energy transition

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

The Energy Transition and the Question of Perfection

gregladen — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:36:53 +0000

The Energy Transition and the Question of Perfection

I just read an interesting piece on the widely influential VOX, by David Roberts, called “A beginner’s guide to the debate over 100% renewable energy.” It is worth a read, but I have some problems with it, and felt compelled to rant. No offense intended to David Roberts, but I run into certain malconstructed arguments so often that I feel compelled to promote a more careful thinking out of them, or at least, how they are presented. Roberts' argument is not malconstructed, but the assumptions leading up to his key points include falsehoods.

I’m not going to explicitly disagree with the various elements of the solutions part of this article (the last parts). But the run-up to that discussion, in my opinion, reifies and supports a number of falsehoods, mainly the dramatic (and untrue) dichotomy between the perfect and wonderful large-plant mostly coal and petroleum sources of energy on one hand with alternatives fraught with All The Problems on the other. Since this VOX piece is a "beginner's guide" I would hope we can stick a little more nuance into beginner's thinking.

I choose to Fisk. Thusly:

“Doing that — using electricity to get around, heat our buildings, and run our factories — will increase demand for power. “

It decreases the demand for power, overall. Internal combustion engines are inefficient compared to electric, to such a degree that burning huge amounts of petroleum or coal in one place to ultimately power electric vehicles in a reasonable size region is more efficient than distributing burnable material to all those vehicles to run them. Electrification is inherently more efficient and lower maintenance.

“That means the electricity grid will have to get bigger,”

Our grid, in the US and generally, in the west, is fully embiggened. Globally, maybe. That depends on if a “big grid” is the best way to deliver power everywhere. It probably isn’t.

[The grid must become] “more sophisticated, more efficient, and more reliable — while it is decarbonizing. ”

This contrasts the improvement of the grid with decarbonizing as though they were opposites, but for most of the expected improvements of the grid, improvements of the grid and decarbonizing are the same actions. They are not in opposition to each other.

“On the other side are those who say that the primary goal should be zero carbon, not 100 percent renewables. They say that, in addition to wind, solar, and the rest of the technologies beloved by climate hawks, we’re also going to need a substantial amount of nuclear power and fossil fuel power with CCS.”

This is a false dichotomy in my opinion. There is uncertainty here, of course. But let’s try this. Let’s try decarbonizing 50% of our current power without nuclear. At that point we will know whether or not to invest trillions into an unpopular solution (and nuclear is unpopular). If we need to, we’ll do it. If we don’t, we won’t. Maybe something in between. But worrying about this now, and using uncertainty to argue one way or another, is a waste of conversational energy.

“(If you shrug and say, “it’s too early to know,” you’re correct, but you’re no fun to dispute with.)”

LOL. But no. Rather, I’m thinking that it is too early to know and, in contrast, you are hiding a pro-nuclear argument in a blanket of uncertainty! Maybe you are not, but this is what such arguments almost always look like. Beware the nuclear argument wearing sheep's clothing. A greenish tinged sheep, yes, but still a sheep.

“The sun is not always shining; the wind is not always blowing.”

Another falsehood. Technically the sun is not always shining on us, true, but as sure as the Earth is spinning, the wind is always blowing. People who say this have never been to the Dakotas.

It does vary in intensity and by region. So does nuclear, by the way. Nuclear plants have to be shut down or slowed down regularly for refueling. When severe storms threaten, nuclear plants are often shut down, and that is not on a schedule. When any big power plant suffers a catastrophe there is a long term and catastrophic break in the grid, as compared to a cloudy day, or even, a broken windmill.

The sun is up during the day, and in may places and for many times, generally everywhere, the demand for power is greater during the day.

Overall, this is a falsehood because it attributes perfection to the traditional sources, especially to Nuclear, and great imperfection to the non-Carbon and non-Nuclear alternatives. That distinction is not nearly as clear and complete as generally stated.

“The fact that they are variable means that they are not dispatchable — the folks operating the power grid cannot turn them on and off as needed.”

Another falsehood. First, you can’t turn a major traditional power plant on or off as needed. Indeed, there are already major storage technologies and variation methodologies at work. There are high demand industries that are asked to increase or decrease their use, on the fly, to meet production variation on large grids. There are pumped storage systems. Etc. The fact is that there is variation and unpredictability in the current big-plant system, it is a problem, and it is a problem that has been quietly addressed. Quietly to the extent that people making comparisons between traditional big-plant electricity and clean energy systems often don’t even know about it.

“As VRE capacity increases, grid operators increasingly have to deal with large spikes in power (say, on a sunny, windy day), sometimes well above 100 percent of demand. “

Yes indeed, and this is the challenge being addressed as we speak. Enlarging grid balancing systems, increasing storage, developing tunable high energy industries, and so on. This is the challenge, it is being met as we speak.

“They also have to deal with large dips in VRE. It happens every day when the sun sets, but variations in VRE supply can also take place over weekly, monthly, seasonal, and even decadal time frames.”

“And finally, grid operators have to deal with rapid ramps, i.e., VRE going from producing almost no energy to producing a ton, or vice versa, over a short period of time. That requires rapid, flexible short-term resources that can ramp up or down in response.”

The article mentions the economic problems. I don’t see those as difficult to solve but they are important, but I've got no comments on that at the moment. Read the article.

“The last 10 to 20 percent of decarbonization is the hardest”

Absolutely. And, know what? The first 25% will be the easiest. Do that now, and we’ll know a LOT more about the next 25% and maybe it won’t seem so hard after all. Maybe a major technological solution will come along before we get to that last 10%, maybe society will change enough that people will simply agree to having occasional reductions in energy availability. But certainly, the greatest difficulty and uncertainty is linked to that last 10%.

Our goal should be to have that problem soon.

“A great deal can be accomplished just by substituting natural gas combined cycle power plants for coal plants.”

Yes, if by “a great deal” you mean the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Before extolling the virtues of methane, do check into it further. I once thought methane as a bridge was a good idea too, until I learned about what it involves, about leaking methane, etc. No, not really a good idea for the most part.

“Natural gas is cleaner than coal (by roughly half, depending on how you measure methane leakage), but it’s still a fossil fuel.”

My impression is that every time we learn something new about leakage, it is that the leakage is worse than we previously thought.

“If you build out a bunch of natural gas plants to get to 60 percent, then you’re stuck shutting them down to get past 60 percent.”

Well put.

Do read the article, but please, keep in mind that it is unfair (in the context of an argument) to attribute undue perfection to one option while emphasizing uncertain problems with the other. We need to forge ahead into that uncertainty and speed up this whole process. Everybody get to work on this please!

gregladen Fri, 04/07/2017 - 04:36

Tags

You say ". . . will increase demand for power. “

I see your problem with this statement.

I think the author meant will increase the demand for electricity.

If a home is heated using natural gas, and is switched to heating using electricity - this creates a demand for more electricity.

When he means the grid must become bigger - the author means the grid will have to handle a lot more electricity than it is currently handling - if we use electricity only for all cars, heating, etc - that is not currently being handled by the grid and electricity now.

"If a home is heated using natural gas, and is switched to heating using electricity – this creates a demand for more electricity."

If it's switched to a heat pump, it could have more than 100% efficiency EASILY.

If it;s insulated, it may not need any gas heating AT ALL, no need to change it to electricity. If it's not using gas (most of the USA doesn't), then your "if" is once more moot.

Meanwhile, and this is one area that the hot air piece is bogus: the petrol used in the UK was converted to BtUs and that to watts to "work out" what the UK would need. Except that ICEs are less efficient, so the power use would be less when moving to electric cars.

"the author means the grid will have to handle a lot more electricity than it is currently handling"

Only under assumptions that we have to use more electricity.

A claim that remains unproven.

Also, how many electrons are leaked? Now how many gas pipelines have leaked, and how much is lost?

"I think the author meant will increase the demand for electricity.

If a home is heated using natural gas, and is switched to heating using electricity – this creates a demand for more electricity."

I understood his point. I'm saying that switching to electricity reduces the total amount of power required, generally.

Please refer to the reason I wrote this post. I think the leadup to the solutions part of the original article has a number of things that lead to misunderstandings, and the statement about power will tend to do that.

A major reason why renewables get tagged with "storage" is because the energy is otherwise free, really free, and it would be a waste to remove it and dissipate it to a resistor. There's no real saving by shutting a renewable power source OFF.

For fueled sources, they would save a shedload by shutting it down or ony running in the most efficient way, and instead do "storage" by a cold (or spinning) power plant in reserve. There's no point for expensive gas and oil to generate power and convert it to some lossy storage, just shut it down or throttle way back and save on fuel costs.

EXACTLY THE SAME power plant generation held in reserve would work EXACTLY THE SAME with renewables.

"storage" is a shibboleth of nuke fluffers.

yes, - and quite relevant to the predicament, we in the UK find ourselves with our Brexit delusion

I have used the quote from Voltaire in a few online debates recently

"perfect is the enemy of the good"

a wonderful distillation of the Nirvana Fallacy otherwise known as the "perfect solution fallacy"

“Doing that — using electricity to get around, heat our buildings, and run our factories — will increase demand for power. “

While Greg is correct about the inefficiency of thermal vs electric, electricity demand is expected to rise significantly over the coming decades of decarbonisation as new demand is created by shifting transport and heating, thermal manufacturing processes etc. from FFs to electricity.

“That means the electricity grid will have to get bigger,”

Our grid, in the US and generally, in the west, is fully embiggened.

Possibly to misunderstand the unavoidable necessity of adding more long distance transmission capacity to get large-scale W&S to distant centres of demand.

Another falsehood. Technically the sun is not always shining on us, true, but as sure as the Earth is spinning, the wind is always blowing. People who say this have never been to the Dakotas.

Which is why vast wind resources in far away places must be connected to distant customers by long-distance HVDC.

Yes indeed, and this is the challenge being addressed as we speak. Enlarging grid balancing systems, increasing storage, developing tunable high energy industries, and so on. This is the challenge, it is being met as we speak.

“They also have to deal with large dips in VRE. It happens every day when the sun sets, but variations in VRE supply can also take place over weekly, monthly, seasonal, and even decadal time frames.”

Yes indeed, and this is the challenge being addressed as we speak. Enlarging grid balancing systems, increasing storage, developing tunable high energy industries, and so on. This is the challenge, it is being met as we speak.

I wish. Mainly what is happening is that W&S *capacity* is beginning to scale, but utility-scale storage and grid evolution / interconnection and all the other stuff is at a fraction of the required level and shows no sign of moving very fast in the right direction. Possibly because it is expensive and difficult or still R&D as in the case of utility-scale battery technology.

“A great deal can be accomplished just by substituting natural gas combined cycle power plants for coal plants.”

I agree that large-scale investment in new gas-fired plant is a bad idea - but one quite likely to happen. The whole shale gas bonanza is a disaster, really.

(I'm fed up with arguing about nuclear because all you ever get is the anti-nuke brigade twisting it into a 'nukes vs renewables' pissing match when is is actually an argument about the unwisdom of throwing out a proven low-carbon technology right at the beginning of the decarbonisation process. There is a non-trivial possibility that renewables will not deliver the rapid, deep decarbonisation so urgently needed. Binning nuclear now is to bet the world on something that has never been attempted before as if it was a dead certainty. That is a troublingly cavalier attitude to risk.)

"as new demand is created by shifting transport and heating"

But to decarbonise the power grid DOES NOT require shifting transport and heating. Moreover, it can be negated by efficiencies and changing demand.

So your "proposal" is not "the" proposal. It is not a requirement to decarbonise the grid.

All you nuke fluffers get when you BS about nukes is so devastating to your desires that you have to complain about it being "anti-nuke" rather than pro-reality.

Wow

But to decarbonise the power grid DOES NOT require shifting transport and heating. Moreover, it can be negated by efficiencies and changing demand.

This is a pretty important muddle, so let's sort it out.

The object of the exercise is to decarbonise total primary energy (TPE) - that's everything humanity uses.

Electricity is just a *part* of TPE, but it is perhaps the easiest part to address.

Decarbonising transport and heating means moving both away from FFs and onto electricity, but only if electricity generation is already decarbonised.

"The object of the exercise is to decarbonise total primary energy"

Bullshit. the object of this exercise is to decarbonise the electricity grid. THAT is what you're claiming that zebra's proposal cannot do.

THAT is the object of the exercise.

If you wanted to whine and whinge on about removing fossil fueled heating or transport, then you should have not complained that zebra had no proposal on how to decarbonise the grid.

Somehow, even when you're admitting you are wrong, it's suddenly everyone else's fault for taking the words for what they said and not working out what insane dribbling you were entertaining in your noggin to cry and whine about how nukes had to be part of everything.

"but only if electricity generation is already decarbonised."

So decarbonising the grid DOES NOT require replacing total energy expenditure.

Yet still you complain that *EVERYONE ELSE* is wrong for not accepting that your proposal to decarbonise the grid by building out much more power production was necessary and no attempt to decarbonise the grid could be considered a "plan" unless it said how to get more power in the grid.

Because you just cannot accept you were talking bullshit, it has to be someone else's fault.

Decarbonising the grid is part of decarbonising TPE.

Will somebody else please confirm this for Wow?

I'm so tired of his craziness.

"Decarbonising the grid is part of decarbonising TPE. "

Yeah. This does not mean decarbomising TPE is required to decarbonise the grid, BBD. Your insanity dribbling comes out with stuff your lunacy will not comprehend.

It's super ineffective!

Wow

Are you suggesting that we should *not* decarbonise transport and heating?

I'm telling you that decarbonising the grid does NOT require we decarbonise transport and heating.

Something you write out but your insanity brain will not comprehend when it does so.

I’m telling you that decarbonising the grid does NOT require we decarbonise transport and heating.

So we just leave them as they are? Belching CO2?

Or what?

What do we *do*, wow?

"So we just leave them as they are? Belching CO2?"

Where do I say we leave them?

I'm telling you that decarbonising the grid doesn't require replacing them.

Have you comprehended this fact yet? Or still in deep denial

"What do we *do*, wow?"

We decarbonise the grid.

Decarbonising transport and heating means electrifying them.

This increases the demand for electricity and the scale of the challenge of decarbonising the grid.

It's all the same thing.

If California dropped its high speed rail line that it is building, could that pay for transmission lines to the solar and wind areas?

"Decarbonising transport and heating means electrifying them."

Yup, your insanity is not able to comprehend what you're saying, is it, BBD.

AGAIN, this does not mean that decarbonising the grid requires decarbonising transport.

They are NOT the same thing. That's why they have different subjects to the word "decarbononise". One has "the grid" as the thing to be decarbonised, the other has "transport" as the thing to be decarbonised.

Or do you insanely insist that your travel to work is done via electrical conduction of your body through the national grid????

This is hopeless.

Yes, but that's your insanity speaking, again.

Decarbonising the grid will remove not one single internal combustion engine.

If it were the same thing, this would be 100% absolutely by definition impossible.

Since this is not the case (feel free to insist that decarbonising the grid would automatically replace every ICE with an electric engine if you want, but sans that you have accepted in words, but not in your head, that they're not the same thing), they are not the same thing.

What is hopeless is you still want to insist they ARE the same thing, but won't actually admit to yourself you are doing this.

Or move one inch from claims that only exist if they are the exact same thing, and that magic changes ICE to electric motors.

I can give you a plan right now to change your fossil fuel use for transport to 0% right now without a single watt added to the national grid, BBD.

BBD @10, Thanks.
For some the goal may be decarbonizing the grid, but as you point out electricity is only a part of the puzzle, and we should be concentrating on the whole system, not just one highly visible component. Now I would say if your goal is to score political brownie points by claiming "my grid is zero carbon", and don't care about the overall energy system, then switching application like heating and transport to electricity makes the grid transition tougher. But, its a step we need to make, and arguably it is more important to make serious early progress on electrification than it is to reach certain percentage of renewables on the grid early. The goal is afterall a rapid and sustainable decarbonization of the whole economic system.

A point was made that claimed the first 25% is the easy part. But that has been proven (so far) to be false. The technology of renewables is advancing rapidly, and we may easily find that the first ten percent was actually the hardest and most expensive part. Most likely going from 25-75% will turn out to be the least expensive part of the transition, -simply because the economy-of-scale and learning curves for renewables -and storage keep improving the economics.

Uhm, I can tell you how to decarbonise your travel to 0% CO2 without adding a single watt to the demand too.

Oh, by the way, "too" is yet another admission that they're not the same thing, else it would be irrelevant to say "too".

"A point was made that claimed the first 25% is the easy part. But that has been proven (so far) to be false. "

Where? 'cos I'm damn certain the problem has been denial and obstruction, not the tech. See Denmark....

"and don’t care about the overall energy system,"

Uh, the electricity system IS the overall energy system.

Remember: turning your ICE into an electric motor isn't necessary.

>This is hopeless.
How many times do you have to realize this? Just be pessimistic to begin with, and you won't feel the need to say it.

Hopeless is "mike"'s specialty...

Wow, about it getting easier rather than faster:

True in some (many) places obstructionism has been a problem. But the optimization of the technology, which includes the optimization of the manufacturing techniques, and of entire industrial supply chains and the equipment needed to manufacture and install stuff covers a great deal of space. For both wind and solar the learning curve has been steep. Historically for solar panels, the cost of production has declined 21% for every doubling of net installed worldwide capacity. This means that the early stuff was very pricey. Germany's big solar buildout occurred when the price of PV was several times higher than it is today. We will probably soon reach the point where overbuilding solar (which means you have too much capacity and must curtail some of it) will be economically feasible/optimal. The corresponding figure for wind is 14%. The first few off-shore wind farms were very expensive, but now the price has come way down. With renewables the more you've built, the easier it is to build the next increment.

BBD #23:

I feel your pain.

You are absolutely correct, that the goal is to decarbonize the grid and shift all total primary energy (TPE) to the grid.

So heating with natural gas and using gasoline for cars would be replaced by electricity from the grid - which is decarbonized.

That is the goal and I understand that.

I don't think wow does and probably never will.

Omega Centauri

We will probably soon reach the point where overbuilding solar (which means you have too much capacity and must curtail some of it) will be economically feasible/optimal.

Overbuild of solar is pretty much mandatory unless you are close to the equator. The seasonal issue with solar at mid or higher latitudes can only be addressed by overbuild or alternative sources, which, looking ahead, would be wind.

So once you get out of the extratropical latitudes, it is necessary to overbuild the wind resource to compensate for seasonal diminution of the solar resource.

Water heaters is one thing, but electric vs gas stove is a considerable difference.

I just switched. It is very different, but an electric stove is fine. I thought it would be harder to switch than it was.

For the oven, doesn't matter. The electric broiler is way better than the gas broiler, or at least, mine is better than the old one (which was itself modern and well functioning.)

For those who don't know, Wow is a bit of a hothead.
Has a week timeout on co-blog http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/04/02/comments-of-the-week…

We got it from context.

Nope I'm out.

Ethan is only concerned about his best mate being safe, and doesn't give a shit about the blog. I didn't even know it was "a week" as soon as it was apparent he was being a twat and banned me I stopped even going.

"Overbuild of solar is pretty much mandatory"

And EVERY POSSIBLE POWER SOUCE is over built. Because the fucking things stop working at times.

Your idiocy is the blinkered and idiotic insistence that these problems exist only for renewables, becuse you're a nuke fluffer who has no fucking clue what they're talking about, only having the headlines from more authoritative nuke fluffers to go on.

"Wow, about it getting easier rather than faster:"

Go ahead if you want. I didn't. I was talking about it being easier to do the first 25%.

"But the optimization of the technology, which includes the optimization of the manufacturing techniques,"

Uhm, whut? It's pretty damn optimal right now.What is it? 65c per watt now?

" For both wind and solar the learning curve has been steep. "
Nope.

Again, even if mangling this to be nearly acceptable you merely get to the fact that this is 100% identical to what every other industry has. Including coal power.

So this is yet another empty phrase.

It's not a proof that the first 25% is hard not easy like greg says. It's orthogonal.

"The first few off-shore wind farms were very expensive"

Still more profitable than coal power build would have been. And you'll find it wasn't covering 25% of our power generation either.

Excavation of coal is harder. Oil much harder. Has fuck all to do with how easy or hard it is to make 70% of our power production from it, though.

"How hard" is about how hard considered it has to be.

Remember the claims that renewble penetration would be OK up until they're 20% of the mix, after that it becomes harder?

It wasn't based on how hard it was to make production lines.

Was it.

"or alternative sources, which, looking ahead, would be wind. "

So overbuild is not mandatory.

What about efficiencies? Is it impossible to change usage when rolling out solar???

Wow, you think $.65/watt panels are optimal, with the best utility scale farms coming in around a dollar per watt. But we will probably see $.25/watt panels in the near future, and that cost change can be revolutionary, especially if one is considering the possibility of significantly overbuilding.

Wind is similar, its not improving quite as fast as solar, but the newer turbines can get a better capacity factor (fraction of peak capability as a sustained average), and that improves both economics and grid integration issues. Don't underestimate the power of incremental improvement, changes in cost effectiveness can make a huge difference.

So overbuild is not mandatory.

Well, you have to overbuild something. It can be all solar, all wind or you can split it between the two, depending on the wind resource. But you have to overbuild to compensate for seasonality in solar unless you are close to the equator.

What about efficiencies? Is it impossible to change usage when rolling out solar???

Nibbling round the edges of the problem isn't the same as solving it. The potential for efficiencies is marginal compared to the winter drop in solar output, especially the further north you go.

"Wow, you think $.65/watt panels are optimal,"

Do I? I didn't know that. How did you get that from this?

“But the optimization of the technology, which includes the optimization of the manufacturing techniques,”

Uhm, whut? It’s pretty damn optimal right now.What is it? 65c per watt now?

Or did you not see "optimisation of the technology"? Which would be really ironic since that was what YOU said. Ignoring your own words, hmm?

There's only about 65c per watt that can be saved by making manufacture easier and cheaper.

"Well, you have to overbuild something."

Why?

I mean, you have to overbuild power generation, yes, but you blather on about this like its some sort of unique property of purely solar or wind.

