, but to use them in this case would be an offence to unicellular organisms, bioflims, larval stages of insects, and genitalia. On the other hand, if the comparison was to spilled heavy crude polluting a coastline, I could live with that.

Bernard #13:

Everybody is biased.

I am biased and have never said I wasn't.

Everybody who buys electricity from a utility which uses fossil fuels has a vested interested in fossil fuels.

Everybody who drives a vehicle which uses fossil fuel has a vested interest in fossil fuels.

You are biased - I am biased - we are all biased.

Advocate scientists are biased also.

So what else is new?

I find it amusing that you think a person who owns a stock in a fossil fuel company isn't allowed to have an opinion on climate change.

You might want to check your own portfolio.

Be sure to check the holdings of any mutual funds you own.

You may be a hypocrite and not even know it.

By the way - if you are worried about my professional ethics don't hire me.

I could care less.

Bernard, don't be concerned with ricka's ethics: he got rid of them when he became a libertarian.

To be fair, it wasn't a huge loss for him.

You are biased – I am biased – we are all biased.

And you are also a dishonest little shit.

λ = dT/dF

Advocate scientists are biased also.

There are serious problems with Curry and Lewis and Lindzen and Spencer, I agree.

BBD #17:

Not only should you take everything from Curry, Lewis, Lindzen and Spencer with a grain of salt - but I would add all the advocate scientist lead authors of the IPCC - such as Dr. Mann.

We will have to wait to see what TCR and ECS turn out to be - but I still bet ECS will turn out to be 2.0C or less.

We will know more when we hit 560 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and can measure TCR, and then use that to get a firmer estimate of ECS.

Until then I just hope we utilize nuclear to the fullest possible extent.

I would also like to see some Federal research money directed to generating energy which is cheaper than fossil fuel, and which doesn't emit carbon.

I wonder if it would ever be feasible to build very small self-contained fission reactors which were small enough to bury in your back yard and would provide power for 30 years. A company could just swap them out every 30 years and recycle the waste. Maybe thorium based?

As long as it was safe, what would be wrong with that?

but I would add all the advocate scientist lead authors of the IPCC – such as Dr. Mann.

Why? Mann's results are in line with the rest of the millennial reconstruction field.

Curry, Lewis, Lindzen and Spencer's work is not.

We will have to wait to see what TCR and ECS turn out to be – but I still bet ECS will turn out to be 2.0C or less.

And you have been shown why this is vanishingly unlikely, so you are peddling lies again.

"advocate"? Doesn't he know what that means? Maybe he doesn't know what scientists do. Probably he doesn't care OR know.

And we already know that TCS is above 2C, and ECS is above that

"And you have been shown why this is vanishingly unlikely, so you are peddling lies again."

No, it's impossible. When you've poured out a pint from an opaque barrel, it's not possible that there was less than a pint in the barrel when you started.

"You are biased – I am biased – we are all biased."

Some of us (not you) are biased to reality.

Wow #21:

Your definition of reality is very different than mine.

You actually think we have already seen a TCR above 2C, when total warming from pre-industrial is only about 1C.

You think you know the future.

That is pretty unreal (if you ask me)..

Never mind wow. I showed you what you needed to know in order to relegate ECS of 2C to the Bin of Improbable Things.

But still you push the lie.

#dishonestlittleshit.

λ = dT/dF

BBD #23:

We won't know what CS is until some point in the future.

Stop pretending you know what the answer will be.

You don't.

Nobody does.

I reject your claim that science has no predictive power.

It is self-evidently bullshit.

Either you are a fuckwit or a liar.

BBD #25:

Science does have predictive power.

The prediction is ECS will be 3C plus or minus 1.5C.

However, any guess within the range is possible (i.e. cannot be ruled out).

2.0C is within the range.

It cannot be ruled out.

It is possible it could turn out to be 2.0 or less.

You actually cannot say (with a straight face) that it is not possible.

But I am not going to call you any names - as that is rude (and beneath me).

RickA a can perfectly be both a fuckwit and a liar simultaneously.

Calling names is beneath RickA??

But condemning people to loss of life & property is NOT beneath RickA?

Add "craven" to your list...

Brainstorms #28:

It is the carbon tax folks who are condemning people to loss of life and property.

Making everything more expensive will kill people.

The prediction is ECS will be 3C plus or minus 1.5C.

No, that is obsolete. It is 3C +/- 1C but you have to have a *reason* for picking the bottom of the range and there isn't a single one. All the evidence - and I do mean all of it, including observations - points to a value close to 3C, not 2C.

All you are doing is making a dishonest pitch for a low sensitivity because the truth is, oh, inconvenient.

There is nothing I could call you that would do you justice, so #dishonestlittleshit is just a placeholder, really.

Making everything more expensive will kill people.

No, lying about climate sensitivity and peddling the status quo will kill people, which is why it is unforgivable and should not be tolerated.

Idiot! It already is more expensive. Attempts to improperly externalize part of the true costs is what is killing people. Stopping the externalization does NOT increase the costs; it likely reduces them overall.

Stop advocating for evil. Worship it privately instead why don't you.

rickA will never stop lying - he clearly enjoys it, it hides the fact that he isn't capable of understanding the topic, and it seems to have been bred into him.

As long as government keeps out of the market, except when he wants it to interfere, he'll be happy.

A different question: given Trump's apparent hard-on for pushing through oil pipelines, we have to wonder when, or if, he'll turn his attention back to the coal industry to make it "huge" once again, as he promised during his campaign.

Bad for everyone if he does, clearly. You have to wonder what the response will be if he tries to ignore it - how pissed will the people to whom that is a huge issue be?

BBD #30:

Obsolete?

Cite please.

AR5 says (https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_e…) says at page 14:

• The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)16.

Show me the support for this new range you assert.

" The prediction is ECS will be 3C plus or minus 1.5C."

THE PREDICTION for what retard?
The models.

Ooh, look, you can claim the models wrong! It's actually HIGHER than their models thought was possible!

" Making everything more expensive will kill people."

where did you read that? What science paper says that?

"Your definition of reality is very different than mine."

Yeah, we went over that before, ask BBD, your definition is wrong.

"You actually think we have already seen a TCR above 2C, when total warming from pre-industrial is only about 1C."

Yup. Half a doubling of CO2, +1.2C change, that means 2.4Cper doubling

2,4 is bigger than 2.

It's called maths. Scientists use it. Patent attorneys don't.

"We won’t know what CS is until some point in the future."

No,we know it now.

Just like you don't need a full inch square to measure the pressure of your car tyre when it's measured in pounds per square inch,

"Obsolete?

Cite please."

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/01/24/why-is-the-us-government-t…

"Science does have predictive power.

The prediction is ECS will be 3C plus or minus 1.5C."

And TCS=2.4 means that ECS is also in that range.

Correct.

"2.0C is within the range.

It cannot be ruled out."

It can. see #37

Wow at #37:

up. Half a doubling of CO2, +1.2C change, that means 2.4Cper doubling

I recently discussed this in an exchange with Gallopingcamel and Tom Fuller at Eli's. If one applies a logarimthic regression to the data, using Berkeley Earth's analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.33 °C.

However this does not take into account the underlying downward trajectory of the last millenium. I'll nut out an actual regression for this later but an eyeballing of the data suggests about 0.2 °C over 600 years to AD 1600. Rounding to a value of 0.1 °C since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and adding to the Berkeley Earth value for warming gives a transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.53 °C. Given that there's probably a bit of rounding up in the estimation for the pre-Industrial downward trend, we can probably for now just call it a neat 2.5 °C

Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2°C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO₂, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 &plusmn, 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people's guesses for climate sensitivity.

3.4 °C ECS is Bad. 4.2 °C is probably incompatible with any scenario for continued human civilisation beyond the 21st century, barring a sudden global pandemic that decimated in particular the industrial populations of the planet.

Heck, even just 3.0 °C would be bad. Unfortunately the empirical data suggest that even this relatively low value, as extrapolated from the data to date, is an impossibly optimistic expectation of what will eventually manifest. Jokers like RickA who still plumb for 2.0 °C ECS are ignoring the simple fact that the warming realised to date shows that even the TCR is well past this for a doubling of CO₂ over pre-Industrial levels. The only way that such values could be realised would be if all the known laws of radiation physics suddenly broke down beyond the current concentration of atmospheric CO₂, and that's about as likely to happen as someone falling from the 20th floor of a building and sailing past the 10th claiming that acceleration due to gravity is going to cease and indeed reverse, and that he'll land with a gentle bump.

It might feel good to wish such fancies, but it isn't going to happen.

[*I cannot find the thread where Tamino asked for people's climate sensitivity estimates - if anyone knows where it is I'd be most appreciative!)

Wow at #37:

Half a doubling of CO2, +1.2C change, that means 2.4Cper doubling

It might feel good to wish such fancies, but it isn't going to happen.

[*I cannot find the thread where Tamino asked for people's climate sensitivity estimates - if anyone knows where it is I'd be most appreciative!)

Obsolete?

Cite please.

Things have moved on since AR5. In respect of the 1.5C lower bound for ECS, it is obsolete. See:

Richardson et al. (2016) Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3066…

Johnson et al. (2016) Improving estimates of Earth’s energy imbalance
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate3043.html

Marvel et al. (2015) Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ma06110m.html

Knutti & Rugenstein (2015) Feedbacks, climate sensitivity and the limits of linear models
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2054/20150146

Shindell (2014) Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2888

Too many links. This is a repeat of my previous comment, split into two:

Obsolete?

Cite please.

Things have moved on since AR5. In respect of the 1.5C lower bound for ECS, it is obsolete. See:

Richardson et al. (2016) Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3066…

Johnson et al. (2016) Improving estimates of Earth’s energy imbalance
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n7/full/nclimate3043.html

Marvel et al. (2015) Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ma06110m.html

(cont:)

Knutti & Rugenstein (2015) Feedbacks, climate sensitivity and the limits of linear models
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2054/20150146

Shindell (2014) Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2888

Wow at #37:

Half a doubling of CO2, +1.2C change, that means 2.4Cper doubling

I recently discussed this in an exchange with Gallopingcamel and Tom Fuller at Eli's. If one applies a logarithmic regression to the data, using Berkeley Earth's analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.33 °C.

Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 °C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO₂, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 &plusmn, 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people's guesses for climate sensitivity.

It might feel good to wish such fancies, but it isn't going to happen.

[*I cannot find the thread where Tamino asked for people's climate sensitivity estimates - if anyone knows where it is I'd be most appreciative!)

And the fact that observations have obsoleted the lower than 2C option.

2.4C for TCS. ECS is either quick to arise or notably bigger than 3C per doubling.

And this isn't using models. It's using real observational data.