When it isn't.

So, why do you have to overbuild?

Because either that's bollocks or it's no different from what we had to do for the current energy system.

Which is fuck all difference therefore ignorable.

"But you have to overbuild to compensate for seasonality in solar "

No you don't, you have to build enough solar to satisfy what you want.

Demand is seasonal too.

Nukes are also seasonal.

Building more of those is not mentioned as "overbuilding". Hell, coal stations are seasonal, since they rely on the same cooling water methods.

Gas too is seasonal: it costs more in winter for the UK to buy it on the market.

“Well, you have to overbuild something.”

Why?

I mean, you have to overbuild power generation, yes, but you blather on about this like its some sort of unique property of purely solar or wind.

Well, the problem is solar at increasing latitude. Short day length in winter knocks output on its head. This is a problem unique to solar as it affects all plant simultaneously and is predictable.

No you don’t, you have to build enough solar to satisfy what you want.

Which means overbuilding solar so that *winter* output is sufficient. Unfortunately, the required overbuild is substantial and there is a near-certainty of curtailment being necessary during summer peak output, which is the sort of thing investors don't like to hear.

Demand is seasonal too.

Yes, in the NH it is high in winter because of increased use of lighting and heating. Decarbonising heating will further increase winter demand.

I see everyone has run away to engage in the same repetitive debate one more time.

Wow, at some point in the past I have in fact included space conditioning and transportation in the competitive market paradigm, perhaps in passing so you missed it.

However, since the usual subjects have lost the battle with respect to the grid, they are trying to change the subject. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked...

BBD, There has already been some solar curtailment in California the past couple of weeks. Sounds, bad, but I think the worst day only about 8% of the total solar energy had to be curtailed. Spring may be a more likely curtailment season than summer. The reason is output is almost as high, while hydropower is at or near peak, and air conditioning demand is low to zero. (Also is California water pumping is a huge consumer, but its a record wet year so that demand is also low). How much curtailment you can economically justify depends strongly upon the cost of adding incremental capacity, that's why continuing the cost improvements of solar and wind is so important.

Also solar thermal with storage is going to become important. A recent bid by Solar Reserve for wait for it "baseline solar power" came in amazingly low. Of course the Atacama desert does have the worlds best solar resource, but its looking like solar thermal with enough storage to provide overnight power is only going to be about twice the cost of daytime PV solar power.

"Well, the problem is solar at increasing latitude."

No, that's not a problem. It's not like continental drift needs to be taken into account over the scale of centuries, is it.

"Short day length in winter "

Long day length in summer.

"Which means overbuilding solar so that *winter* output is sufficient."

No it doesn't, any more than it means overbuilding nuclear because in heatwaves it's insufficient.

"Yes, in the NH it is high in winter because of increased use of lighting and heating. "

Nope. We can insulate. And LED/CFL lights mean lighting is a non problem.

Moreover, it's windier then.

"Decarbonising heating will further increase winter demand"

No it won't.

Another issue is that solar is built to take advantage of high spot prices. It's *profit efficient*. Not production efficient.

zebra

I see everyone has run away to engage in the same repetitive debate one more time.

Could there be an indivisible relationship between the goal and the plan?

“Short day length in winter ”

Long day length in summer.

Wow, this is embarrassing. Go back and re-read the discussion you are commenting on.

Only in your head, BBD.

Because you won't do anything but continue to bleat on and on about it, because you want to slap that dead horse until your arms fall off, because you can't stop from demonising renewables to make nukes look like a sane option.

They aren't.

"Wow, this is embarrassing. "

What? you didn't know about summer days being longer? Yeah, I guess that would be embarrasing to find the brain-fart that threw away that info was done in public.

"Go back and re-read the discussion you are commenting on."

I did. It's some nuke fluffer called "BBD" trying yet again to whine on and on about how renewables are terrible and expensive because they're not nukes.

“Go back and re-read the discussion you are commenting on.”

And I would add that you need to read further than you quoted. you know, the entire frigging post you were commenting on.

Here's a question for all the people yammering about overall energy utilization:

Assume that all commuters in the US had Chevy Volts. What modification of the grid would be required so that they could be charged from wind and solar say 90% of the time? (This would eliminate enormous amounts of CO2.)

Please respect Greg's observation along the lines of "Nirvana Fallacy Is A Fallacy."

zebra #57:

First, the grid would have to be supplied by the amount of electricity used by all these new electric vehicles.

Secondly, in order to ensure that the Volts were charged only with wind and solar, you would have to turn off the 66% of power supplied to the grid (at least in MInnesota) from coal and natural gas and turn off the 20% of power supplied to the grid from nuclear (oh I forgot to turn off the 6% from hydro).

That would only leave about 5% of the power the grid normally supplies, but that should take care of your hypo.

RickA,

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The grid would have to be supplied with the necessary amount generated by wind and solar, of course. But why would that mean "turning off" something else?

zebra #59:

When you plug in your Volt in your garage, in order to ensure you are using wind and solar you have to remove all non-wind and non-solar from the grid in your area.

In Minnesota, my grid is powered 66% by fossil fuel and 20% by nuclear - so we have to turn that 86% off.

Otherwise, your volt is getting 66% of its electricity from fossil fuel and 20% from nuclear.

That violates your hypo.

And I would add that you need to read further than you quoted. you know, the entire frigging post you were commenting on.

See # 7.

"When you plug in your Volt in your garage, in order to ensure you are using wind and solar you have to remove all non-wind and non-solar from the grid in your area."

No you don't. No more than to ensure you're only using nuclear you have to remove non-nuke power from the grid in your area.

"– so we have to turn that 86% off."

No you don't, you have to turn that 14% into 100.

"See # 7."

See? Saw. So?

RickA,

That is the silliest thing I've ever heard, and demonstrates that you have no idea how electricity works. Much like BBD.

There are no "nuclear electrons" or "solar electrons". Sounds like you may be an "electron racist", now that I think about it.

If you would like to try to explain your hypothesis using correct electric circuit terminology, feel free. But it will be embarrassing for you.

zebra

That is the silliest thing I’ve ever heard, and demonstrates that you have no idea how electricity works. Much like BBD.

You keep saying this, but never successfully explaining *why*.

Remember this:

The grid has to balance regionally. Supply must equal demand. Hold this thought.

If you have a large solar resource in the SW and a large wind resouce in the Dakotas, Iowa, Minnesota and Montana, it generates vastly more electricity than there is regional demand. It is supposed to do this because it is supposed to be powering the US - especially the high-demand regions of the East and West Coast.

So how do you get shitloads of electricity from A to B when B is a long way away?

You can't just dump huge extra regional capacity into the regional grid as it exceeds regional demand and the grid breaks. Think about this. Regional balancing is set by regional demand and this prevents large-scale electricity export through the existing grid.

Unless long-distance transmission capacity is added to connect the scaling W&S resource to its biggest customers, who are far away, it will be increasingly unable to deliver electricity to the market. If that happens, the market can't fund it.

"You keep saying this, but never successfully explaining *why*. "

Maybe didn't think it needed to be explained?

Do YOU think it needs to be explained why the electron from a coal fired power station or nuke power station are not different from the electrons from a solar power plant?

"Unless long-distance transmission capacity is added to connect"

Not needed, any more than it's needed for any other power system since the transmission capacity is right there now. It would be more efficient to use HVDC to carry long distances, but it isn't necessary. And HVDC is useful for ANY power generation system, one reason why France has it. Not a big producer of renewable solar and wind, if you remember.

"You can’t just dump huge extra regional capacity into the regional grid as it exceeds regional demand "

Then don't. Do like current generation does when it's unusable and dump it to ground. Job done.

"and the grid breaks."

I think you need to talk to an engineer who works on these things. Unless you're using a private and special meaning for "break", this doesn't happen.

"If that happens, the market can’t fund it."

It funds nuke power, coal power, gas power, hydro power and so on and so forth even though it cannot be transmitted vast distances to the best market to sell, and there are brown-outs and even black-outs occurring.

The market finds it possible to do it now. There's no reason why this would change if we went full 100% renewable, worldwide.

PS you did the "dakotas, sw, blah blah blah" and I pointed out once already that it was bollocks. Don't listen, do you.

BBD,

Now you are cutting and pasting your own nonsense. Doesn't make it any less nonsense.

I posed a simple question:

We would all, I assume, like to remove that CO2 generated on the typical commute where the highways are like parking lots, and ICE are very inefficient and produce local pollution as well as CO2.

So, we give all these commuters something like the Volt, which can cover say 50 miles on a charge, but has its own onboard generator/motor to deal with range for other trips.

If you guys are such experts on how electricity works, tell me what changes would have to be made to the grid so the cars can mostly be charged by wind and solar.

If you think that means building HVDC lines from Austin to Boston, explain why. Not with vague generalities and handwaving though; be specific.

Wow,

One of the most frustrating thing about these discussions is that, as you say, we are doing all the things that I suggest right now. All the issues anyone wants to raise have established engineering solutions; the only difference is scale for various paramenters and making the rules universal.

But these people ignore that and want to bring up vaporware like Thorium and SMR, and projects that they can't explain how to get built in the US like government-owned HVDC lines.

Childish fantasists, to be sure.

If you think that means building HVDC lines from Austin to Boston, explain why. Not with vague generalities and handwaving though; be specific..

I was specific at #65.

If you guys are such experts on how electricity works, tell me what changes would have to be made to the grid so the cars can mostly be charged by wind and solar.

I think the underlying assumption in your position is that the US can *always* meet local demand anywhere with local W&S. But this isn't correct.

That's why in order to achieve the goal of decarbonising the grid as a necessary component of decarbonising TPE, the plan requires major grid upgrades.

It's difficult to see how localism can ever fund the necessary increase in long-distance transmission capacity, never mind overcome the morass of legal and technical inter-state issues that must be resolved. Hence the need for government intervention to make the plan work and so achieve the goal.

Specifically, you made the baseless claim it was needed. Not why it was needed.

"I think the underlying assumption in your position is that the US can *always* meet local demand anywhere with local W&S. But this isn’t correct. "

It isn't necessary. It doesn't do so now 100%, yet it still works.

"the goal of decarbonising the grid as a necessary component of decarbonising TPE"

The conversation is decarbonising the grid. Not doing that means there's no way to do the second. Do the first first.

"The plan requires major grid upgrades."

No more than it needed major grid upgrades when A/C was widespread. Or refrigeration. Or lighting.

But there's no need for "major grid upgrades" if there's no extra energy use. It could be LOWER energy use.

Your whining is based on the assertion that it MUST be more power, when that's the pointless insistence of some mythological insistence that today is what we must have to do.

We're already changing what we're using the grid for and what we're using ON the grid.

Moreover, the massive use of electric cars gives a massive storage system "ready built". Yet more reason why your complaints about wind and solar are meaningless burbling.

"It’s difficult to see how localism can ever fund the necessary increase in long-distance transmission capacity"

Then don't insist it is necessary to increase long distance transmission capacity.

Job done.

You really do not want to think, do you.

" Hence the need for government intervention to make the plan work and so achieve the goal."

So we're back to "the plan". No that is YOUR plan. Based on unecessary insistence that wehave to increase power use when we don't, that we need storage when we don't, that we have problems that are new when they already happen with any other source of power we've used.

All to cry FUD and alarmism about not using nuke power...

Zebra

Okay, how about this bridge attempt:

You summarised your position neatly on another thread, #30:

That’s why I propose that we have a market where the grid operator is regulated as a common carrier, prohibited from generating or even retailing.

You buy from the generator, so that there is a level playing field for supplying the actual function (transportation, HVACR, lighting, whatever) that you are purchasing.

I fully agree that these are necessary conditions for an energy transition to happen but disagree that they are sufficient.

BBD,

Answer the question.

If you can't do the simple math for a simple problem like that, you are simply a pretentious fool, and nobody cares about your "disagreement".

Wow has, in his somewhat incoherent ranty way, pointed out your various failings on the basic physical facts. That should worry you.

If you can't articulate the issues involved in charging an EV, what business have you advising us about the entire energy paradigm of the USA?

If you can’t do the simple math for a simple problem like that, you are simply a pretentious fool, and nobody cares about your “disagreement”.

Why not set out your answer to this simple mathematical problem?

Then the thread would know what you are talking about.

Answer the question.

And if I frame #71 as a question, what would be your answer?

I fully agree that these are necessary conditions for an energy transition to happen but disagree that they are sufficient.

Why am I mistaken?

Note that current mini-split hvac systems (ductless) have better performance in cold climates than ducted systems. (Partly because they have inverter compressors. Work is on going on build systems that have a cop of 2.5 at 0f. I.E. produce 2.5 times the heat as the electricity coming in. So assume an electric conversion efficiency of 50% (best gas turbine combined cycle plants run up to 60% now). And a assume a 90% gas furnace. So the heat pump puts out about 1.38 times the heat at 0 F of a northern gas furnace, for an equivalent use of gas. The units seem to beat out furnaces down to about -15f or so. Work is on going to produce better performance including by the government of Canada.
So it looks like today minisplit systems with some gas backup could work in the north country.

BBD, you have spent months dancing around and denying zebra's position, it's hardly surprising he wants to get closure on his position before chasing after another dog whistle from you.

Zebra, #71 was a different style, it was trying to find another way around, so at least attempting to break the circle. Accept that the conversation may be able to move on, but ask that first some closure on your statements and BBD's denial of them even existing, be made. Otherwise there's no point to following this new thread since if it doesn't go BBD's way it is patently clear that it will be merely shunted into the weeds and anything against what BBD believes to be the One True Way To Think is just plain nonexistent nonsense.

"I fully agree that these are necessary conditions for an energy transition to happen but disagree that they are sufficient. "

Why? Wind is the cheapest production system, therefore it would win out in a free market. SPV is fairly cheap and can be rolled out down to the personal level, it's just that there's no point, since you can't use it without your electricity suppliers' consent.

And if externalities are added in, SPV is cheaper than coal.

So why would not making it a properly and genuinely open free market not work? It currently IS working, no new coal, coal closing down, massive buildout worldwide of new solar and wind.

Certainly SEEMS to be working, even with the interference of lobbied government propping up the fossil fuel industries.

So why do you claim it insufficient?

Building HVDC won't build any solar or wind power. Nationalising the grid won't build any solar or wind power.

If zebra has to say how to make solar and wind be built and all the fossil fuel power providers shut down, then you haven't done this either, and it's hypocrisy to whine about zebra not doing what you aren't doing either.

"So it looks like today minisplit systems with some gas backup could work in the north country."

And that is with houses that aren't designed to be properly insulated. Improve the house building so it's built to a quality not to a price point, and how much gas backup is needed?

Wow,

I appreciate your effort at 76, but you know BBD is not going to do any math or even admit that he can't.

Now, even RickA, despite his issues with electron miscegenation, has acknowledged that something equivalent to a carbon tax would be necessary to get people to buy nuclear (his favorite) rather than natural gas generated electricity.

The only issue at hand is, as I said in my very first comment I believe, what the mix is. And you have covered most of the questions, as I said above.

You have even (reluctantly) acknowledged that there could be nuclear in there for some reason. I would even argue that there will never be the development of SMR or any other current nuclear vaporware unless there is a competitive market.

Anyway, I will not hold my breath waiting for technologically sound arguments from the usual suspects. I may make some other comment later with reference to Lyle's heat pump information.

The problem with nukes isn't "they're nukes", but "they're too fucking dangerous in the hands of the people who will be running them".

if someone gets a tech out that makes nukes safe enough for people to build and operate one under their own arse and where their children live, then it's going to be safe indeed.

That isn't the only way for them to be safe, but without any actual tech, it's the use case scenario that will self evidently show it is safe.

Thorium has been done for 50-80 years, and still not managed to be a better solution. Pebble bed reactors are still unwanted because of the risks and costs.

And given we need to retire a lot of old generation, spending the time and money needed to build up nuke power when siting it for today's climate is liable to be unusable for the climate when it's still required to operate to be financially successful, is not merely foolish, it retards the only options we have left.

Willing denial and political lobbying have ensured that, to safeguard the short term profits, the long term result we have today is that nukes cannot afford to be part of the solution.

After we've broken the back of the problem? Maybe we'll have time to look elsewhere (and better information on what needs to be changed in a mostly or entirely renewable power world, if indeed anything "needs" to be changed). But building a lot of nuke stations, unless they can be sited a long way from coasts and unusable as a terror threat, we have to wait until the climate and the political scene resulting from the changes settle down before we can look seriously again and rolling new nukes out, even if they're practically safe in design by then.

Wow,

The market will decide.

Right now, they can't even get a couple of pre-approved, very heavily subsidized, AP1000 they designed themselves, built without going bankrupt.

Maybe, with a more open market, someone may leapfrog the current kluge-heavy design paradigm. It will not happen overnight to be sure-- more likely as the "needs" are identified, as you say.

The California Council on Science and Technology generated a report: “California's Energy Future: The View to 2050”- See more at: http://ccst.us/publications/2011/2011energy.php#sthash.Dv3zHG1D.dpuf....... had this to say about the amount of electricity that would be needed to run the society:

…..”Aggressive new efficiency measures could reduce the demand for electricity by about a third, and for fuel by half. Incentives to electrify transportation and heat production would increase the requirement for electricity, but cut fuel demand by yet another third. Even with these measures, by 2050 California would need about twice as much electricity as we use today and still nearly 70 percent of the fuel consumed today…..:

....."The total commitment necessary to achieve this accelerated pace will require strong societal and policy backing because there are less than 40 years to make a nearly total change-over to the required technology. Essentially, in this time period, every existing building will either be retrofit to higher efficiency standards or replaced."

Mark, that is an interesting report but it is years old. Just sayin'.

More to the point, in addition to being dated, it uses the usual sleight-of-hand language to confuse and deceive.

Over half of US commutes are under 10 miles, and only 8% are over 35.

So, if all those California commuters were driving Chevy Volts, and they all had solar panels on their houses, it would essentially zero out that particular contribution of CO2 and pollution.

Instead of reporting this, that part of the system is folded in to "increased electricity demand". But obviously, there is no "firming up" problem because the vehicles can sit plugged in something like 20 hours out of 24. The gasoline that doesn't get burned is pure "profit" in the CO2 accounting.

If you need 24/7/365 electricity, buy it from the local nuclear plant, or the local "clean coal" plant. If there isn't one, form a co-op with fellow industrial process businesses and build one for your own use.

It's just that simple. Don't expect taxpayers to pick up the tab.

Greg and Zebra,

It’s been a couple of years since I reread the CCST report as I read it after attending a CARB meeting discussing the proposed (at the time) 33%RES. I was a bit worried about what might happen to the PV system I put in place back in 2006. I am still not sure how the powers that be account for our system (6.12 kW). Sooner or later I will need to figure this out as I hate to think it might become a stranded asset.

Our rate structure had to be eliminated last year as we have run into some grid integration issues out here in CA as noted here:

1)https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30692#tab1
2)https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/missing-money/

3)http://www.cleanenergylawreport.com/energy-regulatory/caiso-expects-it-…

I haven’t read the Jenkins-Thernstrom paper referenced below in detail. Their estimate of electrical power demand growth seems a tad high to me (those of us who live out in the country will be moving to biomass for our winter heating needs……I don’t know if their analysis notes this choice or not) :

1)http://innovationreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/EIRP-Deep-Decarb…
“…….The ninth study reviewed, Jacobson et al. (2014), considers a scenario where 100% of California end-use energy demand is met by electricity or hydrogen produced by electricity. In that case, electricity demand grows more than five-fold (+465%) by 2050…..”

Zebra

I appreciate your effort at 76, but you know BBD is not going to do any math or even admit that he can’t.

If you have a point, make it. Show the numbers. Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss.

Stop stalling or people might think you were bluffing.

More to the point, in addition to being dated, it uses the usual sleight-of-hand language to confuse and deceive.

Exactly the same paranoid mindset as the deniers who see climate change as a vast liberal conspiracy.

Don’t expect taxpayers to pick up the tab.

And that sounds rather familiar too. Interesting.

Instead of reporting this, that part of the system is folded in to “increased electricity demand”.

But unless that increased demand is met 100% by zero-carbon generation, all you have done is *move* the source of CO2 and particulate emissions from cars to an increase in FF capacity. It does very little to advance the decarbonisation process. It's PR, and it's sales for the EV companies, but that is it.

Right, back to your mistaken notions about how the grid works. Here is a SciAm article that explains what you need to know. You will notice that the subtitle refers to a 'plan'.

Here are a few excerpts to give you the general flavour:

In some places, wind power, still in its infancy, is already running up against the grid’s limits. “Most of the potential for renewable resources tends to be in places where we don’t have robust existing transmission infrastructure,” Van Wiele says. Instead, for decades electric companies have built coal, nuclear, natural gas and oil-fired generators close to customers.

That strategy worked reasonably well until recently, when 28 state governments set “renewable portfolio standards” requiring their utilities to supply a certain portion of their electricity using renewables, such as 20 percent by 2020 or even sooner. But as Kurt E. Yeager, former president of the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, Calif., points out, such standards “aren’t worth the paper they’re written on until we have a power system, a grid, that is capable of assimilating that intermittent energy without having to build large quantities of backup power, fossil-fueled, to enable it.”

And:

Even before the emphasis on climate change, reasons were mounting to remake the grid. Chief among them are bottlenecks that stifle the flow of power.

North America is actually covered by four regional grids (three of which serve the U.S.). The largest is the Eastern Interconnection, an extensive complex of transmission lines that stretches from Halifax to New Orleans, with substations that step down the high-voltage electricity to lower levels so that it can be distributed locally along smaller wires. West of the Rockies is the Western Interconnection, from British Columbia to San Diego and a small slice of Mexico. Texas, in an echo of its history as an independent republic, comprises its own grid, now called the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. And Quebec, with its separatist undercurrent, also has its own grid. The high-voltage transmission systems in the four regions comprise about 200,000 miles of power lines, divided among a staggering 500 owners, that carry current from more than 10,000 power plants run by about 6,000 investor-owned utilities, public power systems and co-ops.

Even before the emphasis on climate change, reasons were mounting to remake the grid. Chief among them are bottlenecks that stifle the flow of power.