Odd that the denier dick insists on models when he's so set against them being any useful tool, always wrong, and fiddled for "proving" AGW.

[Wow at #44. I initially tried to post this immediately after your post at #41, but depsite several attempts it didn't materialise. It only had two links, but I'll remove the one that references your orginal post to which I responded, and hope that it will be visible...]

Wow at #37:

Half a doubling of CO2, +1.2C change, that means 2.4Cper doubling

Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 °C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO₂, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 &plusmn, 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people's guesses for climate sensitivity.

It might feel good to wish such fancies, but it isn't going to happen.

[*I cannot find the thread where Tamino asked for people's climate sensitivity estimates - if anyone knows where it is I'd be most appreciative!)

[Wow at #44. I initially tried to post this immediately after your post at #41, but despite several attempts it didn't materialise. I've finally twigged to the fact that it might be due to my use of a term that describes a pla@ying c@rd so I'll replace the term with "ignorants", and hope that this time it will be visible...]

Wow at #37:

Half a doubling of CO2, +1.2C change, that means 2.4Cper doubling

Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 °C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO₂, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 ± 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people's guesses for climate sensitivity.

Heck, even just 3.0 °C would be bad. Unfortunately the empirical data suggest that even this relatively low value, as extrapolated from the data to date, is an impossibly optimistic expectation of what will eventually manifest. Ignorants like RickA who still plumb for 2.0 °C ECS are ignoring the simple fact that the warming realised to date shows that even the TCR is well past this for a doubling of CO₂ over pre-Industrial levels. The only way that such values could be realised would be if all the known laws of radiation physics suddenly broke down beyond the current concentration of atmospheric CO₂, and that's about as likely to happen as someone falling from the 20th floor of a building and sailing past the 10th claiming that acceleration due to gravity is going to cease and indeed reverse, and that he'll land with a gentle bump.

It might feel good to wish such fancies, but it isn't going to happen.

[*I cannot find the thread where Tamino asked for people's climate sensitivity estimates - if anyone knows where it is I'd be most appreciative!)

Aw come on Greg! I've tried every trick I can't think of to get my post up but it keeps disappearing when I refresh! Am I blacklisted?!

...can...

But at least I know that I can have posts appear - I can't fathom though why my earlier one is unpalatable to scienceblogs...

Wow, I've circumvented whatever issue is sending my post into the æther by putting it up at HotWhopper.

Apologies to Greg for whatever mess might be hiding in the background of this thread, but there's something in the text of that post that scienceblogs simply doesn't like.

Bernard

using Berkeley Earth’s analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750

Touching on our previous discussion at Eli's, you may find this interesting. Sizzling hot from the press, we now have Hawkins et al. (2017) which addresses this very problem in unprecedented detail:

Here we discuss the important factors to consider when defining a pre-industrial period, based on estimates of historical radiative forcings and the availability of climate observations. There is no perfect period, but we suggest that 1720-1800 is the most suitable choice when discussing global temperature limits. We then estimate the change in global average temperature since pre-industrial using a range of approaches based on observations, radiative forcings, global climate model simulations and proxy evidence. Our assessment is that this pre-industrial period was likely 0.55–0.80°C cooler than 1986-2005 and that 2015 was likely the first year in which global average temperature was more than 1°C above pre-industrial levels.

0.9C does indeed look a bit obsolete, these days.

BBD, it's late here now so I won't try to digest it tonight, but it will be interesting to see their approach. Mine was very simplistic: take the average Berkeley Earth temperature in the period 1751-1760 and assume a CO₂ concentration of 280 ppm, take the average Berkeley Earth temperature in the period 2007-2016 and assume a CO₂ concentration of 400* ppm, and let the arithmetic do the walking.

I'll be curious indeed to see what Hawkins et al get for the pre-Industrial temperature value...

Oh, and apologies for the mess above - Greg obviously flicked something and all my efforts apparated at once. :-(

(*it would actually be a little less, but conservatism ruled - the actual average CO&#8322 concentration for 2007-2016 would give a slightly higher value for TCR...

Bernard

In future I'll be using ~1C rather than 0.9C as the approximate forced response, not least because of the point you raised at Eli's: anthropogenic aerosol negative forcing (the 'devil's umbrella').

"If one applies a logarithmic regression to the data, using Berkeley Earth’s analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.33 °C."

Aye, but I wasn't using a calculator. Close enough.

And we should have been cooling by the natural processes, so the warming over where we should have been at this point is higher than that.

well grammar aside , in the business world "money now is better than money later , go from there IDK do not really give a care , for one reason give enough rope a person will hang themself, i figure there is never going to be a perfect utopia until we are all dead so. have fun disagreeing about anything and everything looks fun

No, it's not "fun", and given the likelihood that you will live to experience some of the consequences of our collective cupidity+stupidity, you will find out first-hand how very un-fun is going to be.

Carlton, just because you're a self-centred and self-absorbed, ignorant, semi-literate, unethical nihilist doesn't mean that contemporary global society shouldn't do its best to stop from committing collective suicide and global ecocide.

Repeatedly unable to post. This is a test.

@ Bernard

For some mad reason I cannot post a link to Climate Lab Book but if you go over there you will find a discussion by Ed Hawkins of his new study. Hopefully this comment will appear...

Just wondering, could trump's tax returns be FOIAd? They're now documents about a government official....

Also wondering if the problems on this blog which don't appear to be system wide could be someone with service access is interfering. You know, hackers or the like. Maybe RT. It's been rather anti-trump and making claims about a putin puppet. But then again, maybe not...

Wow #63:

No - you cannot FOIA tax returns.

Yes you can. These are the tax returns that belong to the president. They cannot be considered to be a priori private matters since there is overwhhelming public interest (even the majority of Trump supporters,about 60% IIRC) think he should. And he can't expect privacy there either, since every other president who had tax returns to report has submitted them to scrutiny outside of the IRS.

Both of those pierce the privacy protections that stop them being valid government documents open to discovery by the people with FOIA.

I would have thoght YOU, dick, would have been on board this after all the FOIA demands for all private emails by government officials who outrageously tell people they have shown AGW is real or that the warming is unprecedented and higher than any other time in the last thousand years.

If the AGW scientists only produce their facts from fabrication because the politicians want them to fabricate the story of AGW's evidence, how come Canada, Australia and now Trump have to gag those scientists???

If they only get it for the government grants, how come the government of Canada, Australia and the USA are still giving them grants, even under Bush, Reagan and at the moment Trump? And if Trump cuts science funding, does that mean Bush and Reagan were both watermelons looking for a hidden way to get republicans to support the creation of the illuminati NWP by the Soros group???

that should have been "NWO".

Ok Wow.

Go ahead and file a FOIA for Trumps tax returns.

Prove me wrong.

Prove me wrong.

Speaking of which, when are you going to admit that you were wrong about the definition of climate sensitivity?

#dishonestlittleshit.

λ = dT/dF

And you were wrong about climate sensitivity and natural variability. And about observations supporting and ECS of 2C as opposed to making it incredibly unlikely.

When are you going to revise your views in the face of the overwhelming evidence?

"Prove me wrong."

Prove me wrong. Argue why the request would fail. I gave you why it would succeed. That you haven't shown why they are wrong indicates that you think they're valid.

"When are you going to revise your views in the face of the overwhelming evidence?"

Never, which is why "go and get a FOIA on it" is bullshit: eve if I posted the details of success, the moron would insist that somehow this wasn't proof that it was because of FOIA but that, for example, trump decided to hand it over like he promised to do (and failed each deadline so far).

Even overwhelming evidence, even if I copied out an email (OK, it'd have to be a twitter PM) from the trumper saying otherwise, he'd insist that it was wrong or faked or that he was gypped by activist liberal judges or some shit.

So I ask him to prove I'm wrong. Give argument why my case doesn't apply, he's supposed to be playing the lawyer here, after all. But I suspect he doesn't want to say anything in case he jeopardises his internet crusade against Michael Mann and the "CAGW Cabal".

BBD #70:

I will change my views when they are shown to be wrong.

I need a measurement of TCR.

When we get that I will evaluate it against Lewis and Curry and the other studies with a higher TCR/ECS and I will decide if I am right or wrong.

Until we have a measurement of TCR it is all just guessing and speculation.

I certainly will not change my mind because you (or anybody else) think I am wrong.

I expect you will behave the same.

Currently I believe Lewis and Curry have it right - as their results are consistent with the evidence.

I do not believe that all of the warming from pre-industrial is caused by the increase in CO2.

I do not believe that all of the warming from 1950 is caused by the increase in CO2.

I do not believe that all of the warming in 2015-2016 is caused by the increase in CO2.

If you don't like what I believe - tough.

You believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I want to believe.

Time will tell which one of us is right.

I will change my views when they are shown to be wrong.

They have been.

You are simply peddling lies now.

The lies are:

1/ 'I wasn't wrong about the definition of climate sensitivity'

Yes you were.

2/ Observations support an ECS of 2C

No they don't.

3/ You can have low CS and high natural variability at the same time

It is physically impossible.

Wow #71:

Here - read these:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6103

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/irs_foia_guide.pdf

Currently I believe Lewis and Curry have it right – as their results are consistent with the evidence.

No they aren't.

Why don't you read the references you asked for, eh?

Instead of dishonestly claiming that the observations are consistent with an ECS of 2C when in fact they are not?

As even a simple example demonstrates.

An example to which you have yet to make any kind of coherent response. But then, there isn't one, so you resort to blanking it and peddling lies instead.

#dishonestlittleshit

"I will change my views when they are shown to be wrong.

I need a measurement of TCR."

You didn't change your view, though:

Half a doubling of CO2, +1.2C change, that means 2.4Cper doubling

I recently discussed this in an exchange with Gallopingcamel and Tom Fuller at Eli’s. If one applies a logarithmic regression to the data, using Berkeley Earth’s analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.33 °C.

However this does not take into account the underlying downward trajectory of the last millenium. I’ll nut out an actual regression for this later but an eyeballing of the data suggests about 0.2 °C over 600 years to AD 1600. Rounding to a value of 0.1 °C since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and adding to the Berkeley Earth value for warming gives a transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.53 °C. Given that there’s probably a bit of rounding up in the estimation for the pre-Industrial downward trend, we can probably for now just call it a neat 2.5 °C

Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 °C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO₂, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 ± 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people’s guesses for climate sensitivity.

Prove you wrong? Done.

Didn't change a thing.

You're a fraud.

"I will change my views when they are shown to be wrong.

I need a measurement of TCR."

You didn't change your view, though:

Half a doubling of CO2, +1.2C change, that means 2.4Cper doubling

I recently discussed this in an exchange with Gallopingcamel and Tom Fuller at Eli’s. If one applies a logarithmic regression to the data, using Berkeley Earth’s analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.33 °C.

However this does not take into account the underlying downward trajectory of the last millenium. I’ll nut out an actual regression for this later but an eyeballing of the data suggests about 0.2 °C over 600 years to AD 1600. Rounding to a value of 0.1 °C since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and adding to the Berkeley Earth value for warming gives a transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.53 °C. Given that there’s probably a bit of rounding up in the estimation for the pre-Industrial downward trend, we can probably for now just call it a neat 2.5 °C

Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 °C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO₂, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 ± 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people’s guesses for climate sensitivity.

Prove you wrong? Done.

Didn't change a thing.

You're a fraud.

I expect you will behave the same.

My views always modify according to the evidence.

Yours do not.

You are a dishonest little shit.

I am not.

"I will change my views when they are shown to be wrong.

I need a measurement of TCR."

You didn't change your view, though:

""Half a doubling of CO2, +1.2C change, that means 2.4Cper doubling"

I recently discussed this in an exchange with Gallopingcamel and Tom Fuller at Eli’s. If one applies a logarithmic regression to the data, using Berkeley Earth’s analysis that shows 1.2 °C warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750, the transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.33 °C.

However this does not take into account the underlying downward trajectory of the last millenium. I’ll nut out an actual regression for this later but an eyeballing of the data suggests about 0.2 °C over 600 years to AD 1600. Rounding to a value of 0.1 °C since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and adding to the Berkeley Earth value for warming gives a transient climate response as it manifests from then to now is 2.53 °C. Given that there’s probably a bit of rounding up in the estimation for the pre-Industrial downward trend, we can probably for now just call it a neat 2.5 °C

Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 °C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO₂, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 ± 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people’s guesses for climate sensitivity."

Prove you wrong? Done.

Didn't change a thing.

You're a fraud.

(NOTE: Three attempts to post this, all getting "awaiting moderation". Someone with moderation access delaying posters?)

BBD:

I quoted you the IPCC for my support of the definition of CS.

I also admitted that dF is in the denominator - but told you that dF is always defined as a doubling of CO2.

Observations support an ECS of anywhere from 1.5C to 4.5C.

See the IPCC reports.

It is not physically impossible to have low CS and high natural variability - since temperatures can vary for non-CO2 reasons.

Again - I am waiting until the data are in.

We should know a lot more when we hit 560 ppm.

Then we can measure TCR and estimate ECS, based on actual observations and not computer models which have been shown to be wrong time after time.

But I am not asking you to believe what I believe.

Believe what you want.

Calling someone a liar and telling them they are wrong isn't going to change minds - it doesn't change mine.

But go ahead and keep advocating for your position.

It isn't working so far - but maybe if you keep at it you will achieve some success.

I intend to simply wait and see what the data are.

I do not believe that all of the warming from pre-industrial is caused by the increase in CO2.

I do not believe that all of the warming from 1950 is caused by the increase in CO2.

But you cannot back this up. You just assert it. Worse - much worse for you - it is flatly contradicted by the totality of the scientific evidence.

Therefore the parsimonious explanation is that you are wrong.

So why do you refuse to modify your views?

Because you are a dishonest little shit.

QED

"Here – read these:"

Did.

What proves me wrong?

“I will change my views when they are shown to be wrong.

I need a measurement of TCR.”

You didn’t change your view, though:

“”Half a doubling of CO2, +1.2C change, that means 2.4Cper doubling”

Hergel & Knutti (2008) estimate TCR as 60% ECS, which would give an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 4.2 °C. If we say that some of the equilibrium response has already been manifested because there has been a time lag since some of the emission of extra atmospheric CO₂, we might like to be conservative and say that the ECS will be somewhat less than 4.2 °C. Being quite aggressive in revising the ECS and simply splitting the difference between the TCR and ECS values gives an adjusted ECS of 3.4 °C. Coincidentally this is the same as the value of 3.4 ± 0.2 °C that I estimated about four years ago when Tamino invited* people’s guesses for climate sensitivity.”

Prove you wrong? Done.

Didn’t change a thing.

You’re a fraud.

(NOTE: FOUR attempts to post this, all getting “awaiting moderation”. Someone with moderation access delaying posters?)

Four attempts, all "awaiting moderation". Someone with moderation access delaying posters?

See #37 until then.

BBD #77:

Well - you are entitled to your opinion.

As am I.

"I do not believe that all of the warming from pre-industrial is caused by the increase in CO2."

Prove me wrong.

"I do not believe that all of the warming from 1950 is caused by the increase in CO2."

Prove me wrong.

I quoted you the IPCC for my support of the definition of CS.

And I explained that the IPCC is a specific that does not disprove the generality, which is that the cause of the forcing change is unspecified in the formal definition. We have been through this and you are simply being a dishonest little shit.

You were wrong.

I also admitted that dF is in the denominator – but told you that dF is always defined as a doubling of CO2.

A flat-out lie exacerbated by the fact that I gave examples of sensitivity being defined as purely a radiative term without CO2 as a specific.

You are lying.

Never claim on this blog that you aren't a liar ever again.

You are.

"Well – you are entitled to your opinion."

What about facts?

Your opinion is pointless. What are your facts.

Prove us wrong.

"I quoted you the IPCC for my support of the definition of CS."

They don't support your definition of CS.

Go ask them. Prove us wrong.

"but told you that dF is always defined as a doubling of CO2."

But that's a lie. Wrong. A fabrication. Incorrect.

Not true.

Well – you are entitled to your opinion.

As am I.

But not to your own facts. And interestingly, I read an article by a professor (I can't reference it) who says that if your opinion is contradicted by hard evidence (and, RickA, your opinions ARE contradicted by the evidence) then you are not entitled to them.

"Never claim on this blog that you aren’t a liar ever again. "

I think that if this isn't enough for Greg to decide that RickA isn't here for anything other than contrarianism and obstinate bullshitting, and 100% careless of the truth or reality, either he gets banned or his blog has no point and this should be abandoned entirely.

A flat-out lie exacerbated by the fact that I gave examples of sensitivity being defined as purely a radiative term without CO2 as a specific.

You are lying.

Never claim on this blog that you aren’t a liar ever again.

You are.

Wow #80:

I cannot help you any further.

Please feel free to try your FOIA for Trumps tax records and you will see from the response how to read the documents I cited for you.

Good luck in your future endeavors.

"I cannot help you any further."

So they don't prove me wrong, then. Fair enough, thanks for your eventual admission.

So my claim stands. FOIA the shit out of Trump's last 5 years of taxes.

Yes BBD.

I admitted dF is dF.

But I told you I have never seen dF used as anything other than a doubling of CO2. Your own quote says "The latter implies a warming of 2.2–4.8 K per doubling of atmospheric CO2, which agrees with IPCC estimates."

That is the dF they are using.

Wow #89:

Of course Greg can ban me.

It is his blog and he can do whatever he wants with it.

"Yes BBD.

I admitted dF is dF."

So you agree that you lied, as BBD showed.

"But I told you I have never seen dF used as anything other than a doubling of CO2"

But that is no longer true, therefore you are lying, as BBD said.

"That is the dF they are using."

Yup.

And that's 2.4C per doubling for TCR. Proving ECS is above 2C. It's above 2.4C per doubling. It is probably (by the models' determination of the difference between ECS and TCR), 4.2C per doubling.

Proving you wrong. And your insistence that it's possibly 2C a lie.

Like BBD said.

"Of course Greg can ban me."

I know.

And he should. You're 100% divorced from any meaning in any discussion. Your presence anywhere in a blog discussion is a waste of existence.

Julian Frost #88:

There are no facts for TCR or ECS.

Only estimates.

We have no measurement yet.

When we have measured TCR than there will be a fact.

This whole debate is nothing but differing opinions until we measure TCR.

Check back when we hit 560 ppm and we will have a fact then.

"There are no facts for TCR or ECS."

Lie.

"Only estimates."

Lie

"We have no measurement yet."

Lie.

"When we have measured TCR than there will be a fact."

We already have it

"This whole debate is nothing but differing opinions until we measure TCR."

Lie, because we already have the measure.

"Check back when we hit 560 ppm and we will have a fact then."

We don't have to: we have the facts now.

“Check back when we hit 560 ppm "

And when you measure your car tyre pressure, did you wait until they designed a pressure gauge with a square inch wide nozzle to measure pressure which you've always heard referred to as pounds per square inch?

How about when I ask you how come you never went to school to learn about Pascals, which is in units per square meter? What will you say then? That there can be no such thing as pressure in a tyre? That it only existed before the metric system and is now gone?

But I told you I have never seen dF used as anything other than a doubling of CO2. Your own quote says “The latter implies a warming of 2.2–4.8 K per doubling of atmospheric CO2, which agrees with IPCC estimates.”

That is the dF they are using.

Give me patience.

As I explained at the time:

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. That gets rid of the 'I have never seen' shite.

Yet, incredibly, you double-down and regurgitate your original logical fallacy in a pathetic attempt to avoid admitting error.

#dishonestlittleshit

Then you dig even deeper into the cesspool.

The example I provided starts with a radiative-terms-only calculation of sensitivity (formally correct, just as I have said from the outset) and then moves on to assigning the radiative forcing change to CO2. That's the second stage - the bit you actually had the fucking gall to quote back at me.

It illustrates my point and demonstrates your error simultaneously and yet you still pretend that you weren't wrong.

Well you were and it is proven beyond doubt to everybody watching. It is also proven that you will resort to any mendacity, however idiotic, rather than admit error.

You are a dishonest little shit. And we are not going to let you forget it.

Ever.

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

Come on BBD, there's an old saying rickA buys into -- it goes like this.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse but ignorance of the science is an excuse.

He relies on that constantly.

Why do I even bother?

"Give me patience. "
"Why do I even bother?"

Well, the reasonn why you have to is because dick is allowed to continue to post even when they're blatant in their lies and professions of fake ignorance.
...continued...

Greg was fast to warn me (very vaguely) with a banhammer when I rebuked Wes slightly, and used Tf's use of "Feminists" to rebuke HIM, possibly banhammer
...cont...

But Dick, stays.

And YOU have to deal with it, requiring you to ask those questions.

Length of messages getting shorter and shorter, beyond which they don't go in and no longer even give "awaiting moderation".

Server owner killing this blog?

Or Greg?

"" Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. "

Come on BBD, there’s an old saying rickA buys into "

He's not ignorant, he's been told. Still claims ignorance.

Wow and BBD:

You guys are making this to complicated.

You think you know what TCR is (and ECS).

I don't think we know what TCR is (and ECS).

We disagree about this.

That is all.

"You guys are making this to complicated."

Nope.

"You think you know what TCR is (and ECS)."

We know.

"I don’t think we know what TCR is (and ECS)."