North America is actually covered by four regional grids (three of which serve the U.S.). The largest is the Eastern Interconnection, an extensive complex of transmission lines that stretches from Halifax to New Orleans, with substations that step down the high-voltage electricity to lower levels so that it can be distributed locally along smaller wires. West of the Rockies is the Western Interconnection, from British Columbia to San Diego and a small slice of Mexico. Texas, in an echo of its history as an independent republic, comprises its own grid, now called the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. And Quebec, with its separatist undercurrent, also has its own grid. The high-voltage transmission systems in the four regions comprise about 200,000 miles of power lines, divided among a staggering 500 owners, that carry current from more than 10,000 power plants run by about 6,000 investor-owned utilities, public power systems and co-ops.

And:

Political Muscle Needed
The concept of a national energy grid is not far-fetched. Indeed, the U.S. already has one that is highly successful in moving resources vast distances, notably from the Gulf of Mexico to New York and New England. But it is for natural gas, not electricity. And it exists because in the 1940s Congress created a system of national regulation for natural gas. Electricity was left to be regulated state by state and sometimes town by town.

As a result, says Andrew Karsner, a former assistant secretary of energy for renewables and efficiency, the country has “Btu liquidity” but not “electron liquidity.” Scrapping feudal transmission regulations for similar national rules would require forceful leadership from Washington. The first step, Karsner notes, is making transmission reform a priority. “Stop the blah-blah” dithering among elected officials, he says.

And so on. You will (finally) get the picture and (finally) realise why your conception of the US grid, and the notion that it balances across its entirety is simply wrong. In fact it is impossible to increase inputs in one region to meet demand in another. So your proposal is dependent on something that does not exist.

zebra:

So, if all those California commuters were driving Chevy Volts, and they all had solar panels on their houses, it would essentially zero out that particular contribution of CO2 and pollution.

BBD:

But unless that increased demand is met 100% by zero-carbon generation, all you have done is *move* the source of CO2 and particulate emissions from cars to an increase in FF capacity. It does very little to advance the decarbonisation process. It’s PR, and it’s sales for the EV companies, but that is it.

Sorry Wow, but "mad dogs and Englishmen" comes to mind. Maybe some member of the royal family will talk to him to prevent further embarrassment for your fair isle?

Zebra

Ignoring evidence is called 'denialism'. When it is done as you have just done it here, it is called 'shut-eyed denialism'.

* * *

Now, explain why what I said at #86 about moving CO2 around is incorrect. Snark is just noise. Behave like an adult and make your point. See, eg. #87.

So, if all those California commuters were driving Chevy Volts, and they all had solar panels on their houses, it would essentially zero out that particular contribution of CO2 and pollution.

The localism fallacy, again.

What happens in winter when SPV output is minimal and wind is having to fill the capacity gap left by solar? What happens regionally if you get two days of consecutive low windspeed? How soon before nobody comes to work? What happens when a heavily depleted regional EV fleet tries to recharge its batteries simultaneously?

Mark #85,

Do you have a point? If so, could you explain it, and how it relates to what I said about EV or industrial users?

It sounds from your references that what you need out there is exactly what I suggested-- more Chevy Volts, to be charged during the periods when solar production is highest. Win-win.

But sooner or later, you're gonna need a bigger grid.

"But sooner or later, you’re gonna need a bigger grid."

Why?

"If you have a point, make it. Show the numbers. "

When did you show numbers? Lotsa bullshit and lotsa demands off you, but you don't deem it necessary to work to your own demanding requirements yourself.

Again, denier tactics.

"What happens in winter when SPV output is minimal and wind is having to fill the capacity gap left by solar? "

Um, wind is filling the gap left by solar.

Duh.

"What happens regionally if you get two days of consecutive low windspeed?"

The power is replaced by solar. Duh.

"How soon before nobody comes to work?"

Never.

"What happens when a heavily depleted regional EV fleet tries to recharge its batteries simultaneously?"

They won't be able to.Just like when every car wants to fill up with gas simultaneously. There's only so much capacity to refill.

Quite why you ask these dumbass questions when they're merely the current systems' problems written as if they were unique to solar and wind can only be laid at the feed of your nuke fluffing idiocy, BBD.

"But unless that increased demand is met 100% by zero-carbon generation,.... It does very little to advance the decarbonisation process"

Wrong, dumbass.

If you meet 50% of the demand for powering transport you decarbonise 50% of the demand for transport.

Fucking idiot.

Um, wind is filling the gap left by solar.

Duh.

Over 48 hours of low regional windspeed? How? (Reading comp again, Wow).

But we are saved, thanks to all those spanking new HVDC lines which only big money and big politics are likely to get constructed.

The future's going to be hard on the optimists who thought a panel on the roof and a battery in the garage was going to save the world, kill the monopolies and keep taxes low.

"Over 48 hours of low regional windspeed? "

What 48 hours of low regional windspeed? There is none.

"thanks to all those spanking new HVDC lines"

They're quite old, actually, they've been there for years.

"the optimists who thought a panel on the roof and a battery in the garage was going to save the world"

That is a null set of people, BBD. A fiction of your own smug stupidity.

And you need to work on your reading comprehension, dumbass:

“What happens in winter when SPV output is minimal and wind is having to fill the capacity gap left by solar? ”

Um, wind is filling the gap left by solar.

Duh.

That was all that was written. "two days of consecutive low windspeed? " came after. And no such two days happened.

Hey, maybe you can show up those smug fossil fuel people here, BBD.

What do you do when you can't get enough coal for two days to run your coal fired power stations?

Hmmm?

And lets stick it to the nuke people too: What do you do when a design flaw is found and the entire fleet has to be taken offline for emergency repairs?

Oh, if only those simpletons knew that having a "dispatchable" power supply was as simple as "we have to fuel it" to be secure and constant!

While waiting to see if Mark, who might offer some hard data on his solar installation, gets back, let's further consider his references.

At this point, solar installations are not producing an excess physically during the midday period, although there are projections that this will eventually occur.

What does it mean? Well, production increase for that period will be outpacing the growth in demand. This would be good news in a market functioning as I have suggested.

In my market, electricity should go down in price during this period. Then, as demand increases towards evening, the price should increase The effect would be to encourage people to buy Chevy Volts and Tesla House Batteries.

If you have a house battery, you can store that cheap electricity. If you need less than you have stored, you can sell it back to other users at the higher price.

If lots and lots of houses have solar panels, and plug-in vehicles, and house batteries, guess what you have:

Yep... Grid. Level. Storage.

So, we eliminate the CO2 produced by ICE commuting. And, we eliminate the CO2 equivalent to what we have stored that would otherwise be burned in the evening.

This is a very big step. It requires nothing but existing hardware and software, and creates lots of local jobs. Win-win.

And, as I said earlier, any consumer for whom this doesn't work is free to buy from a nuclear plant or "clean FF" plant or chip in to build their own if such is not available. Still a win-win.

Zebra,

Sorry for the delay in responding. Our plans yesterday had to be modified due to an unexpected trip to the vet and way to many hours icing my back.

Our PV system generates between 30 and 36 kWh a day during sunny spring, summer and early fall days. In the winter if we have a sunny day and all the snow and ice has melted off the panels we will generate between 15 and 24 kWh. This year has been a bit wet, make that a lot wet, in CA so our average output is lower than normal. When I designed the system I wanted it to generate enough power to meet 55% of our load over a calendar year. If you want any other details let me know.

One of the geeks, experts, at CASIO (the folks who run the grid in CA) indicated that CA could end up with a higher fuel burn rate (ie more co2 released) under a couple of scenarios as we move from <20% RES to the 33% RES. Lots of efforts have been initiated to mitigate the mismatch of supply with demand over the years. Some integration challenges have delayed the use of newer forms of energy storage. The state has a lot of pumped hydro storage capacity which will be very helpful this calendar year.

Alice (Energy Skeptic blog) discussed energy storage projects in CA last year:

http://energyskeptic.com/2016/how-is-californias-ab2514-experiment-with…

The over generation challenge is tracked by CASIO these days on their web site. As expected April 9th was a bad day for the amount of power curtailed. http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html

A local public utility is implementing a plan to encourage their residential customers to purchase EV’s. They, SMUD, are offering two years of free electricity to customers who purchase an EV. The management of SMUD is likely trying to figure out how the recent announcement of the closure of the largest industrial customer (Aerojet) in their district is going to affect their operations. The can likely sell their soon to be excess capacity of hydropower to my service provider (PG&E).

So you're just telling us what your current experience is, as a sort of example.

"indicated that CA could end up with a higher fuel burn rate (ie more co2 released) under a couple of scenarios as we move from <20% RES to the 33% RES"

Yeah, probably wrong there.

For example, pretending that outage from wind lulls or heavy cloud happen too quickly for efficient modern large scale power to be brought back online and being replaced by inefficient peaking plants.

'cept we have weather forecasts that are pretty damn accurate to three days or more for that sort of thing.

And probably yet again refusing to acknowledge that the calories from petrol burnt cannot be equated to the amount of kWh from electrical sources, along with heat pumps
being much more efficient.

And "forgetting" that LEDs are rolling out and reduce lighting, and better house design (or even for the USA not using that goddamned stupid tumble drier when the goddamned sun is out) would reduce the use for electrical heating.

And not forgetting that with the energy being sapped by SPV, you will have lower cooling costs in summer when it's all paneled up..

Likely the paper is just the same blowhard alarmism from nuke fluffers who want to prop their "low CO2" option up with a panic to decarbonise.

I would also point out to you that, though the overall output of SPV is lower in full cloud, the fact that it is diffuse when it gets through means that the power curve is a lot flatter.

And, lastly, when there's enough SPV to make it unworkable to expose the highest profits over the best match to load, some places will cant their panels to morningside to make use of higher production during morning peak, while others will choose the later period. Currently it just reduces the power produced at highest profitability times, so most places (not all) optimise to get the maximum value per kWh as opposed to making supply more consistent.

That, again, is one method by which zebra's free market approach *may* produce correct outputs: when it's all SPV and wind, prices will increase where supply is lacking and people will change their panel alignment to maximise power at those times.

Free markets are prone to corruption and incapable of fixing it, because there's no mechanism for a free market to avoid the benefits of monopolisation being taken advantage of, but since corruption of some sort is always going to be a problem when money and/or power is involved, you merely choose which forms of corruption you will have to work against and avoid, rather than some mythic option that is incorruptible.

Wow,

I thought you were going to maintain the terminology discipline you have exhibited in the past, but...

Your final paragraph uses "free market" when you should be saying "laissez faire capitalism". Of course the regulator/government can be corrupt, but if it isn't, anti-trust legislation will be enforced. And think about how difficult it would be to create collusion with hundreds of thousands of solar-installed houses, each an entrepreneurial enterprise.

Mark,

Thanks; I'm just trying to get people to see some practical numbers rather than broad generalizations that distort how we understand the issues.

So, I guess the main question I would still have is what were your zero-output time periods? Days, weeks?

Also, nice to hear that the synergy I keep touting is happening, with electricity suppliers pushing the EV.

"Your final paragraph uses “free market” when you should be saying “laissez faire capitalism”."

There isn't any difference, except the latter insists that complete anarchy is fine.

Free markets do not handle control of the free market, it's not even in the paradigm. Government or some other collective needs to externally deal with free markets *to keep them free*, because the free market itself has no power to do so, at least scaled beyond the local commune level, that level at which communism works just as well as free markets, because there's a very direct link between everyone, customer and supplier alike.

So in what the market can deal with, there's no difference.

Laissez faire is only the negation of accepting this and "believing" without any evidence, and usually with the ret-con idea that the "reason" why the laissez faire anarchy has never worked is because it wasn't "laissez faire" enough. When the problem is that laissez faire is just incapable of working.

Laissez faire is free markets, but a refusal to allow any control.

Free market either accepts there has to be supra-market control because the free market itself cannot handle many things (including externalities), or in its laissez faire clothing, insists that it somehow magically will be no problem if it's left completely alone.

But the free market is still the free market in both views. And it still cannot deal with corruption, since there's no way to correct it in a large market, since there's no power in the free market to do so.

The collusion won't be between the thousands of independents, it'll be in the attempts of middle men to insert themselves. It'll be in the biggest suppliers trying to take over the grid and own it (see AT&T or any cable company going into internet, or indeed ISPs going into cable...).

The hundreds of thousands of individuals selling their power won't have the tools to make the educated choice because of corruption, and since the market won't fix what it can't see (remember, the scores of big players may see the problem, but they have the manpower and knowledge to avoid it, the common man won't have either, but won't even know it's as big a problem as it is, since they only interact with a small section of the market), so government will still have to work to break down information barriers, break up cliques and prosecute both anti-trust and fraud.

laissez faire doctrine would insist that government should not do any of that, and that any that turns up is automatically insisted to be BECAUSE of government interference.

But they too operate the free market.

They just insist for dogmatic reasons of belief and unsupported faith that government should do nothing about it.

Of course some, most or maybe all of them know that it's hogwash and merely want, like many libertarians, the power do be unrestricted themselves, not an uncoerced society free to act as they will.

And they, because they use the free market are why those who accept that no free market can deal with some things and that government must involve itself in weeding out and compelling freedom in the market to keep it free are tarred with the same brush.

My use of free market was 100% correct and accurate. Laissez faire is an add-on to control the free market, though in the nihilistic sense that there should be no control or compensation of corrupting influence.

This might be the moment for another of those periodic reminders not to confuse the domestic sector with the electricity market as a whole. Roughly speaking, domestic demand is ~30% of the total market, so it is important to keep things in perspective.

What happens in terms of domestic efficiency and storage and rooftop SPV is all good, of course, but it doesn't by itself lead to the necessary pace and depth of decarbonisation required to avoid severe climate impacts.

The danger of blurring the distinction between the domestic sector and the market as a whole is complacency. One might begin to imagine that decarbonisation on the necessary scale is self-propelling and even a bit easy. This provides politicians now and in the future with a perfect opportunity to mouth platitudes and do nothing.

"Roughly speaking, domestic demand is ~30% of the total market,"

Remember when you were saying about all the heating and lighting and transport?

"but it doesn’t by itself lead to ..."

Nobody other than you says otherwise. But your stuff about commuter drives is 100% solved (well 99% ish if you insist) with home solar.

"One might begin to imagine that decarbonisation on the necessary scale is self-propelling and even a bit easy"

You might. Sane people, not so much.

You pretend that there are these problems AS IF THEY WERE UNIQUE TO RENEWABLES.

They are not.

They are problems *we have today*.

What happened when both Didcot AND Sizewell went offline for a good several months?

I'll tell you what didn't happen: nobody then went shouting about how the current grid system was broken because of silly people thinking nukes and coal were the answer.

What DID happen is the industries who fucked up blamed renewables for it, because they thought that people weren't buying replacement nuke and coal power for these events.

What we're doing is making your alarmist claims and clamour properly aligned with reality, where these problems are already ones we have and ones we will have whatever solution we have, and whose answers are already there, without anyone crying about how hard it all would be to implement the current system.

"This provides politicians now and in the future with a perfect opportunity to mouth platitudes and do nothing."

No, shouting about how things will be too hard if we change gives them an excuse.

Denial the problem exists gives them an excuse.

And corruption from market leaders gives them reason to find one.

Pretending that these problems are unique to wind and solar gives them excuses to fund big expensive projects that will have huge companies running it who will have plenty of non-voting directorship jobs for anyone with the "wisdom" to help them make more cash. All the while pointing to the "problems" with wind and solar, and eliding the fact that they exist for all methods just as validly, to excuse them waiting until "the more inclusive moderate position" of wasting money on white elephants for the pork produces something better.

The situation is dire enough with enough wasted time so far that we don't have a choice, and as we build more and more renewables in different places we will find how much these problems exist, and the ways that will solve them, and the fall-back when all actions that the market will let you undertake are, because one-in-a-million chances MIGHT crop up, still possibly insufficient to the task.

You know, like a massive fire at Didcot.

Or Fukushima.

They happened, and nobody was going to build a 100% replacement to keep for all that time mothballed just in case it fucked up, but they did fuck up and stop.

What did we do?

We dealt with it, even if badly, because it just wasn't feasible to plan for a backup for the remote chances, and even if it's not the best solution, life will still go on, and we'll manage the crisis as we have to manage every other one that turns up.

Your fearmongering merely gives yet more ammo to pause doing anything for those who would prefer to let someone else carry the can.

Also I take it that the existence of all this grid storage is invalid because it's a homeowner car batteries, right?

Or does solving the energy problems mean energy problems are being solved, no matter which arbitrary boundaries it falls in? Most would agree to that, but you seem to want to demarcate off certain areas for "not confusion" because of some ephemeral worry that delay will result if we stop worrying about what will go wrong and start doing something then find out what arises.

>domestic demand is ~30% of the total market

The discussion is focused on the US, so now domestic demand is about 5% of the global market, and the US is about 15% of global.

Remember when you were saying about all the heating and lighting and transport?

No. Link and full quote please.

Your fearmongering

*What* 'fearmongering'?

Pointing out that people confuse the domestic sector with the whole market isn't 'fearmongering'. Pointing out that improvements in efficiency, storage and personal generation in the domestic sector fall a very long way short of decarbonising the electricity market isn't 'fearmongering'.

You are *such* a troll.

"No."

Ah, so you're a moron, a dumbass, or a liar.

Well done.

"*What* ‘fearmongering’?"

Yeah, more moronic denial.

Ever wonder why some call you denier?

Oooh, ooh, I know, what will you do if I show you your words? Will you accept the charge and fuck off forever or will you weasel out after I've done work, hmmm?

Come on, give me some pay for the work done you want to be done to punish me for not obeying your exhortations and ridiculous rhetoric.

Wow,

"car batteries"

Tesla is selling house batteries and "grid" batteries specifically designed for time-of-day load shifting.

The larger ones sound like they would take care of much of the commercial load that is supposedly a "problem" in the evening. Walmart has vast amounts of surface area, on the roof and in the parking lots, that could be covered with solar panels, and to locate the battery assembly. And that's another large chunk of CO2 that can be eliminated.

I was wondering if you had noticed a rather strange thing about how this conversation has gone:

I jumped in originally to chide you and BBD for having the same old nuclear v renewables debate, and offered my "let the market decide" approach.

But now I have, multiple times, said that nuclear was an option for industrial users with 24/7 process applications. Have you noticed that not one of the nuclear advocates has jumped in to applaud that?

Somehow, the great defenders of nuclear have stopped liking it so much when it is properly matched with a compatible load, perhaps located where there would be less controversy. Huh!

Almost makes one think that it really isn't what you describe as nuke-fluffing, but delay-delay-delay. Just sayin'.

No, Greg doesn't accept nuke fluffing, so they don't do it because of that is just as supported.

But now I have, multiple times, said that nuclear was an option for industrial users with 24/7 process applications. Have you noticed that not one of the nuclear advocates has jumped in to applaud that?

That's because Wow goes so absolutely batshit at the mention of the n-word that it is easier to discuss renewables-only approaches to decarbonisation.

And you are still locked in the domestic demand bubble and ignoring the marginal effect of domestic generation and storage on total market demand.

I jumped in originally to chide you and BBD for having the same old nuclear v renewables debate, and offered my “let the market decide” approach.

That's wow, zebra. *He* has that argument with an imaginary version of me that exists only in his head. I have pointed this out to you before.

I know it is very difficult to have a conversation with a lunatic in the room roaring and flinging shit, but even so, I would hope you appreciate the difference between my position (use everything) and wow's (rabidly anti-nuclear).

"That’s because Wow goes so absolutely batshit at the mention of the n-word"

Yeah, that's yet more of your insanity talking, dumbass.

"That’s wow, zebra. *He* "

"He"? Again, why do you say "he"?

"has that argument with an imaginary version of me "

Nope, I've got the one with the real you. Your insanity, however, cannot visit the real world when it comes to nukes. You just cannot think at all when it comes to that. Your brain dribbles off for a hangover cure while you rabidly shout and scream about how bad it will be if we use renewables, yet ignore that your alarmism is the scenario we have to see every week with the current and previous energy systems.

Because, sans ability to argue logic, you have to scare the shit out of people who dare think that maybe it can be 100% renewables.

You just, for some insane reason, can't handle the idea of a 100% renewable future.

"I know it is very difficult to have a conversation with a lunatic in the room roaring and flinging shit,"

Yes, we have to keep ducking the crap you fling.

“He”? Again, why do you say “he”?

Do you wish to be referred to as 'she' in future, Wow? I will, of course, do as you wish.

That is not an answer to the question.

You love avoiding answering, don't you, dumbass?

Why did you say "He"?

"Do you wish to be referred to as ‘she’ in future"

Nothing to do with what I wish, only with what motivates you to assign a gender without evidence.

Wow

Why did you say “He”?

Because you are so aggressive.

Do you wish to be referred to as he or she in future?

So you presume male because they're strong or not female because they're meek?

So you presume male because they’re strong or not female because they’re meek?

Women are meek? Who told you that?

The reason I assumed that you are a bloke is because you act like one. And you know it, so stop pissing around.

Still not an answer, dumbass.

So you presume male because they’re strong or not female because they’re meek?

Or is it that you're taking the first option? Because you gave that as your "reason", but this needs checking to see if you weren't just blowing smoke again. Or lying. You do that.

"because you act like one."

So women aren't agressive, then?

I know dean claimed it was ignorance of statistics by me, when he really meant social science, but women aren't as aggressive is another point that signifies you are male.

Hey, don't sell yourself short, "mike", you're ignorant about a lot of things.

Remember, you almost certainly have more than the average number of legs, and eyes and even fingers and toes!

The thing about questioning why people make the presumption about gender when there's neither need nor evidence for it is that they so very rarely have any explanation for it, indicating at the very least that even they don't look at their own thought processes (such as they are) and actively refrain from doing so.

I've used both evidence based assertions for the conclusion AND also used one of probably several "I have no evidence" claims for it, but nobody else ever seems to manage to even bring up an "I have no evidence" and an open and self-regarding assessment of what it meant by presuming the gender. It's all been highly defensive and made as if there were some imperative to their assumption, rather than just plain assumption.