You're lying.

"We disagree about this."

Yes.

No, RickA. No.

You are *denying* the actual state of scientific knowledge, which is that ECS is about 3C. That really is what we know now.

Your pretense to the contrary is dishonest. It is a lie.

Longer posts work on other scienceblogs sections, and the limit here seems to be somewhere around 3-5 lines of text.

BBD #115:

I know that 3C is the middle of the PDF.

I know that lots of science conflicts on what ECS is.

I know that lots of models conflict on what ECS is.

I know we do not actually know what ECS is.

I really truly believe we will have a better handle on ECS when we actually measure TCR when we have doubled CO2 and can measure the delta T.

I am not going to prejudge what the answer will be when we measure delta T whenever we hit 560 ppm.

My guess (pure speculation) is that ECS will turn out to be 2.0C or lower.

But as you know, I am not a climate scientist.

I just read and think for myself.

And based on what I read and what I think, the value of ECS has been dropping for years and looks to be about 1.8C ish.

But if you want to believe, based on your own reading and thinking that ECS is 3.0C - that is ok with me.

The point is that nobody knows the answer yet.

We will have to wait to see what the answer turns out to be.

"I know we do not actually know what ECS is."

We KNOW it's over 2C/doubling.

"I just read and think for myself."

No you read and then lie for consumption

"I really truly believe we will have a better handle on ECS when we actually measure TCR when we have doubled CO2 and can measure the delta T."

No you truly do not. You know we know now, but you hold to lukewarmer so you can insist we don't have to do anything about it. You're reading and then lying for consumption.

"And based on what I read and what I think, the value of ECS has been dropping for years and looks to be about 1.8C ish."

Lie, you do not know that you know it's well above that.

"The point is that nobody knows the answer yet."

Lie. We all know your prediction is wrong, it's above 2.4C/doubling.

"We will have to wait to see what the answer turns out to be."

No we don't any more than we need to wait for a car tyre valve one inch in area to measure the pressore inside the tyre.

But you're still lying for consumption.

Longer replies working again now.

"I am not going to prejudge what the answer will be when we measure delta T whenever we hit 560 ppm."

We know it now.

Over 2.4C per doubling.

Greg, if you don't tell the stupid son of a bitch to cut it out and admit his claim is bollocks there, you're just making this blog a worthless screed of lies being ignored and people getting pissed off at the fuckwit.

I know that lots of science conflicts on what ECS is.

But it doesn't. That is a false claim. There is a solid consensus that ECS is about 3C. Sure there are outliers, but they are outliers.

My guess (pure speculation) is that ECS will turn out to be 2.0C or lower.

Your opinion is irrelevant. This is a scientific issue. Why you cannot grasp this simple *fact* is a mystery to me. Unless of course it is the dishonest foundation for your very presence here - year after year - peddling misinformation.

Anyway, shall we canvass the expert view of pre-eminent climate scientists with specific domain expertise? Let's do that.

They don't agree with you.

BBD #122:

I know.

They also don't agree with Lewis and Curry or Otto or a few other scientists.

I am looking forward to finding out who is right.

What a pity that we don't know the answer yet.

Oh well - we will have to wait and see.

If you bothered to read the references I provided upthread, you would know that Otto and L&C's methodology has been shown to be biased low. You would understand that we already know that ECS is (as long suspected) close to 3C.

You can pretend otherwise, but not honestly.

"They also don’t agree with Lewis and Curry or Otto or a few other scientists."

So they are wrong.

"I am looking forward to finding out who is right."

We already know.

"What a pity that we don’t know the answer yet."

What a pity you're lying. We already know.

"Oh well – we will have to wait and see."

Oh, no, we can see now.

It's at least 2.4C per doubling.

I can see you don't really fear Greg at all, do you, dick. No worries about him at all.

And if it's TCR, it's 2.4C per doubling, we KNOW that at the moment.

ECS we won't know until we've held CO2 levels stable for probably 50-100 years

"you would know that Otto and L&C’s methodology"

They used a computer model?!?!?!

When did deniers start saying computer models proved reality? They used to say only measurements proved reality.

Measurements say that TCR is 2.4C per doubling. Right now we have the data for that. dT & dF both known. 1.2 and 0.5. 1.2/0.5=2.4

Simple maths dick can, and has, done, but he's lying for consumption.

"They used a computer model?!?!?!"

Wow, that's one of the new lines used by denialists in a few areas: "alternative medicine" quacks are pushing their bad studies as being "analyzed by computer", and so are anti-vaccination groups.

Computer use is bad when scientists do it, good when the quacks do it. As rickA demonstrates here.

A Question For Next Debate: How Will the US Catch Up With the Clean Power Plan?

gregladen — Tue, 27 Sep 2016 07:04:26 +0000

A Question For Next Debate: How Will the US Catch Up With the Clean Power Plan?

The US is already behind in its agreed to commitment to clean power

A study just out in Nature climate Change suggests that the US is already behind in its commitments to reduce the use of fossil fuel as an energy source, and the concomitant release of climate-warming greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

The paper, by Jeffery Greenblatt and Max Wei, says:

Current intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs)are insufficient to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting temperature change to between 1.5 and 2.0◦C above pre-industrial levels, so the effectiveness of existing INDCs will be crucial to further progress. Here we assess the likely range of US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2025 and whether the US’s INDC can be met, on the basis of updated historical and projected estimates. We group US INDC policies into three categories reflecting potential future policies, and model 17 policies across these categories. With all modelled policies included, the upper end of the uncertainty range overlaps with the 2025 INDC target, but the required reductions are not achieved using reference values. Even if all modelled policies are implemented, additional GHG reduction is probably required; we discuss several potential policies.

The authors note that we can reach the targets, if we do something about it soon. There is time. The main problem seems to be methane, emissions of which will be higher than previously estimated. Chris Mooney talked to the authors, reports that here, and notes:

Earlier this year, the U.S. EPA increased its estimate for how much methane is being emitted by the oil and gas sector, and by the U.S. overall, in recent years. The new study has more or less done something similar.

“We made some corrections to the 2005 and 2025 estimates for methane,” says Greenblatt. In particular, he said, in 2005 these changes added 400 million additional tons of carbon dioxide equivalents emitted as methane.

Greenblatt emphasized that assumptions of higher methane emissions aren’t the only reason that the U.S. could miss its goals, but that it’s a significant one. “An increasing amount of methane emissions is part of the story,” he said.

Another problem, of course, is the yahoos who live in conservative states, the self-interested fossil fuel industry, and presidential candidate Donald Trump. These nefarious actors are trying to force the US EPA Clean Power Plan out of existence because, well, I guess they want to see all of our children grow up in a post apocalyptic world.

John Upton at Climate Central notes:

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has embraced the fight against global warming started by President Obama. Republican nominee Donald Trump has vowed to end it, such as by disbanding the EPA and abandoning international commitments.

Polluting industries and conservative states are suing the EPA in an attempt to overturn its new power plant rules, arguing that the agency overstepped its legal boundaries. The rules haven’t taken effect yet, but they’re the linchpin of American climate policy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear opening arguments in the case Tuesday, with an eventual ruling likely from the Supreme Court. A judicial appointment by the next president could tip the Supreme Court against or in favor of environmental regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan.

So, the question I'd love to see asked in the next Presidential Debate is this: "A recent peer reviewed study indicates that the US is not on target to meet the promised reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. This is mainly due to methane release being greater than previously thought, but other factors matter as well. What will you do as President to get us back on track?"

More about the Clean Power Plan:

gregladen Tue, 09/27/2016 - 03:04

Tags

"How Will the US Catch Up With the Clean Power Plan?" The answer is obvious: it will not. Perhaps you meant "How could the USA....." etc.

This cracks me up:

"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has embraced the fight against global warming started by President Obama."

Yeah, started by Obama. LOL!

The clean power plan is not authorized under existing law.

This is being hashed out in the courts right now and it is very likely the act will be ruled invalid.

To do what the act wants you need a new law - which President Obama didn't get out of congress - so he instead tried to implement it with an EPA rule, which is probably invalid.

Bottom line - if you want to start regulating CO2 emissions, you need a new law - you cannot just use the old ones.

The clean power plan, no matter how great some think it is, is an invalid plan if it goes beyond the current EPA laws (which I think it does).

With CFC's, there was a treaty, which was ratified, which gave the EPA jurisdiction.

Here we have nothing to support the plan except a naked assertion of power.

We will see if this plan was a good idea once the courts are done ruling on its legality.

I think it would be much better to focus on building as many 4th generation nuclear power plants as quickly as possible to provide baseload power which doesn't produce CO2.

But that is just one person's opinion.

"Bottom line – if you want to start regulating CO2 emissions, you need a new law – you cannot just use the old ones."

Why did the hyper-conservative United States Supreme Court state the existing laws are enough?

I'm starting a company. I'll be located upwind of RickA's house. My company will have to release hydrogen cyanide gas as a byproduct, but since there's not a specific law regulating hydrogen cyanide emissions, it can't be controlled by an EPA rule, since RickA says that's "probably invalid".

So RickA will need a new law, and cannot just use the old ones to try to prevent my company from poisoning his family. (In this Congressional environment, good luck RickA. I think it would be much better for you to focus on investing in gas masks.)

"I’m starting a company. I’ll be located upwind of RickA’s house. My company will have to release hydrogen cyanide gas as a byproduct...."

And if RickA doesn't like he (i.e., he hates freedom), he can damn well leave the USA!

RickA will try to make the bullshit argument that HCN is toxic, and so the EPA can regulate its emissions, then make the claim that CO2 is "harmless" and therefore the EPA cannot regulate it. Of course, the truth is that both these gases will do him and his children harm -- just at different rates -- and the EPA's regulation of CO2 as a "toxic pollutant" is perfectly valid and within their purview.

The difference is that dealing with the CO2 threat imposes an "inconvenience" to him personally, so he'd rather cause millions to suffer rather than have to make a small compromise to his "cherished lifestyle".

RickA doesn't hate freedom, except to the extent that it encompasses anyone else's freedoms: Freedom from gun violence, freedom from environmental destruction, freedom to have a life in the future, etc.

Desertphile said "Why did the hyper-conservative United States Supreme Court state the existing laws are enough?"

They didn't.

What they did was rule that the EPA had to decide if CO2 was a pollutant. The EPA ruled it was. This will be overturned at some point - because the EPA relied on other peoples science, when by law they are supposed to do their own.

Also, CO2 is not a pollutant as that term is used by the EPA - in that it doesn't cause medical health harm to humans. Like lead or mercury, etc.

The EPA might as well start regulating O2 or H20 or Nitrogen.

Regulating CO2 because it is increasing sea level is not what the clean air act was designed for. What one president did by executive order, another can undo.

If you want to regulate greenhouse gas emissions you need a new law or a ratified treaty.

Eventually the courts will undo the clean power plan or a future president will undo it, or undo the EPA endangerment finding as to CO2.

Which is why you need a new law if you want to regulate something we all breathe out, and plants breathe in.

"in that it doesn’t cause medical health harm to humans."

I don't know whether you are as stupid as you seem or whether you believe that if you tell an incredibly bold lie you won't get called on it. Despicable, in either case.

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/cfodocs/howel…

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/co-010908.html

it is no wonder you lean libertarian: a "philosophy" that has nothing but disdain for education, honesty, and critical thought would die if it weren't for people like you.

the EPA relied on other peoples science

There is only one "science". All else is opinion, fantasy, dishonesty, psychosis, etc.

You don't get to redefine "science" just because it disagrees with your "opinions" and desired outcomes.

Reality: You take what it dishes out. You have no alternative, ESPECIALLY if you don't like it. You change your ideology instead.

RickA shares that particular ignorance with Christopher C. Horner, who wrote in 2007, "If the hydrocarbon fuel is incompletely burned, it can give off poisonous carbon monoxide. Ideally, hydrocarbons are transformed entirely into energy and the odorless gas carbon dioxide. (The distinction between CO—poisonous carbon monoxide—and CO2—benign carbon dioxide—is one lost on my hatemailers who urge me to asphyxiate myself with the latter.")

See page 69 of The politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism.

Indeed, it is conceivable that a factory emitting HCN could be less lethal downwind than a power plant releasing CO2, although it requires a very unlikely set of circumstances. That sort of CO2 lethality, AFAIK, remains the province of nature, in cases like Lake Nyos.

"...as stupid as seems..."

I think we tend to underestimate the role of social intelligence in the ability to form reasoned arguments outside of one's personal silo.

There's probably a reason why someone would gravitate to and perhaps do well in engineering and then patent law while being completely inexpert at handling the lines between rhetoric and logic outside of those areas.

RickA seems to think that since the best he can do is pull ideological 'opinions' out of his arse end, the same must be true for everybody. It's a singular lack of the kind of imagination required for perspective taking needed in many fields.

Given the field that RickA is in (and which is true for politics as well), the matter-of-course distortion of "truth" and "reality" that is perpetuated in order to "win" in the course of one's pursuit of self-satisfaction should not be surprising.

What passes for "logic" in his workaday world is "whatever I can get away with arguing sufficiently persuasively" to get some type of official agreement. He then gets money and and his ego strokes. (Maybe he gets a banana, too.)

RickA's intellectual stumbling block is that he applies this same "logic" to everything in his life, including his morals. (I soooo wanna see him try to argue his way through dem Pearly Gates. Ha ha)

So it's really not surprising that RickA believes that if he has a strong enough / long enough argument about why his opinion of science and reality should prevail, he will actually "win" and get to define scientific truths for us.

Ha ha. No.

"the US is already behind in its commitments to reduce the use of fossil fuel as an energy source"

The United States has made no commitment. It is possible that a delegate appointed by Barack Obama made a commitment that, unfortunately, is not binding on a few hundred milion Americans.

How about asking whether or not we're going to stop Fukushima and clean up the Pacific Ocean?

http://tinyurl.com/zf97gm4

ron: "How about asking whether or not we’re going to stop Fukushima and clean up the Pacific Ocean?"

Huh? Fukushima has been stopped. As for cleaning the Pacific Ocean, there are huge engineering problems with removing the trash (mostly plastic) from the Pacific.

"http://tinyurl.com/zf97gm4"

Idiot. What the bloody anal fuck does NOAA's tsunami sea level graph have to do with radiation? Good fucking grief.

ron suggests that someone else ask this question; not him of course: "How about asking whether or not we’re going to stop Fukushima and clean up the Pacific Ocean?"

Should it happen that someone asks this question then I'll point out that there is no "we". Also, Fukushima is a city if I remember right and I am curious how Ron proposes to "stop" a city, or clean up the Pacific Ocean, or what constitutes "clean" (whales pooping in it might not be considered clean). If he wants to do that, well, get out there and do it.

The United States has made no commitment. It is possible that a delegate appointed by Barack Obama made a commitment that, unfortunately, is not binding on a few hundred milion Americans.

Well, it has ratified, and there isn't far to go before the Paris accord goes into force. At which point, I think, the US commitment becomes binding on the US administration.

Let me explain this to our British friends.

"White House senior adviser Brian Deese said the president has the legal authority to ratify the accord without the two-thirds Senate vote required for treaties. He said the pact negotiated by 195 countries in December is merely an executive agreement."

It is not a treaty and it is not binding on the United States. The agreement is between Barack Obama and whoever wishes to make agreements with him.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/29/obama-will-bypass-senat…

Only the Senate can ratify a treaty.

Obama says he is doing it himself - but I believe that is not permitted under the Constitution.

The way Obama is doing it, the treaty is not binding on the USA.

Rickasshole: "Only the Senate can ratify a treaty."

Who claimed otherwise?

Obama says he is doing it himself – but I believe that is not permitted under the Constitution.

Idiot.

The way Obama is doing it, the treaty is not binding on the USA.

Is this official? Is there a government source confirming this?

BBD:

No - this is just me opining based on my knowledge as a lawyer.

Desertphile:

BBD said it was ratified.

Michael 2:

Your explanation is also for Americans.

My comments were assuming this was a treaty, which I now see it is not - it is an executive agreement.

Executive agreements are never binding and do not have the force of law.

RickA writes "My comments were assuming this was a treaty, which I now see it is not – it is an executive agreement."

Yes. The treaty bird was never going to fly; so it is an agreement with the executive branch which in a few months will become a new executive that may or may not honor this agreement, but it is not a "binding" in the sense that BBD thinks the United States has agreed to something.

But it is a lot more than nothing. If you google it you will see that nearly every news story portrays it as a treaty, trying for a "fait accompli" in the minds of the public, as if not only the science but the debate is settled.

Thanks for the link.
It continues:

“The president will use his authority that has been used in dozens of executive agreements in the past to join and formally deposit our instrument of acceptance, and therefore put our country as a party to the Paris Agreement,” Mr. Deese said at a White House press conference.

He noted that both presidents announced in March that they “would seek to formally join the Paris Agreement in 2016.”

“That’s a process that is quite well-established in our existing legal system and in the context of international agreements and international arrangements,” Mr. Deese said. “There is a category of them that are treaties that require advice and consent from the Senate, but there’s a broad category of executive agreements where the executive can enter into those agreements without that advice and consent.”

Then there's a collective howl from the usual denier claque (Ebell, Morano, Nova, Inhofe) claiming that this won't result in a legally-binding agreement. But these people lie constantly so it seems at least plausible that they are lying about this now.

Is there no official government source supporting the claim that ratification is "between Barack Obama and whoever wishes to make agreements with him"?

That's what I asked for. I couldn't give a rat's arse what the liars are howling.

BBD writes "I couldn’t give a rat’s arse what the liars are howling."

On the contrary. You follow such howlings and so do I; for you cannot be sure who is lying and who is telling the truth so we listen to all of it (but not perhaps in equal amounts) until it becomes a bit more clear who is telling the truth.

But in the end what matters is whether a legislature believes one way or another, or an armed force believes one way or another, for in the end it is guns and butter; mostly guns, that decide whether the United States is going to decarbonize unwillingly.

The Executive can make any agreement he wants; the problems then start with the House of Representatives deciding to pay for Obama's adventures (or not).

As your stories eventually reveal, and you are right about liars but they seem mostly to be the "media", if this is not a treaty then Congress is not bound to it and neither, therefore, the people of the United States. The President of the United States neither neither king nor god; the principle ruler of the people of the United States is Congress. President Obama is merely the CEO of the government; he rules government but not the people.

I suppose for discussion a comparison of your Prime Minister versus the President of the United States. My understanding of your PM may be as good, or weak, as yours of the US President.

My understanding of the PM is that he's still a member of parliament; chosen from among his peers. The corresponding position in the United States would be Speaker of the House or so it seems to me. Now in the US, Speaker of the House isn't that big a deal; he's not the Head of State, BUT as the weilder of the Purse quite influential.

The President of the United States is the Head of State, but in truth he's simply the chief executive and governs government itself, not citizens. There's a very large number of things he would do but isn't permitted; and he pushes the envelope regularly trying things that he's not permitted.

For instance, no law allows him to regulate carbon dioxide, but as he is the CEO of government, he can decree that one of his agencies label carbon dioxide as "pollutant" and suddenly it comes under the purview of a law Congress intended for dirty air and dirty water. It's a word game and fairly effective since a government agency can simply re-define any word to be any thing and suddenly it is in compliance with the letter of the law, although clearly not with the spirit of the law.

This necessitates Congress to issue a new law more finely tuned to their intentions hoping that a rogue president cannot twist their words. Good luck with that!

But it seems your Prime Minster has a lot more power insofar as being head of parliament AND head of government; all neatly wrapped into one package with no "checks and balances" to stop really bad ideas.

First, there's the compulsion of international visibility, which is not easily dismissed. Second, If the science-denying right obstructs US participation in Paris Accord commitments, it will simply be deepening its grave with its own hands. As climate impacts on US citizens increase in frequency and severity, they will, of course, remember who vetoed action.

It didn't have to be this way, but my sense is that the right signed its death warrant years ago by pursing a policy of science denial. But stupidity has consequences, every time. Just watch the Donald.

BBD writes "my sense is that the right signed its death warrant years ago by pursing a policy of science denial."

There is no "right"; whatever it is (a blend of various not-lefts) are merely the atheists of scientism. As such this coalition of not-lefts regularly morphs as it reacts to the left; drawing in and spitting out various factions.

There is no death warrant nor anyone to serve it but violent metaphors seem to be nearly obligatory for leftists.

Real, honest-to-gosh science is loved by some of the not-lefts. No hero worship. Reproducible measurements. The ultimate in argument settling power.

The left is not really all that interested in science. I cannot think of a single leftist in my extended family (and nearly all of them are leftists) that could name so much as four elements from the periodic table. They tend to be more interested in social phenomena and recreational behaviors traditionally considered harmful or immoral. The not-lefts include those more interested in human reproduction and the survival of the species in that manner; where the left tends to be the empathetic element necessary for societies to form.

So (figuratively speaking) the left went to Walmart, bought some stickers that say "science" and stick it on things they wish society to accept. There was a time when the pope's imprimatur served the same purpose.

By happy coincidence, the Paris Agreement crossed the 55% emissions threshold this very day and will go into force in 30 days time:

With today’s European Parliament approval of the Paris Agreement ratification – in the presence of European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, the United Nation's Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the President of COP 21 Ségolène Royal – the last hurdle is cleared. The political process for the European Union to ratify the Agreement is concluded.