People tend to hold to the idea that they are rational and don't question it anywhere near enough. Meanwhile make the assumption others are IRrational.

Much like the idea of free well. As one author put it, when they see someone else do something unexpected, they go "Frank is acting out of character", and not "Frank is exercising his free will today!". They assume themselves free will but want others to be automata and predictable.

Women have more legs than average.

So if you think it likely I have more than the average number of legs, then you will conclude I'm female?

The problem of your conversion to statistical likelyhood (completely at odds with your climate denial, by the way, which rather supports the contention that your stats ref is merely a facade behind which your misogyny hides) is that you propose "Is" from "likely". Moreover, it's just the same bullshit that early white assholes made the assumption that they were superior to blacks, by appealing to some statistical average that they didn't even bother to check and brought "is" from "might be". They looked at the average lifespan, saw they had a longer one and then assumed they were better.

They looked at the brain case size, then looked at ALL AFRICAN HUMANS, which are far FAR more varied than out-of-africa humans genetically, and concluded that they were dumber because their brain could not be as large on average.

They were abusing stats and not caring because they WANTED to believe their racism was scientifically sound rather than their own blind prejudice.

You have made no statistical analysis. Not of the amount of aggression from me, not of the amount of aggression the spectrum of men have, and compared it to the results for a population of women, not made any calculation as to the likelihood, then compared that to the number of women who you have encountered.

If it's 5% possible and you've talked to more than 20 women, there's one who is as "aggressive" as the one you proclaim me to be.

But remember too that this assertion "aggressive" is merely a paint job on what you don't want to accept and wish to paint to conform to what you'd like to be there.

"No you're talking bollocks" is refutation, not aggression, dumbasses.

>If it’s 5% possible and you’ve talked to more than 20 women, there’s one who is as “aggressive” as the one you proclaim me to be.

And 19 who are not...

>So if you think it likely I have more than the average number of legs, then you will conclude I’m female?

If there's a big difference between men and women on that score, then sure. But of course there is no such difference, except maybe on the less than average side.

"If there’s a big difference between men and women on that score"

If you don't know whether there is or not, you have no evidence to back your assertion, despite it being the only claim in support of your assertion you have given.

Since you do not know if the stats support you and asked that question, then you made your statement out of ignorance and bigotry, not evidence.

>If you don’t know whether there is or not, you have no evidence to back your assertion,

This is a correct statement, since 'if A then B' is only wrong when A is true and B is false.

>Since you do not know if the stats support you
Wrong.

"This is a correct statement"

What a lame-ass way of saying "Yeah, I was wrong".

">Since you do not know if the stats support you
Wrong."

WRONG.

Even you said that it was a correct statement "you have no evidence to back your assertion"

Fucking idiot.

No, I said your full statement was correct, and gave the reason. Learn the rules of logic.

Getting back to the topic, a brief review:

In the competitive market paradigm, we have the opportunity to best match the energy source to the end use.

Electrification of personal (and probably much commercial) transportation; batteries charged with low-price intermittent renewables.

Stationary electricity (residential and commercial) provided by renewables with on-site time-of-day-shifting battery storage.

Industrial applications requiring 24/7 electricity supplied by dedicated nuclear generation, whether large-scale or localized.

Reduction of consumption through more efficient technology, and further storage in the form of thermal energy for space conditioning.

These are the likely outcomes once the costs of CO2 are internalized and anti-competitive structures are eliminated.

And again, remember Greg's admonition-- the Nirvana Fallacy is a Fallacy.

To Zebra (#106),

“So, I guess the main question I would still have is what were your zero-output time periods? Days, weeks?”

The worst output time block for our system was during a winter storm. We had zero output from the system for 4 days. It took 3 days for the snow and ice to melt off the panels. The variability in output for our PV system, for representative months matching the seasons, is noted below. In the winter our output can be 1, or 2, kWh/day for a few days in a row.

January
Average kWh/month= 483
Standard Deviation= 113
Coefficient of Variation=23.5%
% demand from PV=37%
Capacity Factor(avg)= 12.5

April
Average kWh/month= 867
Standard Deviation= 69
Coefficient of Variation= 8%
% demand from PV= 82%
Capacity Factor(avg)= 22.3

July
Average kWh/month= 1029
Standard Deviation= 47
Coefficient of Variation=4.5%
% demand from PV=70%
Capacity Factor(avg)= 26.5

October
Average kWh/month= 760
Standard Deviation= 35
Coefficient of Variation= 5%
% demand from PV=50%
Capacity Factor(avg)=18.6

Our system was installed in the days before internet conductivity for inverters. The meter from our service provider is Smart in that it collects usage (kWh) into different time bins that match up to our TOU rate schedule, but it does not have conductivity (internet) either. I have daily records in written format. I transfer the data to an electronic file that I summarizes into monthly data.

Sorry for the really long delay in answering your question………….. There is a lot of daily data, binned into 24 intervals, available at the CASIO web link noted in an earlier comment. I used that data base a few months ago to get a feel if the utility scale PV generators in the state have a smaller hour variability (over at least 30 days) than the CSP facilities feeding the CA grid. We have a lot more utility scale PV spread throughout the state then CSP facilities which may be why CSP’s Coefficient of variation for any particular hours generation was much larger than the variation in output from the PV generation sites.

" It took 3 days for the snow and ice to melt off the panels"

Last winter there were several streets and even entire (OK, small, but still the entire village) out of power completely for as long as that because of winter storms taking out the electric lines.

So having even a worldwide grid and massive nuke or coal or gas providing "dependable" power doesn't solve that problem of a few days out of power when there's been a storm.

Mark,

Thanks, great info. Getting 37% during January is a nice example of why Nirvana Fallacy is a Fallacy.

That;s 37% of max, though, not 37% of demand.

And as I said before, with the current mix there's no financial incentive to work to even out supply because it's more profitable at the moment to steal the old systems' lunch and sell peak power at peak price times than to supply what's wanted.

Wow,

He said "37% of demand".

He sized it to produce what he'd used in the summer, it's the second post he made (IIRC, but you can pop back and see it),so, to an extent, yes, it's not "max", but the "maximum he'd bought to supply".

The point is somewhat along the lines of what you'd ended on, regarding the perfection fallacy.

We don't have a perfect one now.

My addition was that we won't see the problems in what we currently see, since the system is built in the ecosystem we currently have, and not in one where it's carbon free.

It's why your idea of an open (as opposed to free, given the political implications of that term) market might work. It is probably why nukes *won't* work, since they're not able to adapt, even as a project, because of the timelines and the sunk costs at the beginning, which is IMO why BBD is so set against it being declared unworkable: nukes work if they're backed up by a non-profit paradigm and/or government edict.

But an open market will, potentially, be able to move to either fill an emergent gap or avoid an opening pitfall. Kinda sucks to be the one who fell in where nobody knew there was a problem, mind, but that's a societal thing to discuss outside energy production paradigms.

But go back and look at the figures.

Winter, half the power usage, half the "capacity factor", but still gives "demand from PV" as half the summer.

It's "demand from PV" compared to nominal spec, not usage. Else one of those figures at least is out by a factor of two.

I would presume it's from the wording of his supplier and a lack of either thinking it through or not considering it as potentially confusing that leaves the wording as it is.

Or, possibly, that there is no mention of the demand of power he has for each month, in which case he looks to be using as much in winter as summer, which for his location shows he's wastefully profligate and he can fix most of his problems by not throwing money away in wasted power.

Mark,

Thanks, great info. Getting 37% during January is a nice example of why Nirvana Fallacy is a Fallacy.

It's a perfect example of why you are going to need a bigger grid.

And you are *still* muddling up the domestic sector with the total market. This is 37% of 30%, not 37% of 100%.

But go on wittering on about supposed Nirvana fallacies and pretending that there is no difference between necessary and sufficient.

See earlier post, BBD. Read it first before making such stupid claims. Because if you haven't read them, the post you just did wasn't stupid, just uninformed, but if you had read it, then that was definitely stupid.

We currently need a grid that supplies twice the power we use, because we only produce 50-ish percent of the capability. And renewables are cheaper, so even if you have to build more MW (which we don't, at least it's not provably necessary, merely a possible requirement), it will still be cheaper to build and run than other ideas.

"This is 37% of 30%,"

That is 37% of what was built up to provide. And with 12-year-old tech, in a process that is still improving efficiency at Moore's Law rates.

Moreover, that's 37% of a system built not to be a sole replacement, for a person who either got that figure wrong (see my previous post, remember) or is dumping a shitload of unnecessary power out, therefore could dump that 37% to 74% no problem.

Not forgetting that ice on his roof from a storm is equivalent to a downed line or fubar'd station transformer, both of which have seen streets and even whole areas without power for days.

Ask the USians in Tornado Ally what that feels like. Local generation there is done because it's needed, not because they're wanting to replace their power use.

"But go on wittering on about supposed Nirvana fallacies "

You're doing it right there, dumbass.

"Oh, it's not perfect, so it's really really BAAAAADDDD!!!!!".

Wow, the fuckwit's fuckwit.

Buddy, bloody dumbass.

Bullshit, Bollocks and Denial.

So. Germany. 85% power production from renwables. Near 20 years earlier than planned.

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

Apparently that 20% figure that was bandied about, what, 2011? thereabouts anyway, for safe renewable penetration looks to have been a *tad* off.

And when its dark / winter? And low wind conditions?

Where does the energy come from then?

A total alternative reserve equal to the total national demand.

What might provide such a reserve? You are adamant that no backup is required, so presumably, unicorn farts.

These kinds of headlines are misleading and dangerous. They create an entirely false impression that there is some sort of meaningful energy transition actually underway.

Fake news for useful idiots.

BBD and Wow,

It appears that the German government would like to evaluate ways to improve the ability of their forecaster to match supply with demand:

RTE Day-ahead Load Forecasting Competition 2017:

http://blog.drhongtao.com/

….”In this context of increasing flexibility and market rule harmonisation at the European level, RTE wants to conduct a review of current forecasting methods and assess the performance of new dynamic and adaptive approaches brought by Data Science.

The first challenge will focus on the deterministic short-term forecast of national and 12 regional electricity demands, a second one will focus on a forecast with associated uncertainty.

RTE will launch its first international public challenge in Data Science mid-May, running till mid-July. The second challenge will take place during winter 2017-2018.”

I wonder if Dr. Hansen is following how RTE is doing. I’d like to know if he still feels the current approach to addressing things might be a bit off target:

http://energyskeptic.com/2013/james-hansen-says-belief-in-renewable-ene…

What about it?

Tell me, what % of energy was the renewable system currently built out supposed to handle?

Something under 40%.

Now, tell me, what happens when your nuke plant blows up?

What happens when your smokestack for the coal generator cracks and falls?

What happens when your transformer station is set aflame?

JAQing off really doesn't do anything other than show desperation.

Oh, and Germany has night. And it has winter too.

So what happened was they managed just fine.

"These kinds of headlines are misleading and dangerous"

Nope. Unless you mean "leading away from the narrative I prefer" and "dangerous to my ideology".

OK, so what does your text have to do with your link?

You DO know why appeal to authority is a fallacy, right? That anyone can be wrong and that saying "this person is an expert" is a shorthand for those who cannot work with the information that this expert had to hand to arrive at their conclusion that this issue HAS been looked at, but that if you can, you will and should always point to the data and information that led that expert to their conclusion, because it's the validity of the data and its support or not for the conclusion that actually shows the conclusion is right or wrong.

Dr Wakefield is, or rather was, a real doctor.

His ability to discern the truth from the facts in evidence was 100% supported.

He lied and faked however.

Hence if your audience can handle the data, you show them the data. If they can't, then your claim to mercury leading to autism based on Dr Wakefield's career choice is an appeal to authority.

Of course, if he'd been right, the appeal would have been immaterial as to whether mercury causes autism. The appeal is, really, orthogonal to the claim's veracity. It can only ever be used if you point to where that authority got THEIR data and information from. And then argument can ignore who said it, and move into what proves it.

Here's what a blip in wind and solar looks like (this is the April 30 blip when German electricity generation peaked at 85% renewables between 1300 - 1500hrs.

And this is what a coal power blip looks like

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2014/oct…

And one power station is so big that the HVDC links need to be massively upgraded so that we can cope with its intermittency.

Strange how this is not a problem for the fluffers....

“These kinds of headlines are misleading and dangerous”

Nope. Unless you mean “leading away from the narrative I prefer” and “dangerous to my ideology”.

No, I meant what I said. Energy industry misinformation is dangerous whenever it is used to lull the public into believing that:

a/ GW isn't really a problem

or:

b/ It's all going to be okay because renewables

But it's all energy industry misinformation and it's all pernicious. Useful idiots on both sides dance to their respective pipers. All will end up in the river in due course.

Also is your complaint that they saved so much cost of unburnt fuel? Is not burning coal a problem?

"No, I meant what I said. "

OK, so what you said was intentionally meaningless.

"b/ It’s all going to be okay because renewables"

Ah, that would be the same number of people who are leftists and proclaim we need a NWO to control the planet, as many deniers proclaim.

I.e. nobody.

“These kinds of headlines are misleading"

So what was misleading???? Be specific and back it up with reality, not your imaginings.

Classic useful idiocy from Carrington, who tries on a feeble false equivalence between a fire at a single power station and the national-scale variability in wind during anticyclonic conditions or solar during night / widespread cloud / winter. It's just stupid. Yet it gets published, along with the crap by deniers in the right wing press. It's all misinformation.

“These kinds of headlines are misleading”

- It was the May Day holiday long weekend: industrial demand was unusually low.

- It was a blip - a day - when unusually windy and sunny weather coincided.

- Electricity is not total primary energy and it's not okay to blur that distinction.

You don't understand this stuff well enough to argue about it Wow.

Ah, classic denial form nuke fluffer. Can't argue the case, argues the speaker.

So useful, that fluffer. Earns every penny he does!

"– It was the May Day holiday long weekend:"

So what is misleading? The headline said they got 85% from renewables. Whether it was May day or not. The headline didn't say "On a heavy load day...".

Remember, I asked for reality, not your imaginations.

"– It was a blip – a day "

So what is misleading? They got 85%. The headline didn't say "For a full year!"

I want reality, not what you imagined.

"– Electricity is not total primary energy "

So where did the headline say all total primary energy? And how does running a solar panel produce Natural gas for burning????

I wanted reality, not your shibboleth imagingings.

What was misleading?

Is it not misleading to claim that 85% of demand is misleading?

Is it not misleading to complain that there are winters and nights when the discussion is about how much electricity was produced compare to the demand?

Is it not misleading to complain about things that were not claimed in the goddamned report itself???

Is it not misleading to harp on about intermittency when every source is intermittent?

Is it not misleading to complain about Carrington for being himself and ignoring that Didcot DID go titsup and produce NO POWER while the renewables continued going? The facts wouldn't change if it were Coco the Clown or even Trumpanzee saying it.

Is it not misleading to claim it's misleading when you have to pretend things not there to be misled about?

Is it not misleading to complain about misleading people when you're busy doing just that?

So to protect against another didcot burning down, we have to build two. And admit to building two of everything in case that one thing burns down. And in case we can't get coal, we have to plant enough trees that we can use charcoal from the trees permanently, else we would have potentially a lack of power from coal imports being blocked.

And to hold up against uranium being unavailable, we have to relocate the UK to some place with a lot of uranium resources we can mine for the next 10,000 years, because we might be blockaded from having nuclear fuel!

Indeed if we forested enough to supply our energy needs through charcoal

a) it's carbon neutral
b) the mass of trees would draw down some of the carbon

Meaning it's far better to do that than bother with nuclear energy, because we can be embargoed imports but we can't be embargoed the trees growing on our land.

So we find our perfect BBD solution: Charcoal power!

Is it not misleading to harp on about intermittency when every source is intermittent?

The Carrington lie again, despite debunking just upthread. You aren't even a useful idiot.

What lie? Are you saying Carrington doesn't exist? Or that Didcot never was on fire????

WHAT debunking? Debunking WHAT? EVERY SOURCE IS INTERMITTENT.

You're not even a dumbass. Dumbasses are looking at you all ;-^ and wondering what is wrong with your head.

Oooh! Oooh! I think I got it, you think that being a power station that produces power by burning stuff, that when it was on fire it was producing EVEN MORE POWAH!

Amirite?

Hey, when we run out of gas because Russia turns off the supply to Europe, what do you do, hmm?

What do you do when there's a huge lull in the weather, it's night time, we have no gas supply? Have you built up enough extra nuke power to cover all that loss? If not, then you have to include in the cost of nuke power the cost of supplying 100% of total primary power production entirely by nukes with over-build!

But what happens when you discover a design flaw in the station? You therefore need to build an entire second replication of that overbuilt programme with a completey different design in the

(fucking touch sensitive laptop mouse equivalent)... You therefore need to build an entire second replication of that overbuilt programme with a completely different design in the hope that the design flaw is not common to both designs! But what if it IS in both!?!?!?! OMG! We need four, completely new designs of enough nuke power to supply all primary production, else BBD will insist it is misleading!!!!

Of course, coal power will also need to be replicated 400% of maximum demand in three different designs in case we find that imports of uranium are blocked.

We wouldn't want to be "misleading" BBD, would we!

Oh, and NOBODY say anything about whether anything we do to mitigate or counter AGW or CO2 levels because it would be misleading to imply that there is no problem because we've found a way to stop it. m'kay. That's just misleading the poor retard.

We wouldn’t want to be “misleading” BBD, would we!

Of course not. But it was you who brought up the misleading news splash about '85%' blah. So, look at the mirror instead of berating me. Ditto on parroting Carrington's nonsense. Neophyte / useful idiot errors both.

"But it was you who brought up the misleading news splash about ‘85%’ "

But you haven't actually found anything misleading about it. You've imagined what you want to whine about. You're the one misleading people, dumbass.

"Ditto on parroting Carrington’s nonsense."

Ah, so you DO claim that Didcot never burned down!

Welp, you're a lying sack of dick-covers, then dumdum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-35641766

Oooh, but maybe the BBC is ALSO misleading people!!!!!

THEY'RE ALL IN ON THE CONSPIRACY!!!!!111!!!!ONEONE!!1!!

INCLUDING the owners!

Oh, and so as not to mislead anyone, care to show us a month where there was zero wind across the entire UK, with 8 Octas of cloud cover?

You wouldn't want to compare a local, temporary weather event changing a small area's output slightly with a nationwide synoptic scale long term failure, would you?

Heck, I'll let you off and allow you to pick another country. How about USA?

A good energy storage method is to use compressed air to run gas turbines.

Normally gas turbines use a substantial fraction of the power they produce to compress air to operate the turbine. The compressed air is heated by burning natural gas, then the hot air plus combustion products are expanded, and the net power (expansion power minus compression power) is used to generate electricity.

It is a relatively minor modification to run compressors with electricity and store that compressed air underground and then use that compressed air during periods of peak energy demand. This is a way to shift off-peak power to peak power. There are some losses, but the price differential between peak and off-peak are so large that it would be worth doing.

Those natural gas powered turbines can also be made carbon-free by sequestering the CO2 they produce.

This would be a lot cheaper and more effective than the "moving rocks uphill idea" (which is going to be too expensive).

Oh, and so as not to mislead anyone, care to show us a month where there was zero wind across the entire UK, with 8 Octas of cloud cover?

Demand for impossible (and irrelevant) standard of proof.

We were talking about Germany, which is bigger than the UK, and the data are available. Here's Sunday 15 Jan - Sunday 22 Jan this year.

Solar is at its seasonal low end, but Mon Tue Wed were very low so cloudy over most of Germany. A bit less cloud on Thurs, Fri, and a bit less on Sat, Sun but solar low all week.

Wind - very low, all week.

You can see coal and gas doing the heavy lifting, with pumped hydro for peaking. But the coal and gas have to go. According to you we aren't allowed backup and we aren't allowed HVDC interconnections.

So, what next?

"Demand for impossible "

Yes, that, for any sane human intellect, would have been obvious as to why I asked. To point out that you demand impossible perfection or you'll whinge like holy shit that some corner case is imperfect, therefore misleading to even discuss the overall process.

But I get it, you're not a sane human.

Much like "dick" and his "CO2 sensitivity is only measured in doublings from 280ppm!!

"We were talking about Germany,"

YOU were not in 162

But I comprehend: NOOOOO! LOOK! SQUIRREL!!!!

All you have left with your arse in tatters.

"We were talking about Germany, which is bigger than the UK, and the data are available. "

Ah, so misleading. Talking about data as if it proves the headline wrong when it shows the headline was correct and factually accurate.

So sad. So misleading of you dumdum.

None of that sad and pathetic bullshit disavows the FACT that Germany got 85% of its electrical power from renewables as reported here:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

Dang, that reality just won't play ball with your insanity bubble,will it, bubbles.

No, the fact it was sized to cover a much smaller fraction of demand is, to you, a failure because it doesn't cover a much higher than designed load for all time.

Tell us the last time any "conventional" power supply supplied more than twice the rated load for any time at all.

And explain why, if doing so with renewables for any time at all is a failure, why conventional power sources aren't a worse failure?

Dai, we already have GW of backup. In other power stations and sources that are left untapped.

Why must they be scrapped or not used in a totally renewable future?

And if the use of non-renewable for the rare occasion where there's insufficient supply to demand, why isn't the cost of renewables added to the cost of conventional systems when the renewables are used to shore up "conventional" sources when they flatline?

Ignore the data. Avoid the question. Rant on.

" According to you we aren’t allowed backup "

Oh dear, more hallucinatory babbling from the local dumbass.

According to you only renewables have problems, all other sources of power are perfect.

And before you whine and whinge and demand I show where you said that, look above at the quote of you I made, you ignorant fucknut.

Ignore the data, ignore the facts, ignore the reality, just keep complaining about imaginary problems and claims, dumbass.

Oh, and what's this "we" bit, dumdum?

Weren't WE talking about GERMANY????

We're not germans.

Oh, dear, your squirrel is nailed to the tree for all to see as stuffed.