[...]

So far, 62 parties, accounting for almost 52 % of global emissions have ratified the Paris Agreement. The Agreement will enter into force 30 days after at least 55 parties, representing at least 55% of global emissions have ratified. The EU ratification and deposit will cross the 55% emission threshold and therefore trigger the entry into force of the Paris Agreement.

If the climate-denying right goes against what is effectively the rest of the world, the climate-denying right will be buried.

BBD writes "and will go into force in 30 days time"

There's the key word: Force!

Maybe.

"the climate-denying right will be buried."

By whom?

For a man that seems to admire science you could and ought to be more precise. I doubt anyone denies "climate".

So you might consider "Some of the people that doubt some of the claims made by some climate scientists are likely to be disappointed by the political outcomes likely to exist in the future."

<blockquote.There is no “right”; whatever it is (a blend of various not-lefts) are merely the atheists of scientism.

Typical rubbish from you. The right is the right and accepting the scientific evidence is *not* scientism. Do you actually know what this word means? It seems not. Either that, or you deliberately misrepresent the situation with the dishonesty typical of the science-denying right.

BBD writes "The right is the right"

And blue is blue. I understand tautology. However, as used in this immediate discussion, the right, while being right, is not a useful description. That is why you chose to write "the right is the right" rather than something more descriptive (and, in your case, probably inaccurate; so stick with the safe tautology).

"and accepting the scientific evidence is not scientism."

To become a Catholic, one of the first things you accept is the Trinity. It isn't yet an "ism" until it becomes a philosophy and you start to make non-related (non-scientific) decisions based on that acceptance.

For over a thousand years the Catholic church was the "science" of its day; there was no other science and serious consequences existed for suggesting otherwise.

The Catholics held, and still hold, a dominion greater than that of the Roman army. The army controlled physical assets; the Catholics control minds. Today, "science" is the religion that controls peoples' minds; but as with God, science does not speak -- people speak for science/god and it is those people that become the prophets of doom. As with various religions, a charismatic and skilled public speaker moves public opinion and belief. That is why the "97 percent" meme was created by a psychologist rather than a scientist. People may or may not believe Kieth Briffa, but huge numbers of people subscribe to charismatic Al Gore (a political "scientist") and Stephan Lewandowsky: Shapers of the Message.

I love science; but it is not my religion. You see, I already have a religion and thus science cannot displace it. But I write as poorly as you; "science" is not a thing. It is a container for claims; some of which are more likely true than others.

Your acceptance seems to be automatic. It is for you as it is with a Good Catholic; what the pope decrees must be true. It is not an option to believe *some* claims of Catholicism and not others while remaining a "good Catholic".

*I* can certainly believe some claims and not others because I have made no claim of being a good Catholic.

I can also believe some scientific claims and not others because I make no claim of being a "good science believer" or acolyte or disciple of "science".

It is this quality of moral virtue being signalled by your acceptance of certain tenets of "science" that makes it an "ism". I see a catechism of science, a priesthood of science, philosophers of science, acolytes and evangelists of science. In what way is this NOT an "ism"?

"dishonesty typical of the science-denying right."

You can do better than that. Even WOW does better than that. Review DailyKOS and Huffpo for some epithetical ideas. Be creative and invent entirely new epithets for people you've never met but wish to deprecate in some way.

30 days.

By whom?

The rest of us.

For a man that seems to admire science you could and ought to be more precise. I doubt anyone denies “climate”.

Away with your nonsense now.

BBD writes: "The rest of us."

For whom do you speak?

Does anyone else on Planet Earth know you have arrogated to speak/write on their behalf?

Probably not. You speak for you. While it is plain to see that a hive exists (many, actually) it is not clear that you are the appointed speaker for it. Still, I've seen the Borg episodes on Star Trek and realize that any of the Borg speak for the entire hive since they have only one mind among them; that of the queen, but there's an emergent property; a collective mind that is created by millions of mini-minds and what this collective mind things tends to drift a bit since it isn't anchored.

On a slightly different note, I really do enjoy and appreciate your (BBD's) intelligence and willingness to discuss things. I am fascinated by the hive mind, a thing I see exists and wonder sometimes what it would be like to be enveloped by it. The hive never chose me and I never chose the hive. But as with bees, they have a fine and instinctive sense of who belongs and who does not.

People, or drone bees such as Wow, sense I do not belong in this hive and immediately go on the attack (as he supposes). DailyKOS is an example of a hive; if they sense you do not belong then the banhammer is swift.

So what is interesting to me is not so much the existence of hive, which is obvious, but how its members determine acceptance and what is the optimum size of a hive steering committee.

I see exactly the same phenomena at work with significant consequences of employment to fail to grasp the existence of these little cliques, cabals, gangs, cohorts.

An emergent phenomenon, "groupthink", arises and starts to control the creativity and thought processes of its members. This is very bad in situations calling for creativity. The hive mind is not designed for creativity; it is designed for conformity.

I think it will interesting to see if an energy policy based on executive actions (executive orders, executive agreements), will work - or be a waste of time.

We know passing laws "works". But the clean energy plan is under attack in court and may be struck down as not enabled by any law (such as the clean air law). The executive agreement is not binding - and it will be interesting to see how that plays out over the next few years.

"Today, “science” is the religion that controls peoples’ mindsbut as with God, science does not speak — people speak for science/god and it is those people that become the prophets of doom. "

Only a fool asserts that science is a religion.

As demonstrated by the person who made that post.

And stop with the lie that you appreciate science: you've repeatedly demonstrated you do anything but appreciate (or even have a basic understanding of it).

dean writes "Only a fool asserts that science is a religion."

Fortunately you are not the definer of the English language. I wonder how many fools therefore exist?

Google "science is a religion": About 263,000 results

Science and religion have a common purpose: Describe the world and our place or roles within it. Both are container words. You cannot point to science and you cannot point to religion; neither exists of itself but instead are words that describe a class of things considered "scientific" or "religious" and both words are remarkably difficult to define.

Here's a pretty good list of 10 similarities
[http]://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-10-reasons-science-is-another-religion/

1. Science Requires Faith.

5. Science Has Its Own Priesthood.

8. Science Reveres Its Own Saints

9. It Casts Out Heretics and Persecutes all Other Religions

"And stop with the lie that you appreciate science: you’ve repeatedly demonstrated you do anything but appreciate (or even have a basic understanding of it)."

Telling me what to do or not do is not science; it is religion. Judging me is not science, it is religion.

Followup to Dean.

Consider faith in science. When I measure voltage, I have faith that my DMM is portraying the actual voltage. I also have faith that my understanding of voltage is useful and meaningful.

I have faith that things I cannot see, such as radio waves, actually exist and can be produced and controlled in useful ways.

I have faith that the PN junction of a diode behaves as described by people more expert than me so that I can use diodes without having to make my own.

I have faith that the existence of cone shells in rock means that long ago animals lived in those cone shells and the rock was mud, and under the sea, whereas now it is at 7000 feet elevation above sea level.

II have faith in various dating methods, particular radiocarbon dating and geological dating methods.

So I have a lot of faith in science; but that faith would not exist if I did not have sufficient knowledge to create faith.

Knowledge comes first then faith! It is so with my religion as well. Knowledge came first.

Excessive faith in science leads to fraud. I've been approached by a neighbor trying to sell me a water ionizer. Water doesn't ionize, but how many people know that? I doubt he was deliberately trying to defraud me, he believed in his product and uses it himself not realizing it is a fraud.

I've recently (last week) seen this device that presumably scans your body, senses vibrations and displays on a computer screen vivid images of blood cells, organs and so on as if a pair of headphones could actually do that.

[http]://www.templeofwellness.com/diagnostic.html

[http]://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/how-one-mans-invention-is-part-of-a-g…

Generalized science knowledge (broad based) is good protection from these scams; but highly specialized scientific training confers no special resistance to fraud outside of your specialty; and might actually make you more vulnerable since you suppose yourself superior, smart, and invulnerable.

Faith in science is misplaced. Science is about knowledge, not faith. What you know is not the entirety of science. No one person can know "science"; you are compelled to believe in the rest of it if you are a believer (and it seems you are) or skeptical about the rest of it if you are a skeptic (as I am), or say a "pox on all their houses" if you are a denier. But a denier is also vulnerable to whatever is the opposite of science. All people embrace something (in my opinion, obviously) and if it isn't "science" it is going to be something else. But how do you embrace "science"? You cannot; you can embrace a particular discipline, maybe two or three -- and then believe the rest.

m2: "Excessive faith in science leads to fraud."

That is an excellent example of what Dr. Mann described as "bad faith debate." The sub-sub-sub-genius "Michael 2" cannot refute observed reality no matter how desperately he wants to, so he wants to change the subject while pretending he did not do so. This is why science communicators should ignore these cultists.

Desertphile writes "no matter how desperately he wants to"

Why do you assume I am a "he"?

You can do better than that.

No, 'exhibits dishonesty typical of the science-denying right' is fine.

BBD wrote "No, ‘exhibits dishonesty typical of the science-denying right’ is fine."

I suppose you proofread your own writing, too. ;-)

In other words, of course you think your words are fine, you wrote them! I'm suggesting they aren't very effective, in addition to having no meaning. You can make them sharp and articulate while still having no meaning.

The meaning is crystal clear, M2, and your pretense that it isn't demonstrates the problem perfectly.

BBD writes "The meaning is crystal clear, M2, and your pretense that it isn’t demonstrates the problem perfectly."

Hvað segir þú?

Those words are crystal clear to me, but not perhaps to you. Even if you google translate you will obtain only the translation of the three words but not perhaps what those three mean when strung together in that order.

Effective communication requires clarity, which I interpret as meaning a lack of ambiguity so that it is not possible for me to be uncertain what the words themselves are saying; but that may still not be what you meant.

That aspect is correctness and exists on two levels: One level is whether I correctly understood your meaning, and the other is whether your words are correct, as in having made a true claim.

So let us examine this supposedly clear statement of yours.

"exhibits dishonesty typical of the science-denying right"

The immediate unclarity or ambiguity is the adjective or limiting clause "science-denying". Do you intent to limit your criticism to that subset of the right that denies science? Or is the clause descriptive, a way for you to assert that all of the right is science denying? Perhaps it is simply your way of defining an attribute of the right; whereas my definitions will almost certainly differ.

Your factual problems start with "exhibiting dishonesty". How exactly is that done? How do you discern between people that (1) are mistaken, (2) know the truth but say otherwise? Either way, their words are identical; but the dishonest person knows the truth and chooses to say otherwise. This requires mind reading ability and I doubt you possess this skill.