Rebuttal of "We're talking about X" when you yourself will include Non-X in your talking points is no rebuttal but blatantly obvious distraction tactics.

According to you only renewables have problems, all other sources of power are perfect.

Nope, you made that up.

And before you whine and whinge and demand I show where you said that, look above at the quote of you I made, you ignorant fucknut.

Well, you were exactly as incompetent as I suspected, dumdum.

Shall we count what you made up, dumdum?

"the headline is misleading"
"Carrington is wrong about Didcot catching fire"
"according to [me] we aren't allowed backup"
"WE were talking about GERMANY"

And others that really don't need adding to the list. It's long enough to prove the point.

You are a useless idiot.

Usain Bolt does not set new world record for the 100m, says BBD! "Misleading because he walked to the starting line" claims internet idiot!

Dumdum, if we take all your gloomongering as valid, so what?

If the UK is open to a remote risk of being becalmed by a nationwide lack of all wind power for weeks in midwinter, so what? Instead of content free and effectless whining, what then?

Dumdum, if we take all your gloomongering as valid, so what?

If the UK is open to a remote risk of being becalmed by a nationwide lack of all wind power for weeks in midwinter, so what? Instead of content free and effectless whining, what then?

It's not a remote risk - like Germany, it happens once or twice a year.

As for what then? that was what I asked you. Given your antipathy to backup and HVDC interconnectors.

So?

BBD, how much value do you think there is in having hybrid cars and electrics used as grid storage, to give back to the grid?

"It’s not a remote risk"

So what? If it happens every year, so what?

"As for what then? that was what I asked you."

That's what I'm asking YOU. So what?

We'll cope is what I say. I've said it MANY times before. You never fucking listened, preferring to shout and scream at imaginary problems instead.

What do you say? If it happens, so what?

" Given your antipathy to backup and HVDC interconnectors. "

Oh, another claim you made up, dumdum.

And completely ignorant of the question. So what? Are you saying we use the HVDC connection to Europe?

I've said that. Yet here you are, still complaining.

Dumdum, if we don't have generation capacity to supply enough power, we won't have sufficient power.

So I've answered it.

So what?

#60
"When you plug in your Volt in your garage, ... "
The sheer normality that Americans consider their wealth
with never ceases to surprise. I think thats part of the energy
issue.
A bloody house especially made for a bloody motorcar!!!
Thats some high level living right there.
Maybe if you all toned down the living like a millionaire thing a
bit.

Well, currently you have "your" car and you pay for "your petrol" so you don't want "your stuff" used by someone else, therefore you put it in a locked room so people can't use your car or take your petrol.

But if we have widespread EV charging and the cost of your commute charge is paid for by making your EV available when not driven for the grid power system, then it's not "your electricity" you're using, so no need to keep it locked away and only using "your" electricity.

And when they're mostly self-driving cars, why would you have a car at all?

And if you need a longer range, you rent a car. Or take public transport.

#195
"But if we have widespread EV charging"

Mmmm yes. I was reading that India has
plans to push this in a very big way. And
quickly.

#105 MikeN

BBD, how much value do you think there is in having hybrid cars and electrics used as grid storage, to give back to the grid?

Buys you about 12 hours. So massively over-hyped and misrepresented as a hedge against more than brief periods of low W&S output when W&S are major components of the energy mix.

Oh, another claim you made up, dumdum.

You spent an entire, very long thread backing up the idiot zebra against me on exactly this point.

So either you are a brazen liar (and you are, and we know it from past experience) or you are so utterly confused you don't even know what you are arguing for and against. Or maybe a bit of both.

So what? If it happens every year, so what?

You get a national-scale blackout that lasts for several days.

"Buys you about 12 hours."

So?

"You spent an entire, very long thread backing up the idiot zebra against me on exactly this point."

And yet another claim you made up, dumdum.

"You get a national-scale blackout that lasts for several days."

So?

All I'm hearing is you complaining.

Got anything else?

Have you saying we'll have blackouts if we don't generate enough electricity to meet demand.

OK.

So what?

And yet another claim you made up, dumdum.

Lying again. You will say anything at all. It's sickening.

Dumdum, if we don’t have generation capacity to supply enough power, we won’t have sufficient power.

So I’ve answered it.

So what?

How can anyone be this stupid?

It's a national catastrophe. Everything stops working. Industrial output ceases. Electrified transport cannot charge so nobody can travel anywhere except on foot. Backup generators run out of fuel. People die.

We’ll cope is what I say.

Talk is cheap.

” According to you we aren’t allowed backup ”

Oh dear, more hallucinatory babbling from the local dumbass.

You are a shameless liar. You *always* argue that there is no need for backup for renewables. And now, confronted with your own idiocy, you start lying, as you always do when cornered.

Have you saying we’ll have blackouts if we don’t generate enough electricity to meet demand.

OK.

So what?

The electorate will NEVER forgive this. Bigger energy bills and disastrous national blackouts are political toxin. If you want to make absolutely sure that renewable are a dead end and we end up with gas and nuclear, that is the attitude to take.

"Lying again."

Another claim you made up, dumdum.

"It’s a national catastrophe."

OK, so a nation wide blackout is a catastrophe.

So what? All I see is you complaining still.

"Everything stops working. Industrial output ceases. "

Well, you've not demonstrated that, but why bother so far. OK, when we have a nationwide blackout, everything stops working, and industrial output ceases.

So what?

"Talk is cheap. "

And?

"You *always* argue that there is no need for backup for renewables"

Oh dear, we have yet another made up claim from you dumdum.

So we still have you telling us that if we don't produce enough energy to meet demand, we will have blackouts and they are bad.

So?

"The electorate will NEVER forgive this. "

And so what?

1. Power generation may be insufficient to demand
2. If that happens, we will have blackouts
3. Blackouts are bad
4. Electorates will never forgive that happening

Therefore?

BBD, I think the deal with the electric car storage, is that they shift production from peak to non peak. I always felt it was a religious zeal than any real value. It is one thing to promote electric cars, but I didn't get why people are so excited about selling back to the grid.

"Mike", why are you against selling electricity?

BBD, I think the deal with the electric car storage, is that they shift production from peak to non peak.

The idea is that they provide a storage mechanism for excess renewables generation (above demand) which can 'later' be fed back into the grid when renewables generation is lower than demand. The obvious application is solar. It all works fine until you get a week like 15 - 22 Jan 2017 in Germany when both wind and solar output is extremely low. Then you end up with a national fleet of EVs with flat batteries and no vehicle-to-grid reserve either.

“The electorate will NEVER forgive this. ”

And so what?

You remove the policy space for renewables expansion. It's dead in the water, overnight.

BBD,

Thanks for keeping the lights on.

It sounds like you have read a few of Carl Sagans works-

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/19/carl-sagans-two-warnings…

"when both wind and solar output is extremely low"

And demand low too.

"Then you end up with a national fleet of EVs with flat batteries and no vehicle-to-grid reserve either."

But That never happened in Germany 15-22 Jan 2017. They didn't have a national fleet of EVs with flat batteries and no vehicle to grid reserve. The carried on without a qualm.

So clearly your claim is not one of reality.

Again.

Oh dear, we have yet another made up claim from you dumdum.

Nope, your standard rant is that there's no need to back up renewables. You want me to produce a long list of quotes as I have done in the past when you lie like this?

So we still have you telling us that if we don’t produce enough energy to meet demand, we will have blackouts and they are bad.

Yes, Wow. Well done!

"You remove the policy space for renewables expansion."

So your suggestion is that if there can be blackouts, we must abandon any use of that power source.

"It’s dead in the water, overnight."

So that is your suggestion? We dump renewables overnight and scrap it all? Or just let it age and be removed?

"your standard rant is that there’s no need to back up renewables."

And yet another made up claim from your dumdum.

"You want me to produce a long list of quotes"

Go ahead.

" as I have done in the past "

Yet more made up claims from you, dumdum.

"when you lie like this?"

Goodness! Three made up claims in one sentence!

"Yes, Wow. Well done!"

OK, so what?

“when both wind and solar output is extremely low”

And demand low too.

No, another of your standard mistakes that you keep repeating.

W&S typically flatline simultaneously in winter in N Europe - when demand is highest.

I recall correcting you on this several times in the past.

" And demand low too.

No,"

Yes.

"another of your standard mistakes that you keep repeating."

And another claim from you you made up.

"W&S typically flatline simultaneously in winter in N Europe – when demand is highest."

So you keep saying. Has nothing to do with 15-22nd Jan 2017 in Germany.

"I recall correcting you on this several times in the past."

Well, yes, your hallucinatory recollections are well noted, dumdum.

But, so far we have your idea is that we drop renewables overnight.

Right. What next?

But That never happened in Germany 15-22 Jan 2017. They didn’t have a national fleet of EVs with flat batteries and no vehicle to grid reserve. The carried on without a qualm.

So clearly your claim is not one of reality.

Again.

WHAT?!

You nutter. There's no national EV fleet YET in Germany. No national VtG infrastructure YET in Germany.

Lunatic.

But, so far we have your idea is that we drop renewables overnight.

No, nutter. That's what will happen if lunatics like you get your way and renewables are built out without adequate hedge against intermittency.

Enough of this madness. It's Saturday afternoon FFS.

"There’s no national EV fleet YET in Germany. "

So you admit your claim that there would be was based on fiction, dumdum. Yet somehow I'm the nutter?!??!?

OK, so you've imagined that the fleet that never existed is out of power at a time that actually happened. I remain unimpressed at the idea of a nonexistent fleet being out of power, since it was always out of power. And existence.

So, we have from you

1. Power generation may be insufficient to demand
2. If that happens, we will have blackouts
3. Blackouts are bad
4. Electorates will never forgive that happening
5. Blackouts will happen if there's not enough storage.

Therefore?

"That’s what will happen if lunatics like you get your way"

No, I asked YOU: So what?

I didn't ask you to answer FOR me.

"lunatic."

And another empty and false claim from you dumdum.

Unless you were signing off...?

But, hey, maybe this works on dumdum here.

Lunatics like you are why nuke fluffing has gotten nowhere and all the arguments you and your ilk make against renewables is the maniac frothing of the eminently ignorable lunatic fringe and serves only to show how vacant and ignorant nuke fluffers like you are.

We have from you:

Which so far is all Captain Obvious stuff.

You've also tried to claim that people will run to nuke and gas power. Except

1) Power generation may be insufficient to supply the demand
2) They will have blackouts.
3) Blackouts are bad.
4) Electorate will never forgive this
5) Blackouts will happen if there's not enough storage

So they will run to...? Coal? But if that is insufficient to demand.......

So they will run to...? And when that has blackouts, where next?

“W&S typically flatline simultaneously in winter in N Europe – when demand is highest.”

So you keep saying. Has nothing to do with 15-22nd Jan 2017 in Germany.

Yup, total insanity.

W&S output was *extremely* low all the week of 15 - 22nd Jan in Germany. This is a perfect example of W&S dropping out for days at a time during... N European winter. Just. Like. I. Said.

Wow, you have completely lost the plot. And I do mean completely.

1. Power generation may be insufficient to demand
2. If that happens, we will have blackouts
3. Blackouts are bad
4. Electorates will never forgive that happening
5. Blackouts will happen if there’s not enough storage.

Therefore?

Very large scale investment in HVDC grid interconnections and massive utility-scale storage (which may not even be possible given cost, technology and engineering constraints). No more rubbish about ; 'cheap' renewables or fantasy free market energy transitions painlessly wafted in by invisible hands. No more complacency. No more lies.

The challenges posed by the necessary energy transition are staggering, humbling and may not be surmountable. Tell the public the truth or store up the most ruinous, toxic political blowback you can imagine when all the puffery and rhetoric fall flat and the lights go out.

"Yup, total insanity. "

So stop being nuts, then.

"W&S output was *extremely* low all the week of 15 – 22nd Jan in Germany. "

Yes.

"This is a perfect example of W&S dropping out for days at a time during… N European winter. Just. Like. I. Said. "

Nope, you said:

“when both wind and solar output is extremely low”

And demand low too.

No, another of your standard mistakes that you keep repeating.

W&S typically flatline simultaneously in winter in N Europe – when demand is highest.

What W&S typically do and when demand is typically highest does NOT mean "No" to "and demand low".

But you cannot comprehend logic, can you dumdum.

"Wow, you have completely lost the plot. And I do mean completely."

Yes, because you keep bleating on in a neverending cascade of avoidance.

Try being coherent.

You'll be followed then.

"Very large scale investment in HVDC grid interconnections and massive utility-scale storage "

We already have that. So we're done?

"which may not even be possible given cost, technology and engineering constraints"

Uh, we already have that. Seems to be no problem with historical costs, technology and engineering constraints.

"No more rubbish about ; ‘cheap’ renewables"

Renewables ARE cheap, though.

That's a fact.

They're cheaper than conventional. Coal is more expensive than either if you add the externalities of coal into the cost.

And both require very large investment in HVDC (it's why we have it) and massive utility-scale storage (which is why we have that too).

"Tell the public the truth"

WHAT truth???? Not lied once.

Unlike you, with your massive lies of omission and avoidance.

"the lights go out."

That's never happened any other time the lights went out.

You DO know we have massive blackouts, right? Already.

"Thanks for keeping the lights on. "

How? The lights may be "on" in there, but there's nobody home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_Reserve_Service

VERY misleading of you to pretend that this doesn't exist.

How about this elsewhere in the world?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_energy_storage_projects

Pretending that there needs to be this new stuff built up is just one of the many reasons why your insanity is laughably moronic, dumdum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_outages

Care to tell us all where people ran to when the lights went off, dumdum?

For your whining and whinging and constant complaining about others lying because they're not agreeing with your insane dribblings you really should avoid fucking lying to people, you retard.

All it does is prime people to ignore your raving lunacy even if you happened on some wild and whacky coincidence be right.

And who knew (obviously not you, you trump of the electrical argument) that power would be expensive to build:

...putting cables through a tunnel measuring about 22km under Morecambe Bay to avoid the south part of the national park at a cost of £1.2 billion; removing many of the existing pylons owned by Electricity North West (ENW) and replacing them with fewer, taller pylons of its own operating at a greater voltage; and replacing the low voltage line in the area around the Hadrian's Wall UNESCO World Heritage Site with underground cables.M

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-UK-National-Grid-updates-plans-for…

"Oh noes, building stuff is expensive!!!!!!".

You retard.

Yet still we get back to this fact: Renewables penetrated stably far further into the actual generation characteristcs of a grid and far faster than the moronic herds of nuke fluffers like dumdum here thought.

Which is why THIS link:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

got the shitstorming baboon so riled up. His fave Nuke and Gas aren't winning, so he has to drag every other option into the same boat, even if it doesn't damn well go in there.

And we're all still waiting on those quotes you were to supply, dumdum.

And, hey, if germany were so badly off for power, why the hell was there exports in Jan, dumdum?

Misleading to claim that Germany is in trouble with wind and solar when there's exports going on. Misleading to whine and whinge and bitch and moan about wind and solar when the graph you supplied indicates that the renewables were doing fine producing power. Misleading to complain about wind and solar as if they were the only renewables.

But that's how you fluff for the nuke industry, isn't it, dumdum.

Lie about renewables to fit your agenda of denial of a reality you don't wish to confront.

Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2017&source=all-sources&wee…

Click off Oil, Coal, Uranium, Gas. About 35% of demand supplied by renewables.

And it's not even designed to do that yet.

Lie about renewables to fit your agenda of denial of a reality you don’t wish to confront.

Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2017&source=all-sources&wee…

Click off Oil, Coal, Uranium, Gas. About 35% of demand supplied by renewables.

And it’s not even designed to do that yet.

W&S daytime generation peaks were between ~5GW - 12GW that week. Weekday peak total was ~80GW.

So W&S was contributing between 6% and 15%, not 35%.

Aaand you're still misleading, dumdum.

"So W&S was contributing between 6% and 15%, not 35%."

Wrong.

Exports were 2-10GW. Take that off the 60-80GW average. Renewables produced 12-24GW.

So again you're a lying toerag on a subject you desperately need renewables to be shit or your love for nuke and gas power will remain buried.

AAaaaaawww.

So, renwewables were producing about 35%. Not 6% not 15%.

Oh, you could put "about 30" if you like. Still a long way higher than your claim of no more than 15.

Renewables produced 12-24GW.

When?

Wind and solar, 15 - 22 Jan

Minimum W&S was 16/01 5.5GW at 12:00

Max W&S was 19/01 11.77 GW at 1:00

Your numbers: 12 - 24 GW

Data: 5.5 - 11.7GW

This is the problem.

" Renewables produced 12-24GW.

When?"

Jan 2017, dumbass, in Germany.

Too dumb to read?

This is the problem with you. You don't know what you're talking about, so you avoid talking about it.

So your problem is

a) Need HVDC.
- Already have HVDC
b) Need grid storage
- Already have grid storage
c) It will cost money
- Already costs money
d) Blackouts
- Already happen
e) No clue
- Can't help. Sorry.

Tell us all what energy future doesn't benefit from HVDC?

You got nothing, dumbass.

Tell us all what energy future doesn't require grid storage?

You still got nothing, dumdum.

Tell us all what energy future won't result in blackouts when buildout is insufficient?

Still complaining about what every option has.

Tell us what BETTER system would be made that makes ANY power grid system NOT have the above problems?

If you can't, then your complaints are that

a) it costs money

Yeah, really don't know why this is a problem if we go renewables.

Too dumb to read?

German wind and solar, 15 – 22 Jan

Minimum W&S was 16/01 5.5GW at 12:00

Max W&S was 19/01 11.77 GW at 1:00

Your numbers: 12 – 24 GW

Data: 5.5 – 11.7GW

You are now flatly denying evidence. In public.

Still bullshitting, dumdum?

Renewables produced 12+GW. They produced around 30% of the power used in Germany for the month.

So you're really set on misleading people.

Again.

But I get it, you know you're talking big hairy bollocks and that your complaint basically boils down to "Power production costs money! WAAAAHH!" because you need nukes to get it all.

So you didn't have any other alternative that didn't have exactly the same problem of blackouts, cost, HVDC and storage.

Just as you've failed every single time before you've tried this lying bullshit raving lunacy.

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2017&source=all-sources&wee…

Click off Oil, Coal, Uranium, Gas. About 35% of demand supplied by renewables.

And it’s not even designed to do that yet.

But to you, dumdum, doing better than expected by a long shot is a failure. Because you can't handle renewables being any sort of success when nukes are failing so badly.

Aaaaw.

He's throwing in other items into renewables while you are talking about wind and solar. He's not doing it by accident as he calls you a liar for saying wind and solar are low in #235 and #237.
I went thru this with the upside-down Mann discussion where he posted incorrect code, and he made similar diversions.

Hey, dumdu, for soneone who got pissed off at "Dick" for saying "ECS *could* be less than 1.5C!" and "Oh, it's misleading to say that renewables produced 85% because, um, I may make up something!", you really REALLY don't care about misleading or making up a fake and already unproven future claim, do you.

"It could be too costly to run HVDC lines!!!!" Well , German already has them. That's how they net exported 50TWh last year. They also used non HVDC lines. Because, you know, AC lines still carry electricity. Some people understand this. You don't.

And you mislead people with your claim that production = demand. But Germany exported a net of 4.5TWh in January. CLEARLY the production was higher than demand.

And your mathematical incompetence extends to simple arithmetic, too. When you claimed the fictional EV fleet of Germany would last 12 hours, you were completely making that shit up. I get, even if it had to supply 100% of the power and there were no interconnects (remember, they do have them dumbfuck), it lasts 2 days. Given that renewables managed about a third of demand, it would actually last about 3 days. And if they cut back a little, as everyone has to manage when the systems we currently have don't produce (see Didcot burning down, something else you claimed to be "misleading" - leading people away from your nuke future more like!), then that could be extended four or more days. And if they imported, well, they could manage indefinitely.

No, you only care, as "Dick" did that your preferred fictional future be kept alive and will do so even when you're proven wrong by mere wish and hope.

You lying duplicitious fuckwit.

Yes, "Mike", and you make that shit up and proclaimed Mann was a fraud too. Except reality and evidence were against you.

Funny how you manage to keep doing the same thing and expect everyone to think that maybe this time you got it right.

"He’s throwing in other items into renewables"

Such as hydropower? Seasonal production (mostly stuff like river runoff generation)? Biomass? Pumped storage? Other, such as tidal (though I don't see any "Other" in there, it's so small)..

Weird. There's me considering them to be renewables. Like they are. Seasons keep returning, no need to dig up another winter. Pumped storage is pumped storage. You know, stuff generated from whatever you use to generate the power at excess.

But I guess it's better vision than dumdum has. He can't even see that he's lying to people about what renewables are doing. You just "see" me including stuff that is more than the two dumbass there insists in calling "renewables".

Oh, and tell me if all the pumped storage were used up, and all the hydropower exhausted. Because if generation was more than sufficient for demand, there would be no need or desire to use up storage or hydropower, since they could be kept for emergency need if left alone, and therefore only excess water in the resevior would be used.

Meaning that there was spare capactiy there just among the renewables.

Rather misleading to pretend that somehow all generation was used up.

But dumdum, like yourself, don't care for the convenient lies, the lies that help your pathetic cause.

Hey, here's a fun maths fact, too.

If 85% of demand was met by renewables, then conventional power production only managed 15%!

Fuck me! You need to build out 6x as much conventional power to ensure you get 100% of demand with the current system!!!!!!

And look! 3rd Jan, Uranium manged only 7..5% of the power!!!

Man, you need to build out 13x as much nuclear! DAMN that shit is expensive! CLEARLY you nuke fluffers need to stop lying and deceiving the public or they'll rise up in their millions and crucify you and burn down all nuclear power plants!!!!!!

If demand is a bit of an issue,
up the bloody price of energy. Its cheap as for yanks anyway.
Oh what should we do today? Oh lets go for a drive and have
a lovely picnic in the countryside.
Oh we couldnt do that! Petrols too expensive, said no american ever.
If mains power was dear, yas wouldnt watch shit TV.
Up the price. Reduce demand.
Stop pissing in the pool.

#246 MikeN

He’s throwing in other items into renewables while you are talking about wind and solar. He’s not doing it by accident as he calls you a liar for saying wind and solar are low in #235 and #237.

I know, because I know the numbers I presented, clearly marked and linked wind and solar are correct.

I know that Wow is utterly dishonest. My concern here is only to make sure that everybody else does to.

And nuke power only managed 7.3% of power early on 3rd Jan, dumdum.

Dayum, you need to build that out nearly 14-fold to make it work!!!! LOL!

And ni, dumdum, you dont get t complain about lying when you lied so very VERY often here.

Where are those quotes you said you'd get, hmm?

How about the mismatch between the over 3 days and the less than 12 hours you claimed the EV fleet would operate for?

Oh, and the lie about renewables only being 6%?

Not forgetting the lie about HVDC being nonexistent and likely impossible to be built.

No, dumdum, you don't get to complain about lies. Even if there were any.

We're talking about RENEWABLES here, dumdum.

And you lied.

Lied damn hard.

All to prop up your failing nuke fetish.

Just making sure people know how big a fat-faced dick-header moronic liar you are.

Click off Oil, Coal, Uranium, Gas. About 35% of demand supplied by renewables.

Not only are your numbers completely wrong, you can't even do that kind of source deselection on the Fraunhofer data viewer.

You are literally making shit up as you go along. And your numbers are wrong.

Wow, if you want to make a point about renewables vs wind and solar you could have done so. Instead you took what you knew to be true and declared it a lie.

How about the mismatch between the over 3 days and the less than 12 hours you claimed the EV fleet would operate for?

As VtG backup during low wind winter nights. I'm not lying - you don't understand the topic.

Oh, and the lie about renewables only being 6%?

Okay, you got me there. Minimum W&S was 5.5GW on 16/01.

Not forgetting the lie about HVDC being nonexistent and likely impossible to be built.

You just made that up. So that would be you lying, not me. Or maybe you are just so clueless that you don't know that existing HVDC interconnectors are a tiny fraction of what is required for a high renewables energy mix to actually work.

BBD, your complaint about infrastructure not being good enough to handle supply variation and the need for lines, is this a national issue or a local one?
For example, suppose San Diego had wind and solar arrays nearby, along with nuclear and coal and hydro and gas plants, and enough backup supply to handle darkness and low wind(simultaneously). Is there another issue they have to deal with on the grid?

"Wow, if you want to make a point about renewables vs wind and solar you could have done so."

I did fuckwit.

germany-sets-new-national-record-with-85-percent-of-its-electricity-sourced-from-renewables

IF you wanted to read, you could have, but you, like dumdum dumbass here, did not like the results so did not, COULD not, read.

"BBD, your complaint about infrastructure not being good enough to handle supply variation and the need for lines, is this a national issue or a local one?"

It's an ignorant one.

Because fuckwits like buddy dumdum here "think" that we don't have HVDC, we don't have the capability to send electricity hundreds of miles, that there is, currently, no backup generation or storage.

If it weren't for the fact that the moron works for a nuke generation company, I'd say he was just uninformed.

"As VtG backup during low wind winter nights. I’m not lying"

Oh yes you are, moron.

How many cars in Germany?

Now, give them a 70kwh battery. Quite small for a EV today, never mind when they're part of the future of an all electric fleet.

And they use up 60-80GW.

Anyone smart can do the maths easily.

Anyone dumb can do the mths with a small effort.

But to claim 12 hours is the result of the maths requires a liar with no compunction or care.

"Okay, you got me there."

It's about 30% if you do the maths, from an eyeball guess I made "a third" and rounded off.

"Oh you got me there", but where do you change your tune? You don't. Kinda meaningless.

"You just made that up. "

Nope.Want the quote? 'cos unlike you, I'll provide it.

#226: which may not even be possible given cost, technology and engineering constraints

Where are the quotes of me saying that I'm against backup? Or refuse HVDC?

You're a lying fuckwit just as deluded and corrupt as "Dick".

"you don’t know that existing HVDC interconnectors are a tiny fraction"

YOU don't know that.

AT ALL.

Just like your lie about the EV fleet lasting 12 hours you lying little toerag.

You and dick are absolutely the same sort of corrupt pile of moral garbage. You just choose different things to be corrupt over.

re: 260, you must remember on this he's the same as you in your AGW denial.

He doesn't do solutions, only complains about any other solution, it's a rhetorical trick called "poisoning the well" and is a very stale and corrupt tactic to make people choose what you want to force them to choose without being overt.

Psy ops for the PR fluff boys of nukes. Buddy dumdum, here.

"Not only are your numbers completely wrong,"

For your ideology?

Because they're right, dumdum.

Remember, Germany is exporting all the while, between 2 and 10GW.

Hey, dumdum, how about the pointlessness of nuke power? 7.3% in the early hours 3rd Jan, 2017 in Germany.

Piss poor, innit.

But you'll NEVER hear nuke fluffers tell you how much it will REALLY cost you, they know that once you've sunk enough time and money in the scam to find out, they've already cashed in and run off, and in any case, you may just have to suck it at that point, since it's now too late to do anything about it, and then they'll just get to scam yet more cash.

Damn. Even I'm surprised that nukes only managed 7.3%.

Nope.Want the quote? ‘cos unlike you, I’ll provide it.

#226: which may not even be possible given cost, technology and engineering constraints

Ah, you can't read, Wow. Because you are an idiot.

You said that I said this:

Not forgetting the lie about HVDC being nonexistent and likely impossible to be built.

But I didn't. The cost, technology and engineering constraints were specific to massive utility-scale storage.

But you quoted out of context, dishonestly, to try to score a cheap point:

Very large scale investment in HVDC grid interconnections and massive utility-scale storage (which may not even be possible given cost, technology and engineering constraints).

Hey, dumdum, how about the pointlessness of nuke power? 7.3% in the early hours 3rd Jan, 2017 in Germany.

Piss poor, innit.

In Germany, they're doing this thing called the Energiewende which involves phasing out nuclear.

Ever heard of it?

Idiot.

“Not only are your numbers completely wrong,”

For your ideology?

Because they’re right, dumdum.

Remember, Germany is exporting all the while, between 2 and 10GW.

Oh, that doesn't even begin to get you off the hook.

Your numbers are completely wrong and either you are too dishonest or too stupid to admit it.

Shall we go through it, day by day?

Reminds me of that time at Eli's when we went through surface insolation, country by country, demonstrating that your numbers were completely wrong. Remember that?

"Ah, you can’t read"

Ah, but I can buddy dumdum.

What you said was

which may not even be possible given cost, technology and engineering constraints

"You said that I said this:"

Yes.

And you did. Or you misled people into thinking so. Because since we already have HVDC, your comment should have been about how it needed to be increased, not how building it could be impossible.

Not my fault if your misleading comments misled.

This is the problem for you nuke fluffers, you mislead and then howl over the "injustice" when nobody believes your lies because you've misled people so very many times before.

"The cost, technology and engineering constraints were specific to massive utility-scale storage."

Yes. Which is what I said you "thought": that there WAS no HVDC or grid scale storage, but this was a lie.

"But you quoted out of context,"

No context said "expansion" or "increase in...".

You're pretending there's a context that never existed, dumdum.

Yet more dishonesty from you.

Still waiting for the quotes you said you would slam me down with and "prove" me a liar.

"Oh, that doesn’t even begin to get you off the hook. "

Not necessary. I'm not on the hook for lying and deceiving and misleading people, dumdum, you are. If I'm not on the hook, there's no way to get me off the hook I'm not on. It's a logical impossiblity. You may not like logic, though. It doesn't really takes sides, and you need that partisanship.

"Your numbers are completely wrong"

And another claim you made up but can't seem to get off from.

Nope. They're right. I did the numbers (from eyecrometer) in 237.

And where are the quotes you promised in 212????

Oh, that's right, you were lying.

LOL.

And nukes. Huh. barely over 7%. Totally unworkable. Dead and buried.

" Remember that?"

No, nobody does, because that's another lie you've done, retardo.

Remember over at Eli's when you claimed we'd still need 40% fossil fuels?

Of course you'll mislead YOURSELF and justify this not being the case because you "merely" pointed to someone who said that when I and Bernard asked you what YOU thought the mix should be for the future.

Because like any good denier, you never come up with something yourself, only lame excuses why the answers you don't want picked can't be done.

"which involves phasing out nuclear."

No wonder. It barely scraped 7% of demand in January, the most demandingest time of the year, generally, in Northern Europe.

A power source that can't manage better than that is meaningless and should be thrown out as the unusable bondogle it is, unless you're willing to put the stupendous time, effort, resources and cash into making that horrendously ineffective white elephant work as a viable power source.

But you nuke fluffers don't EVER mention the TRUE cost of your industry, do you.

Not even 10%. How pathetic. Really, nuke is dead, and its loss will not be missed. NOBODY misses a power source that's less than the net export of energy. Just shutting that pointless thing down won't even put them below demand!

And where are the quotes you promised in 212????

Interested parties can start here. There are hundreds more examples of your lies and stupidity at Eli's. And hundreds more here - which unfortunate regulars may already be familiar with.

” Remember that?”

No, nobody does, because that’s another lie you’ve done, retardo.

Pants on fire, Wow. It starts right here. at 11/9/15 2:12pm.

“Your numbers are completely wrong”

And another claim you made up but can’t seem to get off from.

Nope. They’re right. I did the numbers (from eyecrometer) in 237.

Lies, Wow. Lies.

Let's skewer the lies before they go any further.

Going back to German electricty generation, 15 - 22 Jan

Let's look at the approximate percentage of daily peak generation (demand) represented by W&S combined:

16/01
Peak GW total/time: 78.13 / 17:00

S: 0
W: 3.46

W&S as % of peak total generation: 4%

17/01
Peak GW total/time: 78.44 / 16:00

S: 0
W: 3.84

W&S as % of peak total generation: 5%

18/01
Peak GW total/time: 80.65 / 09:00

S: 2.94
W: 6.05

W&S as % of peak total generation: 11%

19/01
Peak GW total/time: 80.16 / 11:00

S: 8.39
W: 4.06

W&S as % of peak total generation: 15%

20/01
Peak GW total/time: 80.23 / 09:00

S: 5.4
W: 4.27

W&S as % of peak total generation: 12%

21/01
Peak GW total/time: 71.86 / 11:00

S: 9.93
W: 1.07

W&S as % of peak total generation: 15%

22/01
Peak GW total/time: 68.59 / 17:00

S: 0
W: 1.37

W&S as % of peak total generation: 2%

So W&S share of peak generation (demand) for that week was 2% - 15%.

"Interested parties can start here. "

Oh,so when you complained about me lying and you said you'd get quotes, you were, in fact, lying when you accused

Nope, your standard rant is that there’s no need to back up renewables.

Oh dear. For anyone else, near enough, they'd have tried to avoid proving themselves a liar. Only dick is just as dumb as you and willing to do that.

Damn, you're hellaciously dumb, buddy dumdum.

" It starts right here. at 11/9/15 2:12pm."

Which really doesn't support your claims. Dear o deary me.

"Let’s look at the approximate percentage of daily peak generation (demand)"

Aaaawwwww. And you YET AGAIN lie.

BEcause, this time, you are incompetent.

See the hollow circle labeled "Import"? Click on that.

You than then read the DEMAND, the SEPARATED EXPORT and therefore, with a tiny amount of maths, the GENERATION.

You're so dumb! LOL!

"Peak GW total/time: 80"

Which isn't DEMAND.

But, yeah, your complaints about the headline being misleading was not merely wrong, it was pure unadulterated projection.

Absolute lies.

From an absolute dumbass.

You're not going to get a good box marking and you may lose your job at the plant, dumdum. They don't like failures.

But, yeah, also less than 7% of power generated by nukes. As you say, it's totally unworkable and should be berated for their lying misleading of the public that will only end in yet more catastrophe.

You know, when the dicks and mikes of the world complain that it's all a scare tactic to get unearned cash, you're the one they point to as proof, dumdum.

And though this doesn't prove AGW is false, they're not wrong that *you* push AGW as a scare tactic to push people to your scam.

Go back and add up renewables.

When renewables did 85% of power, all conventional and nuclear power generation COULD NOT MANAGE more than 15%. Because that's all that's left.

Dumdum's "maths" and "logic" would therefore PROVE that conventional power does not work.

Kinda proves dumdum's wrong, really.

PS if there WERE any interested parties, don't click the link he gives here

"Interested parties can start here. "

Because he hasn't actually given any quote, nor even the link to any post that he'd quote. He wants you to be punished for not just taking the nutcase's word on it by having to trawl through 700 posts, page by page, and THEN work out what the fuck he was thinking of, thereby doing all the work and, if you don't get the answer he wants, he can claim you missed it or misread it or are just lying.

You see when dumdum gives a quote that he knows he can't find, he wants to make sure you can't be absolutely certain he's talking out of his shit-eating piehole.

Brown coal, hard coal, gas look like a lot more than 15% here.

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2017&source=all-sources&wee…

#275 Wow

You are getting horribly muddled. Total generation (demand) is the sum of domestic and export demand. That's why I used it.

Just in case that isn't clear enough for you Wow, meeting total aggregate demand is what this is all about.

So analysing the percentage contribution of W&S to total generation (demand) is the correct approach.

God knows, this is wasted on you.

"Brown coal, hard coal, gas look like a lot more than 15% here"

Looks a lot like 15% here, though, "mike":

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

But I can understand you not wanting to see it. It's probably triggering you badly..

But, hey, at least you're agreeing with the logic that proves conventional power stations are worthless!

"Just in case that isn’t clear enough for you Wow, meeting total aggregate demand"

Nope, it's about the fact that you found the headline misleading for no reason other than you hated renewables in a good light. It's about how you lie and mislead. It's about how you make up scare stories to push people away from renewables and push AGW scare scenarios if they don't go for nuclear. It's about your lies and misrepresentations, it's about your hypocrisy, it's about the facts that you refuse to even see exist.

It's about how you leap off and when you lose you insist that the entire conversation be moved where you haven't been losing recently to distract from your utter failure of late, but you will also, and this gets back to the hypocrisy, gladly weave anything "off topic" yourself.

Such as your BSing about another date where renewables weren't doing 85% of demand in a conversation about a time where renewables did cover 85% of demand.

It's about how you want to move conversations but when you can't win, want them "back" to one random place you decided you aren't losing on.

It's about you lying, dumdum.

" Total generation (demand) "

Total generation is not demand.

Stop lying.

Wow, the problem here is exactly that W&S can swing from 85% to 2%. All well and good at 85% but WTF powers the nation when W&S are below 10%?

Indeed if total generation were equal to demand, then wind gets 100% of demand. So does solar.

Because at night total generation (demand) is zero watts for solar.

And when nukes are offline, total generation (demand) is zero watts .

And when didcot was on fire, its total generation (demand) is zero watts.

Your maths failures are part of your inability to tell the truth. Like "dick" you insist on not understanding maths because it doesn't give you the answer you like.

And you're ALL about the answer you like, no matter if you haven't a clue about why that answer is so.

It's why you fail so very VERY badly.

Total generation is not demand.

Stop lying.

Of course it is. If you try to feed more electricity into the grid than is being taken from it by demand, you get line overvolts and breakers trip and that leads to more line overvolts and more breakers tripping and before you know it, you have a regional-scale blackout.

Generation (supply) MUST equal demand. Learn your basics before calling people liars.

Your maths failures

Stop lying Wow.

Nope, it’s about the fact that you found the headline misleading for no reason other than you hated renewables in a good light.

No, what I dislike is misrepresentation. Specifically, all the puff pieces like this that imply - misleadingly - that we are well on the way to a successful energy transition when we fucking well are not.

"Wow, the problem here is "

That you're lying.

Renewables managed 30% or thereabouts for the very VERY cherry picked time you selected.

The problem you are having is that it varies from 30% to 85% and this good news for renewables and the planet is bad news for nuclear.

And the problem for nuclear is that you're arguing it's a valueless and overpriced white elephant, barely scraping past 7% of generation.

But only applying it to the situation you hate above all else: renewable power.

You're shit scared of losing your job, and you are desperate to justify yourself as rational when the problem here is you're irrational and lying.

The problem here is you're misleading and have never once managed otherwise when it comes to nuclear or renewables.

"No, what I dislike is misrepresentation."

Specifically when it's not in favour of nuclear power, or done by other than yourself. You mislead and revel in it because you have no other way to defend your job.

And you try to project your lies onto others, even if that means you have to contort some fantasy into what MIGHT be misinterpreted from words not there.

There was ZERO thing misleading about the report that showed renewables managed 85% of demand.

It is 100% misleading to whine about HVDC and storage for renewables when nuclear requires more of those things.

It is misleading to claim demand is generation when it clearly is exporting. But I KNOW that if Germany were IMporting (and it did in 2016 for a few days in the year), you'd be pointing to the lack of generation and failure to meet demand.

And if I pointed out you said total generation WAS demand, you'd ignore that, as you do every time someone points out to you that your whines against renewables are invalid because they apply to all forms of power generation.

You don't hate misrepresentation.

You LOVE misrepresenting things.

You just complain about misrepresentation like some closet homosexual fundie priest railing against the evils of homosexuality.

Shouting as loud as you can so people won't notice the problem is a lot closer to home for you.

"Stop lying Wow."

And another made up claim from you.

Go on, do the maths.

Number of cars in Germany?

Size of battery for an EV 70kwh.

How long will that last when renewables generated about 30% of the power demand, leaving something around 35GW of generation to supply.

Will it be 12 hours or less as you claim, or about three days as I do?

Which of us is lying?

Talk is cheap you pipsqueak, you mental midget, but can you do the maths?

Renewables managed 30% or thereabouts for the very VERY cherry picked time you selected.

No, they didn't. Why don't you just check the numbers properly? Like I did.

"when we fucking well are not."

How the fuck do you know?

As far as you're concerned, producing 85% of the power demand means it's failed.

Because it's done by renewables, and that, to you, is absolutely and irredeemably a bad thing. Because it's not nukes doing it.

You don't even care, though, do you.

You'll bring out the excuses like "the generation of nuclear is not supposed to supply more than 10%!", yet you will ignore and not even wonder what % renewables are meant to provide.

And then lie about them not providing power when they do. About a third. Even on the cherry picked worst day you could find.

And when I posted a link about didcot, which was a terrible day for conventional power production, you didn't do as an *honest* person would and agree that this was a failure of the current system, but complained about the reporter who reported.

Talk about ad hom!

Wouldn't matter if it was Dave Lee Travis saying it. Didcot burned down. Produced no power.

We don't have, according to your standards, a working power system today.

Oh noes, fixing that isn't free!!!!!

Nukes just fail utterly.

Sad day for you, but I don't care. I only care about the wellbeing of honest people, not lying scumbags like you.

Size of battery for an EV 70kwh.

Um, a fundamental constraint on VtG is that it does not deplete all the grid-connected batteries. Or in the morning your car won't get you to work. So VtG only takes a small fraction of each grid-connected battery. Someone as blisteringly smart as you will instantly realise that this means that any calculation base on total battery capacity per EV is going to be horribly wrong.

" Renewables managed 30% or thereabouts for the very VERY cherry picked time you selected.

No, they didn’t. "

Yes they did.

"Why don’t you just check the numbers properly?"

I did.

You didn't.

You lied. How do I know? Because the very simple maths was too simple for you not to get. And you were told precisely what you were lying about.

How the fuck do you know?

As far as you’re concerned, producing 85% of the power demand means it’s failed.

No, it fails when W&S are meeting only a modest percentage of demand and a lack of very large scale storage and sufficient very large wide-area HVDC transmission capacity result in a supply shortfall.

" Size of battery for an EV 70kwh.

Um, a fundamental constraint on VtG "

Um, that isn't maths.

That you go dallying off into irrelevant is why I know you know you're lying.

"it does not deplete all the grid-connected batteries"

It won't.

"So VtG only takes a small fraction of each grid-connected battery."

Still false, and still not maths.

"any calculation base on total battery capacity per EV is "

More than you did. You didn't even do one, and still refuse to do so.

you DO know that it doesn't have to be 70kwh, right?

you DO know that if there was a real problem, they'll ignore the guidelines? YOU hould know that, since three summers running EdF had to get special dispensation to break the law or they would have had to shut off too much of their nuclear power production facilities and EdF would have been immediately bankrupt, requiring another government taxpayer bailout.

So they were allowed to take water from rivers that were too low and too warm, and break the law.

But, yeah, lawbreaking for the nuke industry: totally fine to you, you billious fartknocker. Because it's your employment. But nobody else is allowed! Even if it's absolutely safe.

"your car won’t get you to work."

What? For three days it will. The fourth you may run out.

But it's a truth that it;s not 12 hours and you, me and anyone still reading will know that it's not 12 hours. And we will all know you know it too.

Which is why you're 100% identical to the idiotic liar dick.

"No, it fails when W&S are meeting only a modest percentage of demand "

Do you have ANY power production sytem that doesn't fail if it only manages to meet a modest percentage of demand?

Where is this perpetual motion machine you have invented, retardo extramungo?

"No, it fails when W&S are meeting only a modest percentage of demand "

So we're inagreement, then, renewables are working and not failing.

I know we're not, because your arguments only apply in the direction you want them to.

Because you are incapable of honesty when it comes to either treating renewables fairly or nuclear power honestly.

"“your car won’t get you to work.”

What? For three days it will. The fourth you may run out."

In fact you will last much much longer than that.

Renewables managed 30% or thereabouts for the very VERY cherry picked time you selected.

You asked me to provide an example of sustained low output from W&S. So I did. And now you accuse me of cherry-picking. There's no pleasing some people.

And no, the W&S contribution wasn't 30%. How could it be when at maximum W&S never exceeded 15% of peak generation?

Run the mouse along the horizontal axis and look at the output data in the pop up. Because I'm not using dishonest tricks to try and score rhetorical points, I used the combined daytime values for wind *and* solar to get the highest minimum and maximum values possible. These are:

Minimum: 16/01 12:00 5.5GW

Maximum: 19/01 11:30 11.77GW

Not '12 - 24GW'. Those numbers are incorrect. So the 30% figure is incorrect.