If your focus is on error, then it is not necessary or useful to invoke "right"; as if science-denying LEFT is exempt from your criticism, and yet, that is very likely exactly the case. Snowflakes, GMO opponents, and so on; all members of the left, deny science. But as they are on your team, you have expressely excused them.

That part of your commentary does seem to be clear. Left good, right bad!

Now then, for the right to exhibit dishonesty, they must know the truth; and that is a fine thing right there. I am glad that you believe the right possesses the truth; for without it they would simply be mistaken, not dishonest.

So the real problem seems to be honesty. Do you agree? All this about "right" is superfluous, science-denying is virtue signaling, and your real concern is about honesty.

Blah, blah, blah.

BBD writes "Blah, blah, blah."

Now that was meaningless; or was it? Where one blah would suffice, you used three! That's probably significant. Maybe it will become clear as I read the rest of the comments.

Groupthink, scientism, science-as-religion, the hive, hive mind, the Left

See where it gets you, M2?

BBD writes "See where it gets you, M2?"

In front of a computer.

Science and religion have a common purpose

No they don't. Science seeks to understand nature as it is; religion is an arbitrary, fictitious narrative.

BBD writes "Science seeks to understand nature as it is; religion is an arbitrary, fictitious narrative."

That is how you define those words; seeking to find differences rather than similarities; which is okay since differences do exist as otherwise we wouldn't have two words for one thing, neither word being a thing anyway.

Religion also seeks to understand nature as it is; but extends the scope beyond that which can be measured by a digital voltmeter (as an example of instrumentation confined to "matter").

As it is used, science provides the foundation for social policy, but so does religion.

Science evolved from religion; it is a different fork of a common ancestor. If it can be measured it is science. Thus science becomes a subset of religion; that portion of "what exists" that can be measured with a manufactured instrument. An advantage of science is that it is difficult (but certainly not impossible) to argue measurements.

Where a thing cannot be measured it is easy to argue; hence we have two main lines of theory in physics but thousands of lines of theory in religion.

It is so with my religion as well. Knowledge came first.

No, it didn't. You are either lying or confused.

BBD writes "No, it didn’t. You are either lying or confused."

I have written accurately with little chance of confusion. Knowledge precedes faith. Probably in all cases for every person but certainly in my case.

It is your dogmatism that blinds you. You have such strong faith in your belief system that you cannot accept that my experience is different.

You exemplify a point I am trying to make -- dogmatism. Your mind is shut, your eyes are closed. Your cup is full, nothing more can be added. To the extent I feel emotions about other people, for you I feel pity.

"Google “science is a religion”: About 263,000 results"

Thousands of people believe vaccines cause autism - they take it on faith. Science shows that there is no link

Thousands (probably more by an order of magnitude) believe the earth is only a few thousand years old. Science shows that is not the case.

Many people believe science is a religion, with prophets and has a priesthood (nope) and saints - saints as used in the religous world.

The people who believe vaccines cause autism have no evidence to support their stance.
The people who believe the earth to be a few thousand years old have no evidence to support their stance.
The people who equate science to religion have no evidence to support their stance.

You can say people in each of those groups are ignorant about the nature of the things they believe, or they are lying, or both.

You are in the "both" camp: you have no clue about the functioning of science (or statistics, not surprising for an engineer) and are willing to lie about many other things.

That is how you define those words;

FFS not this again. You do this every single time your rubbish gets called out. The meaning is unequivocal and you can stop pretending otherwise right now.

Religion also seeks to understand nature as it is;

No it doesn't. Science and religion do not have a common purpose and you were wrong the first time.

"Science evolved from religion"

Your monumental stupidity and lack of knowledge of the meanings of words means there is no hope of you ever being a rational person.

dean wrote "there is no hope of you ever being a rational person."

What a relief! Still, it is unlikely we use the word "rational" in the same way. A rational person, to me, does not deprecate other persons -- there is no profit in doing so. It does not improve breeding opportunities or personal security to insult one's opponents and total strangers. Perhaps I have been mistaken all these years and insulting other people is exactly the way to get ahead; but only in certain cultures (hives) of which I am already not a part.

I see you as a person so common on blog comment sections that hasn't really got much to offer and substitutes insulting others.

Science represents a shedding of magical and superstitious thinking in favor of evidence and logIc. So in a sense, yes, astronomy grew out of astrology in the same way that some of us grew out of other childish behaviors and ideas.

Obstreperous Applesauce writes "Science represents a shedding of magical and superstitious thinking"

That is not its purpose. It can be a consequence but not the intended consequence. I have no difficulty possessing scientific AND magical thinking. Very likely so does everyone else here.

"in favor of evidence and logIc."

Evidence foremost. Logic, by itself, is merely a method that can work on evidence *and* magical thinking. Science is thus well suited where evidence is abundant, and useless where evidence is not abundant.

For instance, it is trivial to invoke logic and God; if there's an omnipotent, omniscient God, and he wished us to think a certain combination of things, then that is what we would think, for that is the meaning of omnipotent. In such logic, everything that exists is proof of God since you can reverse the logic (induction) and arrive at "God" as the ultimate unknown cause of life, the universe and everything.

Logic usually (maybe always) contains a conditional, something that must be assumed to be true but is not known to be true. Then you work through the process and out the other end pops a conclusion.

"So in a sense, yes, astronomy grew out of astrology in the same way that some of us grew out of other childish behaviors and ideas."

Once again you insert your prejudice into a circumstance. Astrology was never childish; it was taken with utmost gravity by many ancient cultures. Stonehenge being an example and rather a lot of ancient Sumeria relied upon astrology. From that we get the 360 degree circle, the 60 minute hour, things like that.

There is no "growing out of" astrology; it is a preference thing. If you prefer to know where stars actually are, what they are really doing, why they exist; then you turn to astronomy. It profits little and that's probably why astrologers outnumber astronomers. If my mother was still alive I'd invite you and her to argue your cases. Hers is rich with fantasy and purpose; yours is pretty much confined to nuclear processes of hydrogen fusion and the occasional blast into space of heavier atoms. Her astrology gave her happiness; how much happiness do you obtain from astronomy? If some, good for you.

But it also deprived her of liberty or free will since she believed her behaviors each day were governed by stars and planets. To me that is the pinnacle of absurdity to suppose some star 400 million light years away had the slightest impact on my choice of ice cream.

But you understand my point better than the remaining persons here; Chemistry grew out of Alchemy. Science has evolved but principally through "forking" since astrology still exists and I suspect so does alchemy and some ancient religions are making a comeback which I don't understand but probably relates to failed expectations of "science" as if it also was just another magical thinking designed to create purpose and happiness. It doesn't. Happiness is irrational; you obtain it through irrational means.

I have written accurately with little chance of confusion. Knowledge precedes faith.

This was bollocks yesterday and is still bollocks today. You do not know if God exists or not. Therefore your belief is an act of faith. Okay, you are confused, not lying, but you still have your head up your arse on the epistemology.

It is your dogmatism that blinds you.

No, that's you.

You have such strong faith in your belief system that you cannot accept that my experience is different.

Because you are confused (see above).

for you I feel pity.|

GFY.

BBD writes "GFY."

Thanks, not that I needed your permission to do so ;-)

I love you, too. My world would be less without a BBD in it. To think I have to correspond with someone on the other side of the planet to have serious discussions about things. The internet is still amazing to me.

BBD writes "You do not know if God exists or not."

Sure I know; he's you! Your own omnipotence in knowing what I know and don't know is matched only by God and no one else. While your thoughts may be echoed by others here, they have the good sense not to pretend to their own omniscience.

I don't care to argue the particulars; what I know for sure becomes mere words in a blizzard of words when it crosses the Atlantic arriving in your computer.

" A rational person, to me, does not deprecate other persons — there is no profit in doing so."

You are mistaking my intent. Your many comments have shown you to be an idiot, a person who denies science and lies about it, and who doesn't show any willingness to either understand complex issues or take responsibility for the grossly incorrect things you repeatedly say.

Those aren't insults, those are facts.

dean writes "Those aren’t insults, those are facts."

Why do you believe a thing cannot be both? All good insults ARE facts (duh). It is the tone and the purpose that turns a fact into an insult; I could precisely identify the color of your hair and turn it into an insult.

But we are discussing rational human beings. What is your rational reason for spending a few minutes of your life issuing insults to anyone, particularly a name on a screen?

in a group setting where mates and food is scarce, you insult others as a way to direct the animosity of the group and kill or exile the designated target thus leaving more food and mates for the remainder. You repeat the process until hopefully you are the only one left with all of the food and mates.

It is your instinct to keep doing this even when no conceivable benefit can accrue to you.

So, I invite to you provide the rational reason for your behavior.

Sure I know; he’s you! Your own omnipotence in knowing what I know and don’t know is matched only by God and no one else. While your thoughts may be echoed by others here, they have the good sense not to pretend to their own omniscience.

I do not claim omnipotence, M2. I simply rely on your own written statements:

Knowledge comes first then faith! It is so with my religion as well. Knowledge came first.

Since you cannot know that God exists then you are... epistemologically confused.

BBD writes "I do not claim omnipotence, M2."

Well that's something!

"I simply rely on your own written statements"

It seems that you do not.

"Since you cannot know that God exists..."

Says the omniscient BBD :-)

I see that I used "omnipotence" where I ought to have used "omniscience".

The only person that knows what I know is me. Not you. It is irrational for you to presume what I know and do not know. It would be better for you to simply assert disbelief; that would be rational.

M2's capacities in reading comprehension, reasoning, and general knowledge are very poor. Factor in his lack of intellectual integrity, his dysfunctional need for attention and control, and his infatuation with the sound of his own voice, and you have someone with whom it's a complete waste of time to engage. He's basically just a wind-up, bullshite engine.

IMO, FWIW, DNFTT.

----

M2,
Just so you know, I check in here on the comments of dean, BBD, and others. What I post are notes intended for them. I barely even skim the comments you address to me-- if I read them at all. The rest of your stuff I now simply ignore.

OA writes "The rest of your stuff I now simply ignore."

As should they. It is disruptive of the hive. But as you can see, their reasons for being here are not your reasons for being here. You wish to tell them how to behave, they, in turn, wish to tell me how to behave.

"M2’s capacities in reading comprehension, reasoning, and general knowledge are very poor. "

It even acknowledges that fact itself. Yet it won't stop proclaiming fact or truth despite this self-admitted failure of not understanding anything.

This is why it is a "student" of Brad Keyes, not See Noevo or Chelle (though I'm not definite about the latter...).

Wow writes "Yet it won’t stop proclaiming fact or truth..."</I.

Yep. It is a game. Behavior that persists is being rewarded. What you get out of it is feelings of superiority. What I get out of it is increased understanding of human nature of the more instinctively motivated instances of the species.