Data link for wind and solar output.

"You asked me to provide an example of sustained low output from W&S."

Aaand another made up claim from you, dumbass.

No. YOU wanted to mislead, and so you cherry picked the worst case then ignore most of the renewables and then lie about demand.

You just flat out lied.

Because you cannot stand renewables doing four times better than nuclear even in the cherry picked worst case, and were all butthurt and complaining about how it did 85% of demand because you didn't like that news.

"And no, the W&S contribution wasn’t 30%"

Oh it was a lot higher than that.

And no, renewables were nowhere near as low as 15% at any time in the past year, not even when you cherry picked the lowest area, and even while complaining about me selecting uranium, which didn't even manage 8% of demand.

"How could it be when at maximum W&S never exceeded 15% of peak generation?"

It exceeded that a hell of a lot more.

But even in the period you chose, the worst case for wind and solar, renewables managed 30%.

And that was even without exploiting all of it, since it wasn't necessary: they were exporting 2-10GW all that time.

But you can't help lying, can you dumdum?

Renewables managed three or four times what nuclear did. And they've mangaged 85%, which likely was mostly filled up with nuclear, but not entirely, which would make it something like 8x the level of production of nuclear power in germany.

How can you claim a method fails when it did up to 8 times better, and even at worst case 3 or 4 times better than nuclear did?

"Not ’12 – 24GW’. "

Yes 12-24GW. and demand was around 40-70GW

CAN you do maths?

"Those numbers are incorrect. "

Nope, your numbers are wrong and you even spell out that they're wrong.

But you know this and this is why you are lying.

Data link for renewables output.

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2017&source=all-sources&wee…

Don't let dumdum lie to you.

Minimum: 16/01 12:00

Demand: 72.6GW
Export: 3GW.
Renewables (not totally utilised): 15GW.

i make that a minimum of over 20%.

Meanwhile, it gives a maximum of 85% on a different date:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

So sad for the nuke fluffers. No pay for them soon!

Mind you even in your cherry pick for "maximum", it's 21GW for renewables, 6GW export and 74GW for demand.

That'd be.... 28%.

Oooooh! Sooo variable!

28/21= 33% variation between min and max.

Meanwhile uranium varied from 7.3% of the mix to 13.5% of the mix.

13.5/7.3= 83% variation between min and max.

I guess nukes are just too variable to be usable even at sub-10% utility rates, there just needs to be too much load balancing to solve the problems of it's wild variations in output...!

Okay, let's look at the data another way.

Pick Month = January, Week = 3.

Weekly generation average for 16-22 Jan:

Solar: 0.255 GW

Wind: 0.676 GW

Combined W&S: 0.931

Conventional: 8.899 GW

Total: 9.83 GW

So average W&S as a percentage of total generation that week was:

0.931/(9.83/100) = 9.47%

And when it comes to misleading people, why have i never heard about this report from you, dumdum?

In 2016, the European Commission assessed that France's nuclear decommissioning liabilities were seriously underfunded, with only 23 billion euros of earmarked assets to cover 74.1 billion euros of expected decommissioning costs.

"Okay, let’s look at the data another way."

I already did.
Unless your other way is a trumpian way. In which case, no, we won't look at it another way,

Weekly generation average for 16-22 Jan.

What was the generation of renewables, dumfuck?

We're talking about renewables here. And remember your whining about storage and HVDC?

Are you telling me that it's not allowed to run??!?!?

You're a lying little turdface, buddy dumdudm.

In March 2017 40% of power demand in Germany was supplied by renewables.

"Conventional: 8.899 GW"

So managed less than 1/7th of the demand?!?!?!?

Fuck, that's terrible.

#308 Sorry - 'average' should be 'total' and units should be TWh.

No change to the 9.47% result.

What was the generation of renewables, dumfuck?

0.931 TWh.

"#308 Sorry – ‘average’ should be ‘total’ and units should be TWh."

Yeah, still doesn't change the fact that renewables did about 30%. Compared to nuclear's 13%.

Aaaaw. Failing nuclear.

" What was the generation of renewables, dumfuck?

0.931 TWh."

Lie!

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2017&source=all-sources&wee…

You really can do maths, can you? This really is just you lying your little lying puke of a heart out here, isn't it?

You know, dick levels of "Climate sensitivity is only for a doubling of CO2" level of lying your fucking heart out, right?

https://www.energy-charts.de/index.htm

In total, renewable energy sources – solar, wind, hydropower, and biomass – produced approximately 190 TWh of electricity in 2015, 30 TWh more than in 2014, equivalent to a 20% increase. Renewables thus made up around 35% of public net power supply. The share in gross power supply – including power plants in the processing sector, the mining sector, quarries, and excavation – is around 32.5%.

Remember, too, that not all renewable and storage was utilised in any given period because when you overproduce, there's no need to use it all up.

So when you add storage into the mix, there's untapped reserve.

And when you add in the current HVDC grid that is able to easily supply 30% of peak demand, and the AC interconnects able to manage a similar level on top, along with renewables able to manage 30%, if it really came balls-to-the-wall emergency and they only had their current renewables infrastructure, they could keep going indefinitely at dumdum's minimum alarmism rate indefinitely, with only losing 10% or so off the peak supply available.

Hardly enough to collapse industry, unlike your fatuous fantasy created solely to scare people into running for the unwise investment into the white elephant of nuclear power.

Germany imported electricity from France, mainly in order to pass it on to neighboring countries.
In power trading so far only numbers from January to October 2015 are available. During this period, 29.7 TWh were imported to a value of 1.27 billion euros. The export amounted to 67.4 TWh and a value of 2.88 billion euros. In balance, the resulting export surplus was 37.6 TWh and revenues worth 1.6 billion euros.

Just in case you want to try the moronic claim of how germany's anti-nuke program is causing havoc and their reliance on renewables causing them to have to import power.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

Total renewables: 38+12+8+19 TWh = 77TWh.
Total nonrenewable:: 38+19+22+51 TWh = 130TWh.
Total: 207TWh.

Renewables 37% of total.
Nonrenewables: 63% of total

See also for January above link.
Total renewables 15TWh (29.1%)
Total nonrenewables 36TWh (70.9%)

BBD, you keep getting tripped up at W&S vs renewable.

>Renewables managed 30% or thereabouts for the very VERY cherry picked time you

Before you were saying it was 85%. Now it turns out that was for a different time period of a weekend. Stop lying.

BBD, Germany doesn't have to export. So if the wind and solar etc can meet the domestic demand, that is good enough right?

"Before you were saying it was 85%"

Indeed I was.

"Now it turns out that was for a different time period of a weekend."

Uh, that is all in the link:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

Not my fault if you didn't read it, "mike".

"Stop lying."

About what?

" So if the wind and solar etc can meet the domestic demand, that is good enough right?"

WTF?

Are you trying to get buddy dumdum here to accept that the demand for power in Germany is not going to be exported?

Because

a) that's well unclear
b) he doesn't want to comprehend. You know, like you and Mann's work.

Hell, the reason for HVDC and all the other HVAC links between regions, states and countries are so that private companies generating power can, instead of selling them cheap locally, can sell it at market rates elsewhere if those rates are higher.

We’re talking about renewables here. And remember your whining about storage and HVDC?

Are you telling me that it’s not allowed to run??!?!?

No, of course not. But the more W&S there is in the energy mix, the *more* storage and interconnections are necessary.

You’re a lying little turdface, buddy dumdudm.

In March 2017 40% of power demand in Germany was supplied by renewables.

When did I lie about March? And why have we shifted from a week in January to the whole month of March?

And as usual, your numbers are wrong.

March 2017:

TWh
Conventional: 28.16
Wind: 9.43
Solar: 3.52
W&S: 12.95
Total: 41.8

That's 31.5% W&S. You are over-estimating by 27%.

* * *

Fossil fuels are a nightmare, nuclear is problematic and on its arse as an industry so W&S are going to have to work. All the heavy lifting of rapid decarbonisation is falling on them by default. Getting this to work will be immensely challenging. What hacks me off is that saying so is a trigger for so many people. It shouldn't be.

MikeN #320

BBD, you keep getting tripped up at W&S vs renewable.

>Renewables managed 30% or thereabouts for the very VERY cherry picked time you

Before you were saying it was 85%. Now it turns out that was for a different time period of a weekend. Stop lying.

Um, confused.

" We’re talking about renewables here. And remember your whining about storage and HVDC?

Are you telling me that it’s not allowed to run??!?!?

No, of course not."

You're just going to ignore it and pretend, then? Sure, but that's merely lying by omission.

"But the more W&S there is in the energy mix, the *more* storage and interconnections are necessary."

WRONG!

"When did I lie about March? "

When did I say you lied about March? YET ANOTHER made up claim from you!

"And as usual, your numbers are wrong. "

And as usual, you're absolutely wrong.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

Total Nonrenewables: 28.14TWh (58.6%)
Total renewables: 19.83TWh (41.4%)

You lying little shitstain, dumdum.

"What hacks me off is that saying so is a trigger for so many people. It shouldn’t be."

So you think is triggering to say its challenging? That ain't it you lying fuckwit.

It should be a worry for anyone when a lie is told with no compunction or care for the truth or that the lie is patent and obvious, yet still ignored.

If you'd just left it to "challenging", I would have asked "Got one that isn't?"

DO YOU HAVE ONE THAT ISN'T?

But you didn't leave it at that, you had to, HAD. TO. Lie and bullshit to scare people into running to nuke power to pad your resume and keep you in employment.

Without further comment:

So you think is triggering to say its challenging? That ain’t it you lying fuckwit.

It should be a worry for anyone when a lie is told with no compunction or care for the truth or that the lie is patent and obvious, yet still ignored.

Yeah, though that;s kinda your thing, like with any other denier: don't say anything, but post as if you had.

No comment because you think it doesn't apply to you.

Sorry dumbass, it does.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

Total Nonrenewables: 28.14TWh (58.6%)
Total renewables: 19.83TWh (41.4%)

When YOU claimed it was 27% less than that.

And no comment on whether you have a national scale energy system plan that isn't challenging?

#330 "denier"
Er, i honestly was not aware BBD
was one of the denier loons.
There is some posting history that
indicates otherwise.
Im open to being wrong.
Its easy to settle though.
BBD, are you one of those denier loons?

#325 "Fossil fuels are a nightmare, nuclear is problematic and on its arse as an industry so W&S are going to have to work. All the heavy lifting of rapid decarbonisation is falling on them by default. Getting this to work will be immensely challenging. "

This seems eloquent and reasonable and its hard to disagree.

#326, BBD, the second part is a reference to Wow's lies.
Wow's numbers are renewables is X, and you are countering with you're wrong, wind + solar is Y,<X.

"This seems eloquent and reasonable and its hard to disagree."

Which is why it was said.

But why was all the other crap said? Because that last bit there you quoted was not what dudmdum thinks.

"#326, BBD, the second part is a reference to Wow’s lies."

Which ones where "mike"?

"Mike",rememeber I posted the link to 85% renewables supplied in Germany report. Dated 17 May. It's news. And if you read it, even the summary says it was over a weekend.

It was dumdum who went "Huh, but what about thisweek in january, huh?!??!?!?!".

If you want to complain about liars talking about a different time period, that was dumdum.

LiD, think of this, if dumdum here really thought we'd have to go renewables no matter what because it's the best option out of all the possible ones we know the technology for (so no zero point energy generation discoveries), what does it mean to be "challenging"? How can it matter, when we're going to do it anyway? What complaint can be made it will "cost more"? More than what? It can't cost more than it costs, whatever it costs, since that is what it costs. And it doesn't matter if it costs more since it's still supposedly the best option, and all the others unworkable.

This is, of course, given that the claim you quoted that seemed inarguable was genuine. Indeed if it were inarguable, how come dumdum keeps arguing about it, and only it?

And in purely mathematical terms, what does "It will cost more" mean when there's no answer coming to "So how much more?" and "More than what?".

Why complain that there will be more HVDC when there's no answer to the queries "More than what? How much more?". Indeed I've also tried to point out that no matter what generation we go with, we're using HVDC now and we're increasing HVDC and adding HVDC makes any grid system more profitable, more efficient and reduces redundancy when it protects against rare events.

More HVDC than what? What OTHER plan is there that wouldn't? What plan for renewables would it require more HVDC and what plan for renewables are you complaining doesn't have enough HVDC?

When you notice this you notice how buddy dumdum here is lying out of his ass and decieving you with claims "Oh, nuke is bad, coal is bad, gas is bad, we have to go with renewables" because his arguments are null and void and their only purpose is one of two things:

1) FUD about changing things, keep the status quo, delay delay delay.

2) FUD about renewables, point to AGW as urgent and overwhelming need to remove fossil fuels, but renewables can't do it. Never mention nukes in a bad light. Never SAY "use nukes", just make sure every other option is shouted down as too expensive, possibly impossible to do.

And over at Eli's, #2 was 100% dumdum's line. Continually claimed he'd "never said" that we couldn't use renewables. Continued to claim it was far more expensive than claimed, possibly impossible to implement. Continued to claim he'd never said renewables were unworkable.

Remember?

"renewables possibly impossible to implement"
"renewables unworkable"

Oh, sure, unworkable isn't in the first sentence.

Oh, and if you did try to push his quotes back at him there, he'd insist either the precise word claimed was not there (see above) or ignore it completely, wasting all your work looking through the blog for the evidence he demanded.

Nuke sux dogs balls.
Thats my position as eloquently as i wish to make it.
Renewable is the only way forward.
Coal is for fuckwits.
Renewable is a challenge. Not overwhelming.
But challenging.
Sorta like if ya on a boat and it sinks
a couple kms from shore.
Theres no choice. Ya gotta swim. Its challenging.
But ya gunna make it.
Thats sorta how i stay positive. Its a couple km swim.
Luckily we are about 1/4 way there already!
We got some existing tech. Theres heaps of research.
Heaps of public interest and goodwill.
Carmichael mines on the nose.
But its still gunna be a slog, with waves and rips and
the odd denier jellyfish blobbing about, being annoying.
What would sorta help is that people swam together instead
of endless petty bullshit.

Wanna look at another positive?
Theres gas as a helplful transition tool.
Its far from perfect. But it exists.
What there was no such thing as gas? Shit
would be way more challenging then.
But we got it! Yay!
I cant say im a fan of fracking overly on farmland.
Another damn good thing some countries have
is a baseload of hydro . Thats a big plus.
Its subject to climate change issues of course.
And there is horrible ecological damage from the dams.

Hydro is also renewable energy...

As is biomass.

Know another thing that's renewable? Synthfuel from excess wind or solar. Or hydrogen cells from wind/tide/solar/geothermal/...

Know what we can do with them?

Store them up in those big tanks we reserve for fossil fuels like gas and petroleum and burn them like they're gas or oil.

But, remember, as long as someone wants to slow down changing from the status quo or push you to an expensive bondoogle that will delay doing anything other than spend massive amounts on infrastructure we may find out in 20 years is entirely unusable in the changed climate we have already dealt for ourselves in our collective denial and timewasting, you can only "store" in new build storage.

And in a blogpost that talks about the perfection fallacy to proclaim that 100% will be hard and then ignore the existence of cold backup plants which could be coal fired or nukes or anything that we currently have producing a massive fraction of what we currently need (most of the time, but they're not absolutely reliable), just to make sure that we delay and avoid renewables for as long as possible, is rather ironically ridiculous.

So if we leave all current generation there and replace normal operation with 100% planned capacity of renewables, on the rare occasion germany and all its neighbours are under thick cloud and a MASSIVE high pressure zone, they can use the mothballed stations and produce not 100% renewable but 30% renewable and 70% fossil fuels for 0.1% of the time, making it 99.3% renewables on average, somehow this will still be, to denier morons like dumdum here, a failure to bring up and constantly whine and whinge about as a failure, because only renewables have to be perfect.

Agree. Theres alot of bullshit about 100% anything.

Li D

BBD, are you one of those denier loons?

No.

Sorry dumbass, it does.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

Total Nonrenewables: 28.14TWh (58.6%)
Total renewables: 19.83TWh (41.4%)

When YOU claimed it was 27% less than that.

Oh boy.

Wow - those are ANNUAL figures. We were discussing THE WEEK OF 15 - 22 JANUARY and your numbers are incorrect. You have over-estimated by 27%:

March 2017:

TWh
Conventional: 28.16
Wind: 9.43
Solar: 3.52
W&S: 12.95
Total: 41.8

That’s 31.5% W&S. You are over-estimating by 27%.

Please, get it straight.

” What was the generation of renewables, dumfuck?

0.931 TWh.”

Lie!

The only liar here is you, Wow. You are the one trying to pretend that a discussion about expanding wind and solar should use figures for hydro.

These are the relevant data.

Total W&S for the week in question was 0.931 TWh.

As I keep showing you. You can deny it all you like, but the numbers will not change:

Use this link for weekly generation totals for 16-22 Jan:

Pick Month = January, Week = 3.

Weekly generation for 16-22 Jan:

Solar: 0.255 GW

Wind: 0.676 GW

Combined W&S: 0.931

Conventional: 8.899 GW

Total: 9.83 GW

So W&S as a percentage of total generation that week was:

0.931/(9.83/100) = 9.47%

"" BBD, are you one of those denier loons?"

No."

Then again, when do you remember last a denier answering yes to that question? But he is a denier. Remember, there's not just AGW denial.

"That’s 31.5% W&S. You are over-estimating by 27%.

Please, get it straight."

WRONG!

It's 41.4%, 1.4% HIGHER than I said.

"0.931/(9.83/100) = 9.47%"

Yup, but the 0.931 is a lie form you buthurt wangfiddler.

"Use this link for weekly generation totals for 16-22 Jan:"

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

2.33 TWh renewables = 19.9%

Look too at the totals for March:

19.83 TWh renewables = 41.4%

Look too at the lies dumbass fuckwit here spews.

Look at it for the totals for 2016:

181.46TWh renewables = 33.4%

And for 2015:

182.60 TWh renewables = 33.4%

And so far for 2017:

77.97TWh renewables = 37.0%.

It’s 41.4%, 1.4% HIGHER than I said.

Wow, you are *still* conflating biomass and hydro with wind and solar - something I was careful *not* to do from the very outset. This discussion was always about highly variable wind and solar, NOT biomass and hydro, which are pretty stable and which do not have much potential for growth - unlike W&S - which will be the heavy lifters in the evolving energy transition.

* * *

Another of your misleading tricks is the use of partial 2017 annual data. Charitably, I'll ascribe this to incompetence rather than intent, although every single number you have given so far has been a substantial over-estimate, which suggests I'm being too kind to you. Anyway, NB: you can't use partial data to make a strong claim (>40% !!!) as you are doing. It's incorrect. It's misleading.

If we look at 2016 - for which there are complete data - we see that wind = 14.3% and solar = 6.9% of total generation. So that's 21.2% of total generation by W&S. In 2015, it was 21.6%. These are correct annual percentages and these are what you should be quoting.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

"You are the one trying to pretend that a discussion about expanding wind and solar"

And yet another made up claim from you, dumbfuck.

Take a look at the URL:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

FROM RENEWABLES.

Take a look at the topic [post of the thread:

download

I just read an interesting piece on the widely influential VOX, by David Roberts, called “A beginner’s guide to the debate over 100% renewable energy.”

"you can’t use partial data to make a strong claim (>40% !!!) "

YOU want to use partial data to make a strong claim (<10%!!!!)?

Or is it projection again, you flatulent blowhard moron?

". These are correct annual percentages and these are what you should be quoting"

I did:

And so far for 2017:

77.97TWh renewables = 37.0%.

Look at it for the totals for 2016:

181.46TWh renewables = 33.4%

And for 2015:

182.60 TWh renewables = 33.4%

All from:

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

And you continue without a blink to mislead by conflating hydro and biomass with wind and solar.

So, you are dishonest to the point where talking to you is a waste of time.

People like you do more harm to the public perception of renewables than the FF brigade. Everyone sees the total disregard for the truth in your comments and it confirms their darker suspicions that the energy industry is lying to them. As I said upthread, you aren't even a useful idiot.

"And you continue without a blink to mislead by conflating hydro and biomass with wind and solar. "

Nope. More bullshit claim from you, retardo.

WRONG. AGAIN.

"So, you are dishonest to the point where talking to you is a waste of time. "

No, your dishonesty is a waste of time but you can't let it lie, you have to lie for it.

"People like you do more harm to the public perception of renewables"

Shall I bold and italicise that for you?

renewables

And

mislead... conflating hydro and biomass with wind and solar.

The only, and I mean ONLY way this can be said is if you're EVEN LESS CAPABLE OF REALITY THAN DICK.

EVEN TRUMP will be going "That dude some stupid fuck!"

"As I said upthread, you aren’t even a useful idiot."

Yup, and it has only gotten even more incomprehensibly stupid to say it.

You HAVE to, HAVE. TO. Lie like your nuts are at risk if you tell the truth.

So you lie and know you lie about whatthe conversation is about and lie and know you lie when you claim I'm wrong, you lie and know you lie when you complain that others are misleading, you lie AND KNOW YOU'RE LYING when you say you are annoyed with the public being mislead.

Because the only leading you want to happen is away from renewables in fear and uncertainty and doubt it will work.

A plain old nuke worker shilling for their PR cheque.

Wow

The transient 85% generation peak on April 30 between 13:00 - and 15:00 was not caused by a sudden spike in biomass generation. Nor did it result from a sudden output surge from hydro.

It was produced by unusually widespread windy conditions on a sunny day - which happened to be on a holiday weekend when industrial demand (so national demand) was unusually low.

Wind and solar variability produced the headline. So the ensuing conversation was about wind and solar variability and its implications. Or at least, the honest side of it was. Only a peddler of misleading industry PR such as yourself would try to conflate an event arising from wind and solar variability with biomass and hydro. It's just dishonest.

JEZUSFUKINGCRIST!

DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?!?!?

See the problem is you have FUCK ALL to say that is in ANY WAY honest or real or even fucking SANE.