“Google “science is a religion”: About 263,000 results”

And google science is not a religion, about 141,000,000 results.

If proof by google count were valid, the conclusion is plain.

Wow writes "If proof by google count were valid, the conclusion is plain."

Indeed it is. Thanks for playing!

But let's test your assertion. Perhaps you forgot the quotes.

"And google science is not a religion, about 141,000,000 results."

With quotes: About 200,000 results

I win!

#68. +1
What Desertphile said!
That's it in a nutshell: Bad faith.

Obstreperous Applesauce wrote "What Desertphile said! That’s it in a nutshell: Bad faith."

I see that you are still ignoring me ;-)

Now, back on topic. These past few comments should illustrate why the United States is unlikely to "catch up" to goals a few persons set for everyone else. People are not the same. Really, really not the same. The Unitted States in particular was populated from all other nations and self-selected because the ancestors of Americans did not fit into the societies of Europe primarily.

Australia is somewhat similar but drawn primarily only from England.

The result is that insufficient number of "sheep" exist in the United States for a small cabal to control. You can do that in Europe, but not the US. Not yet. Coming soon to a theater near you however.

YET ANOTHER FINE EXAMPLE:

----------

Michael 2
October 6, 2016

Desertphile writes “no matter how desperately he wants to”

Why do you assume I am a “he”?

Desertphile writes "YET ANOTHER FINE EXAMPLE"

Be grateful I am here to give you something to talk about :-)

Since there is no empirical evidence for (or against) the existence of God, you cannot know that God exists. Your assertion that it does is an act of faith (look up the definition of faith, M2).

Stop posting bollocks.

BBD writes "Since there is no empirical evidence for (or against) the existence of God, you cannot know that God exists."

I see. Do you know what you had for supper yesterday? I will assume "yes". Is there any empirical evidence of it NOW? Probably not. You could perhaps produce some empty packaging, but that is proof only of empty packaging. It is evidence of a meal, but proof only of packaging.

Therefore while you know what you ate you cannot prove it to anyone else. This may be surprisingly normal; how little of everything you know can actually be proved to another person.

I have asked many times but I'll probably die of boredom or old age before an atheist answers the simple question of what exactly would you accept as "empirical evidence" for God? While we are at it, perhaps a definition of God would be appropriate since some are more likely than others. Perhaps a definition is itself not appropriate; it's just a word used to describe the "things not seen" for which evidence exists.

I have in the past used a metaphor of two fish, one arguing for the existence of "water" and the other mocking the first. The one asserting "water" is curious and scientific; accepting the challenge of proving the thing that is everywhere present. The other's purpose in life is to mock. It hardly matters what or who.

"Your assertion that it does is an act of faith (look up the definition of faith, M2)."

Yes, let us look up the definition.

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." [https]://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11%3A1&version=KJV

The evidence of things not seen. The packaging from your last meal is evidence, the meal itself is no longer visible. Scars on a lightning rod are evidence of a thing no longer seen and certainly not presentable to other people.

Well, he can't logically know, but he can have belief. There's people out there who KNOW they're Napoleon. They're wrong, but hell, they know different, because they're bloody lunatics.

HOWEVER, what M2 is trying to pretend is somehow that faith that makes you "know" god is real is the same as evidence that lets you "know" that electrons all have the same electrostatic charge. Which is, as BBD says, bollocks.

After all, where would M2 be without the pointless lies to promote more argument for the moronic troll to prattle around in self-resplendant idiocy?!?!

Wow, straining at gnats, writes "There’s people out there who KNOW they’re Napoleon"

Likely so. "There are 9,706 people in the U.S. with the first name Napoleon."
[http]://howmanyofme.com/people/Napoleon_Harris/

"They’re wrong, but hell, they know different, because they’re bloody lunatics."

No, they are simply named Napoleon.

"After all, where would M2 be without..."

No matter where I go, there I am.

Wow writes "Well, he can’t logically know, but he can have belief."

Trivially true. I do not know things by logic. Logic starts with what you know, massages it in various ways, to argue for the existence of a thing you don't know. But logic is not the foundation of what you know to start with.

i believe what I know. The alternative seems to be to NOT believe what I know, and that seems strange to me. Not impossible, but strange. Many of your arguments seem strange.

Knowledge implies or includes belief, but belief does not imply (or exclude) knowledge.

Logic is useful in understanding faith. You start with something you know, and through the processes of logic arrive at something you don't know, but have faith "must be so" because of the proper application of logic to knowledge.

Therefore while you know what you ate you cannot prove it to anyone else.

A forensic pathologist could confirm the details.

The problem here is that you are flat-out wrong (again) and (again) are too dishonest to admit it in good faith.

As a consequence, your discourse is worthless.

BBD writes "A forensic pathologist could confirm the details."

To some degree, yes, by inspecting residue if any exists.

But that merely moves the point of faith from what you claim to be true to that of the forensic pathologist making claims.

If he saved some samples, then you can inspect the samples, but now you have the problem of having faith that it came from you.

As you can see, it is likely that all people operate on faith regularly; using some things known for sure, by you, to anchor many things accepted on faith.

I sense that we are converging on understanding and that you assume that I am more opponent of your beliefs than is actually the case.

Coal Use by US Educational Institutions Down 64% since 2008

gregladen — Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:24:29 +0000

Coal Use by US Educational Institutions Down 64% since 2008

A lot of higher education institutions are old, and back in the day, things were different. Not only were most schools simultaneously on top of and on the bottom of great snow covered hills, but they were often surrounded by nearly medieval settlement, or at least, pre-industrial ones, that lacked things like central heat, electricity, and so on, even after these things became common and normal.

I remember the legacy of this reality at my Alma Mater, a small university in Cambridge, Mass. Most of the campus had its own heating system, which was built at a time when centrally distributed electricity and such were certainly in place but just as certainly not universal. There, a power plant, which I am going to guess formerly burned coal but later natural gas and oil, made electricity for the general grid, but in so doing also produced steam. The steam was then shipped (mostly) across the river and quite a ways down the road to the campus, where it was distributed to many buildings to provide heat. At several points were grates that gave access to the steam heating system, creating open air warmer micro environment, on which homeless folks would sleep. It was a big deal when the University administration decided to put spiky metal barriers over the vents to keep the homeless people from having a chance to survive a cold winter. There was an outcry. The vents were uncovered in a matter of days.

But I digress.

Today's news, which comes to us from the Department of Energy, is that educational institutions are using way less coal than they used to. And that makes sense only in the context of the above described sort of thing; educational institutions, as large and demanding places where people both lived in work, with many buildings and a lot of contiguous spaces, were among those places that historically developed their own electricity generation systems, as well as heating systems. Some of those electricity generating systems also fed out to the local grid, so the odd situation developed where among a region's power plants would be one or more owned and operated by a university or college, or an agent thereof. And, a certain number of these burned coal.

But now ...

Coal consumption by educational institutions such as colleges and universities in the United States fell from 2 million short tons in 2008 to 700,000 short tons in 2015. Consumption declined in each of the 57 institutions that used coal in 2008, with 20 of these institutions no longer using coal at all. Many of these institutions participate in the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment, a program aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Coal consumption has decreased as institutions switch from coal to natural gas or other fuels.

This coal consumption is less than a tenth of one percent of the total US coal consumption, so this may be little more than symbolic to some. But it isn't. This is fossil fuel not being burned, and it means a lot.

The graph at the top of the post shows the trend.

This is not all good news. It is nice to reduce coal use, but a lot, most, of this coal has been replace with natural gas. However, in some cases, geothermal was used, and some renewable sources of energy have been deployed.

More here.

gregladen Tue, 08/30/2016 - 03:24

Tags

A New North American Clean Energy Plan

gregladen — Tue, 28 Jun 2016 09:08:27 +0000

A New North American Clean Energy Plan

Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau and Enrique Peña Nieto, have made a joint announcement. As reported by NPR:

President Obama and his counterparts from Canada and Mexico are preparing to unveil an ambitious new goal for generating carbon-free power when they meet this week in Ottawa.

The three leaders are expected to set a target for North America to get 50 percent of its electricity from nonpolluting sources by 2025. That's up from about 37 percent last year.

Aides acknowledge that's a "stretch goal," requiring commitments over and above what the three countries agreed to as part of the Paris climate agreement.

The news reports and press information about this event note that the US currently produces about a third of its energy from non fossil fuel sources. Mexico produces less than 20% of its power this way, and Canada is at about 81%. A big part of this shift will involve shutting down coal plants and expanding wind and solar. However, this mix, as well as the proposed 50% of "clean energy," may include biofuels, which are very limited in their effectiveness in combating climate change, Nuclear, which is diminishing in its importance, and possibly "carbon capture" which is not an energy source and not likely to have much impact because it essentially doesn't work at any meaningful scale because of physics.

So, we will need to see some clarification in this area.

gregladen Tue, 06/28/2016 - 05:08

Tags

If Canada produces 81% of its energy from non fossil fuel sources then haven't they already achieved the 2025 target?

A big part of this shift will involve shutting down coal plants and expanding wind and solar.

What would a Trump administration make of this?

After the right-wing coup that has just taken place in the UK, I am not especially optimistic that the US is going to avoid Trump come November.

Laysej - most of that 81% is from Hydro Electric power - not as green as we once thought it to be. The submerged vegetation produces abundant quantities of methane as it decomposes. So we have a long way to go. Fortunately the new, somewhat socialist, government in Alberta is beginning to invest heavily in alternatives such as Geothermal. There is actually enough Geothermal potential in Canada - particularly BC and Alberta, to power all of North America many times over with 100 or so wells.

If you are interested in this you can download the Geothermal energy resource potential of Canada report from http://geoscan.nrcan.gc.ca/starweb/geoscan/servlet.starweb?path=geoscan…

Layzej, the are talking bout reaching this goal north-america wide.

Doug, I'm not sure if they are counting hydro as other than "clean." (Not green, clean). That is the problem with the whole north american thing. They are not counting cleanness like one might count greeness, and can thus pad their numbers.

There is actually enough Geothermal potential in Canada – particularly BC and Alberta, to power all of North America many times over with 100 or so wells.

No there isn't. Geothermal isn't sustainable at the necessary rate of energy extraction.

Why does nobody understand this?

"Temperature" does NOT equal "Heat".

The very fact that Canada's 81% energy production is from non-fossil fuels is pretty exasperating. I think the 2nd and 3rd world countries should really go green by using non-fossil fuels. Installation cost and ROI estimates from a solar farm can be derived from Helical Power and then its a smooth sail thereafter. Also, the maintenance price of a solar panel is not really that great. Considering that we harness less than 7% of the incident energy of sun, I think we have a long way to go before we can start being an energy independent country..