ONLY YOU would take an event that is fully explained and then WHINE ABOUT IT BEING EXPLAINED.

You are the exact same as dick and his "Climate sensitivity is per doubling of CO2!!!!".

The event was renewables produced 85% of the power needed in germany to which YOU whined that it was "misleading" for reasons that clearly became more and more outlandish.

Then you whine about how nonexistent claims of nonexistent renewables would cause nonexistent problems for nonexistent futures that you thought were bad.

So you have lurched from one complete clusterfuck of lies and ignorance and deception into the next screaming fake outrage and bullshit claims every single dfrigging step of the way.

Remember when you wanted dick banned for being a complete and utter unprepentant liar?

DID YOU FEAR THE COMPETITION YOU FUCKWIT????

Germany got 85% of their demand from renewables. They got over 40% in march, last year got 33% and 31% the year before that.

ITS A FACT.

But you have to run round in circles screaming "MIsLEAD MisLEAD MIsLEAD!!!!".

Fuck you're a retard.

And then you go complaining "you're not even worth talking to".

Fuck off.

Just fuck right off.

Where the fuck do you live and we'll get in touch and I;ll fucking sort you out.

And don't worry about "I don't want to hit a woman", 'cos I sure as shit don't give a fuck about restraining myself hitting you and wiping you out.

Put up your town of residence, mine is Exeter, and tell Greg that it's OK to pass on your email address to me and we'll arrange a day to meet up where I will send you a fucking message you will NOT ignore.

Fucking deal you moron?

"Oh, it was only 85% for a very special and odd occasion where the wind and sun were appropriate!!!!"

Earlier from you, you fucking lying streak of shit:

"Oh, what about when all of Germany is under a lull in wind for weeks, and there's no sunlight because of the cloud cover, huh? HUH?"

YOU FUCKING DID IT.

TWAT.

So we give up on the "unusual conditions".

Renewables 2016 in Germany: 33%.

BBD said...

8c

You are in denial. Get a grip. Look at the bloody numbers FFS. Anti-nuclear activism is a luxury we can no longer indulge ourselves with. Time has run out.
10/3/16 11:22 AM

https://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/the-lancaster-exception.html?m=0

When you wave about a headline shouting 85%! and it turns out that the story is about W&S variability - not hydro, not biomass - W&S variability, then wind and solar variability is the proper focus of the discussion. Anyone trying to make it about biomass and hydro is being misleading and dishonest.

I pointed out that wind and solar variability is huge - 85% one Sunday afternoon in April and 2% on Sunday Jan 22. That kind of variability has to be addressed by non-FF backup and grid interconnections (something deeply stalled in Germany right now). It's a problem, not something to be crowing to the newspapers about. That's why this kind of PR bullshit is so reprehensible.

* * *

You have a tell that I really have to warn you about.

When you get caught out lying, as above, you GO ALL CAPS and frothingly insane. You do it every time and it's a bit obvious. Mind you, I'm pretty sure everybody knows what a shameless liar you are by now.

BBD:

I admire your patience in dealing with Wow.

His name calling has gotten even worse lately.

I tend to ignore his posts now.

"When you wave about a headline shouting 85%! "

When it does.

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

"and it turns out that the story is about W&S variability "

Except it doesn't. It's about how renewables managed 85%.

"wind and solar variability is the proper focus of the discussion. "

No it isn't retardo.

Now you going to step up and back your bullshit or are you going to fuck off and leave this blog to the at least marginally sane like "Mike"?

Because you're even worse than dick in your insanity and incapacity to tell anything even vaguely the truth.

In 149 I gave that link.

Here's what you said in 150:

And when its dark / winter? And low wind conditions?

And then HERE is what you said

"It was produced by unusually widespread windy conditions on a sunny day – which happened to be on a holiday weekend when industrial demand (so national demand) was unusually low. "

Surely if it was ONLY "windy conditions on a sunny day", then" industrial demand (so national demand) was unusually low." would be FICTION.

Fucking moron.

Oh noes! RENEWABLES DID MORE THAN DOUBLE!!!!! IT FAAAAIIILLLLLDDDD!

THIS is how moronic you are.

A system that has been managing 30+% and increasing that year on year get a time when they do more than twice that AND YOU SCREAM "FAILURE!!!!".

You're a fucking paid hack.

"His name calling has gotten even worse lately."

How the fuck would you know, knobmunch? You ignore my posts now.

And yes, calling fuckwits names is worse when there are fuckwits than when there aren't.

Who'daguessed?!?!?!?

Fucking moron.

And "his" again? You could have said "Her" and if I'd asked about how you figured that said "Well you've said you don't like "him"".

But no, you have to try and bring up the same old tired "gender" argument again because you really REALLY can't handle people as people rather than as whatever dangles between their legs.

Which is the beginning and end of the entirety of sexism.

Er Greg...

Where the fuck do you live and we’ll get in touch and I;ll fucking sort you out.

I'm not happy about this at all.

"I’m not happy about this at all."

Join the frigging club, retard.

Want to try honety, or at least avoid DIShonesty?

Oh and instead of running off crying about meanies, you COULD, like any fucking adult and go "No, I'm not willing to participate".

#342
Ok that sorts that out. Cheers.

So, apparently "Wow" is a woman in her mid-40's who writes like a deranged 9-year-old boy. Unhinged. Honest to the point of recklessness, self-centered to the extreme. Looking for a fight like a school kid who had their feelings hurt once too many. Derailing every conversation "she" participates in with no regard for truth or honest discussion. Fascinating, sad and disturbing all at once.

Who knew? Though nothing new. Just a different venue.

Greg, I'm surprised you tolerate it though, frankly, I'm glad you do. Very entertaining to see that side of the human mind displayed. At length.

And how does that "appear"?

Patrick is "apparently" an ignorant knuckledragger who only comes out of the woodwork when they think they can play hero.

Unfortunately, lacking any method by which to argue a point, they utterly fail their crusade for, well, whatever the hell they're trying to pursue in the last five minutes. It's not like HE cares, is it.

"with no regard for truth or honest discussion."

Ah, some proof would be handy.

Well patmcgroin?

Too funny. Hero? "Wow", you're right, I don't give a shit. I find you entertaining and certainly not in the way you would want.

As for proof? Gee, I don't know. How about virtually every comment above? Or we can go to numerous other sites for more--the defunct asylum of Deltoid being a personal favorite. Of course I would have to have the time and inclination to do that. And I don't.

Was merely a comment pointing out who you seem to have identified yourself as--a deranged, insecure 40-something woman. I was surprised. At least about the woman part. And it "appears" that way because you have made it so idiot.

Yes I am a man. You are an assclown nutter. Neither will change.

"I don’t give a shit."

Ah, clearly you don't care about honesty, then.

Kinda explains your earlier claims, too.

Warrior away, retard.

#372
" asylum of Deltoid"
Get stuffed. Deltoid is a great blog.

It did get killed by batshit betty and StuPid. Hence batshit is roving and trying to get more disruption here.

Looks like we can award the victory to BBD with this neutral scorecard.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160696999931/how-to-know-you-won-a-politic…

Rick, ignoring Wow is what I try to do as well, but other posts get missed.

BBD, will you answer #260?

No. Sorry.

Well, clearly you CAN, but it is unsupportable by any logic reason or reality.

Oh, and I guess it explains how you still don't understand either Mann's work or the work from the IPCC given your love of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALA! CAN'T HEAR".

Not forgetting the ludicrous claims given that if you don't read my posts, you can't actually have any information about them.

You're not the sharpest knife in the sock drawer, are you, "mike".

It;s enlightening to how you perceive things when you link to a blogroll with the URL title:

how-to-know-you-won-a-political-debate

When it ought to be clear this SHOULD have been apolitical and based on provable facts, not political stance.

Clearly even you see that dumdum is not arguing reality, but partisanship.

"Warrior?" What does that even mean? Oh, I know. It's your attempt at some sort of slight. I guess. Shame it makes no sense. But that is by no means unusual for you.

You really don't have a life away from these pages, do you "Wow?" It would be sad if it weren't so amusing.

Nah, it's still sad...

"Wow" proclaims..."Ah, clearly you don’t care about honesty, then."

I don't? What would give you that idea? I honestly believe you are raging idiot with too much time on "her" hands. One who claims knowledge on any number of topics which you clearly do not possess. And I honestly find you endlessly entertaining but, again, not for the reasons I'm certain you would prefer. So, do, please, keep it going. Provided, of course, you don't get banned. Though given your latest work I suspect it is but a matter of time. And you likely won't get your own little padded cell like other venues--see Eli.

Li D--"Get stuffed. Deltoid is a great blog."

It's not a blog at all anymore, and really hasn't been for many years. Perhaps 10 years ago you'd have been correct. But I do thank you for your suggestion.

MikeN re #260:

BBD, your complaint about infrastructure not being good enough to handle supply variation and the need for lines, is this a national issue or a local one?

The problem with large-scale renewables is that the prime resource locations tend to be geographically distant from the major demand centres. So you need lots of new long distance transmission capacity linking the prime renewable resources to their potential markets. Typically, this will mean lots more HVDC, which is a slow, painful process because of all the land rights issues it incurs. There's a good explainer here. You can see why the US isn't looking likely to make a successful energy transion to a high renewables mix unless there is hard-edged federal intervention and soon. And we know teh Donald is really on-side with that.

For example, suppose San Diego had wind and solar arrays nearby, along with nuclear and coal and hydro and gas plants, and enough backup supply to handle darkness and low wind(simultaneously). Is there another issue they have to deal with on the grid?

With all that lot (assuming 'enough backup' really does mean enough backup) then broad strokes, SD would have partially decarbonised its electricity supply. Important to remember that decarbonising electricity generation is just the first - and easiest - step along the much harder road to full decarbonisation of total primary energy (TPE). But decarbonisation of TPE is what has to be achieved if atmospheric CO2 levels are eventually to be reduced.

"The problem with large-scale renewables is that the prime resource locations tend to be geographically distant from the major demand centres"

The problem with your asinine claim is that we have roofs. We put them on the places that are major demand centers.

"With all that lot (assuming ‘enough backup’ really does mean enough backup)"

Oh, dear, because if there isn't enough, there's only the magical pixie dust of nuclear that we put right in the middle of our demand centers that never has a problem with being not enough. Just one gramme of uranium will ALWAYS be enough!!!

"Important to remember that decarbonising electricity generation is just the first – and easiest – step along the much harder road to full decarbonisation of total primary energy (TPE)"

So what? WHAT CHANGES if it's hard or easy? If it's REALLY REALLY hard, do we just not bother and roast or sit at home and do nothing?

And when robots are doing all the work and teleconferencing is all that the jobs left require, the demand for transit to work is gone.

Sounds like transitioning to TPE is easy then.

You're a fucking retard, dumdum.

Hey, wanckchat, you don't appear to have anything to do but post BS about a thing you claim you don't give a shit about.

How retarded is that?

The problem with you, Wow, is that you have almost no idea at all what you are talking about but you never shut up.

Let's take this bit of cretinousness:

The problem with your asinine claim is that we have roofs. We put them on the places that are major demand centers.

But the primary solar resources are far away from the primary demand centres. You have forgotten that solar irradiance at the surface varies with latitude. To generate enough electricity you need to build the large-scale solar plant where solar irradiance is highest.

In your own words:

You’re a fucking retard

Why Greg allows you to carry on is increasingly puzzling.

Ah, yet more projection an dbollocks form you.

And what is this about "you never shut up"? What about the moron who said "It's not even worth talking to you"? Yet here you are, still trying to talk over me.

That, by the way was incredible stupidity you said.

"Why Greg allows you to carry on is increasingly puzzling."

Because he needs to have someone willing to go up against your pro-nuke insane bumblings and he's quite aware of how mindbogglingly infuriating a retard like yourself is when they're desperately trying to rubbish the competition.

Kinda simple. Not as simple as you are, you moronic fuckwit, but that's practically "absolute stupid". Even trump is going "that dumdum fella is fucking stupid, isn't he.".

The fact is that all your complaints about renewables are manufactured failures you're promoting to scare people off and rush them into buying nuclear. Not one of them, even the very few valid points, are of any value whatsoever because even the valid ones are valid for ALL OTHER GENERATION.

And you keep whining about how challenging it will be to no purpose.

Got anything that isn't challenging? No? Then you're only whining about how it's not money going to pay for worthless nukes.

If you wonder why nobody wants nukes or believes the BS about their safety, your lies and horrendous arguments against renewables is why.

You have screwed over the industry in your insane rantings devoid of reality against renewables.

Wonderful own goal dumbass.

"But the primary solar resources are far away from the primary demand centres"

No, they're everywhere.

Or are you secretly a moleman? A molech? Some sort of cave-dwelling troll? We have humans here and we work above ground mostly, and the few underground jobs are apart from deep seam mining, all absent any great power demands.

And without coal and uranium, we won't need much mining.

And where are the major sources of uranium? Coal? Right under the major cities?

Nope.

"To generate enough electricity you need to build the large-scale solar plant where solar irradiance is highest. "

Wrong. It's cheaper to build large scale solar plants where the sun is strongest.

Germany isn't where the sun is strongest, yet it managed 85% of demand from renewables.

“But the primary solar resources are far away from the primary demand centres”

No, they’re everywhere.

In which Wow denies that surface solar irradiance varies with latitude.

Wonderful own goal dumbass.

Germany isn’t where the sun is strongest, yet it managed 85% of demand from renewables.

For three hours on a Sunday afternoon. But it can go down to 2% on a different Sunday afternoon, as the data show.

Looking at individual days is potentially misleading, hence the misleading PR we see regurgitated by they press every so often. Let's avoid that sort of error and concentrate on annual data.

Total solar was 7.1% in 2015 and 6.9% in 2016. That puts things a bit more into perspective.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

"For three hours on a Sunday afternoon"

But according to your screed this is impossible, because Germany is where the big industrial powerhouse of Europe is, and you insist that we only have sufficient power in distant places and therefore have to have lots of HVDC.

"But it can go down to 2% on a different Sunday afternoon, as the data show. "

No, the data shows that is a load of bollocks. Another fake trumpian claim from you, dumdum. Tell me do you have ridiculous "real hair" too? Offensively long ties?

"Looking at individual days is potentially misleading"

Yet you keep bleating on about individual days whenever you whine and whinge about renewables being too expensive to possibly work.

You really don't care what bullshit you spew, do you?

"Let’s avoid that sort of error and concentrate on annual data."

YOU were the one bleating about "What about this short period possibly??!?!?!?!"

Annual data for Germany, hardly a place with a clear sky desert climate today:

And so far for 2017:

77.97TWh renewables = 37.0%.

Look at it for the totals for 2016:

181.46TWh renewables = 33.4%

And for 2015:

182.60 TWh renewables = 33.4%

All from:

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

Your claims are just fakery and the exact reason why nukes will NEVER be acceptable to the educated and educable, since your lies and bullshit are entirely fictions to drive people to your white elephant money grab scam.

And the renewables are so plentiful that Germany is increasing year on year the exports the do to the rest of Europe.

Making the figures above EVEN BETTER, since they include overgeneration that is sold for profit elsewhere. Generation ABOVE demand.

"In which Wow denies that surface solar irradiance varies with latitude. "

and another fake claim from you, you retard.

“To generate enough electricity you need to build the large-scale solar plant where solar irradiance is highest. ”

Where buddy dumdum insists that it's eternal night in Germany.

“For three hours on a Sunday afternoon”

But according to your screed this is impossible, because Germany is where the big industrial powerhouse of Europe is, and you insist that we only have sufficient power in distant places and therefore have to have lots of HVDC.

It was the Sunday of the May Day holiday long weekend. As has been pointed out repeatedly, industrial demand was at unusually low levels.

“But it can go down to 2% on a different Sunday afternoon, as the data show. ”

No, the data shows that is a load of bollocks. Another fake trumpian claim from you, dumdum.

Learn to read a graph. German electricty generation, 15 - 22 Jan:

22/01
Peak GW total/time: 68.59 / 17:00

S: 0
W: 1.37

W&S as % of peak total generation: 2%

YOU were the one bleating about “What about this short period possibly??!?!?!?!”

Because you peddled the industry PR puff about Germany's 'record-breaking' 85% renewables blah on this thread. For three hours on a Sunday afternoon.

"It was the Sunday of the May Day holiday long weekend"

So when you claimed that solar had to be built in distant places far from the demand, you had the unstated coda "unless it's a Sunday May Day Holiday!"????

Fucking liar.

"Learn to read a graph. German electricty generation, 15 – 22 Jan:"

I can.

Total Renewables: 2.33TWh, 19.9%.

Nearly 10x what you're claiming.

And weren;t you whining about not taking some short atypical time period and we had to use annual averages?!?!?!?

Oh, yes, you were.

Seems like hypocrit is still a hypocrit.

If you ever wondered why dick still gets to post, you are the reason why. If he sacked dick he'd have to get rid of you first.

"Because you peddled the industry PR puff about Germany’s ‘record-breaking’ 85% renewables "

IOW you scream "FAKE NEWS!!!!".

No, it really did break the record, it's a fact, it;s reality, it;s what really really happened. Renewables manged 85% of power demand in Germany. A fact you cannot face so bury under your bullshit.

O, and more lies too.

YOU were the one bleating about “What about this short period possibly??!?!?!?!”

Because you peddled the industry PR puff about Germany’s ‘record-breaking’ 85% renewables blah on this thread

Wjen you posted this at post 95:

Over 48 hours of low regional windspeed?

Was that BEFORE or AFTER my post at 149:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

Was 95 a response to a LATER post, dumfuck?

Come on, which is earlier in the number sequence: 95 or 149?

Does Scott have "When they have to make up reality to prove you wrong, that proves you're right" in his description of how you can tell you've won an argument "Mike"?

And since industrial demand is so significant, why do you keep whining about out-of-office-hours lack of solar? There's very little industry running at night. So low industrial (therefore low national demand) would have the same effect as a May Day Bank Holiday Weekend Sunday.

Blah blah blah.

I don't think anyone reads you bollocks anymore.

22/01
Peak GW total/time: 68.59 / 17:00

S: 0
W: 1.37

W&S as % of peak total generation: 2%

Fact. Deal with facts.

Total Renewables: 2.33TWh, 19.9%.

Nearly 10x what you’re claiming.

Because a WEEK isn't the same as a day, idiot.

You keep ondoing this. Are you stupid or simply dishonest?

Do tell.

"Blah blah blah.

I don’t think"

True, dumdum.

" Nearly 10x what you’re claiming.

Because a WEEK isn’t the same as a day, idiot. "

But one day is not the same as "German electricty generation, 15 – 22 Jan." That happens to be one week, moron.

And what does % have to do with the difference between one day and one week.

More maths fail from the dribbling buffoon nuke fluffer.

" Are you stupid or simply dishonest?"

You are both.

"Fact. Deal with facts."

Hey, you're the one whining about facts and insisting they're PR.

And is it a FACT that 95 comes after 146, moronico?

Or are you just terminally incapable of thought?

Do tell.

"https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…"

Fact.

Deal with it.
German electricty generation, 15 – 22 Jan:

Total Renewables: 2.33TWh, 19.9%.

Fact. Deal with it.

#95 was BEFORE #146

FACT.

Deal with it, morondo.

"Fact. Deal with facts."

Facts like renewables managed 85% of demand in Germany? No, you can't deal with facts. Only fluffery.

Does radioactive knob taste nice?

OK, BBD, I had misunderstood your objections in previous thread, and thought you were saying the variation of wind and solar was a technical challenge. Instead your argument is that the wind and solar local supply is not enough, and you need transmission lines to utilize the national supply?

He doesn't know what the challenges are, he knows he has to keep harping on about them.

National grids, for example, are mostly AC. There's nothing about HVDC that makes them necessary, they only make it cheaper to run, having the possiblity of lower loss than HVAC of the same power capacity because of capacitative losses. It's currently used where it makes it cheaper to move electricity now. And it will be used no matter what the future power grid will be, because long distance catchments allow more market exploitation.

>He doesn’t know what the challenges are, he knows he has to keep harping on about them.

You are an expert on keep harping on without knowing the details.

Yes, that's his probem all right.

I'm an expert and he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and NOBODY knows "the" details, because there aren't any.

Hell, when I asked you "About what?" when you told me "stop lying", YOU didn't know any more details than you'd asked me to stop lying.

You didn't know the details of the content of the link and got the detail that HE'D waddled off about some OTHER period of time and appeared to think it was me (which is why dumdum thought you were telling THEM to stop lying, THAT is how out of detail you were).

I will demonstrate your lack of knowing what "the details" are by asking you again right here: what details, and where are they to have been missed?

You posted that BBD was lying with #235:

"Lie about renewables to fit your agenda of denial of a reality you don’t wish to confront.

Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:"

This is a lie by you.

MikeN

OK, BBD, I had misunderstood your objections in previous thread, and thought you were saying the variation of wind and solar was a technical challenge. Instead your argument is that the wind and solar local supply is not enough, and you need transmission lines to utilize the national supply?

Well, that's two sides of the same coin, really. Whenever W&S variability causes local supply to fall below local* demand there's a problem. It might be that local wind and solar resources are not that good or it might be that it's dark and windspeeds are low or a combination of both. Doesn't matter - there's a supply shortfall.

Small, transient supply shortfalls can be managed with demand-side management but longer and larger shortfalls need extra energy inputs. These can come from utility-scale storage or long-distance transmission or both. But they have to come from somewhere or the lights go out.

It looks likely that a combination of both will eventually be used, with HVDC links to the big wind resources in the N and big solar in the SW as essential parts of the US grid infrastructure. The results would look something like this (red circles indicate imports, blue indicate exports). Note that the source is NREL - generally considered impeccable in RE discussions.

*'Local' in this context can mean 'NYC' or 'the Eastern Seaboard'. Not just Littleburg, VA.

"You posted that BBD was lying with #235:

“Lie about renewables to fit your agenda of denial of a reality you don’t wish to confront.

Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:”

This is a lie by you."

Nope, retard, this is where you told me I was lying:

Before you were saying it was 85%. Now it turns out that was for a different time period of a weekend. Stop lying.

What was I lying about?

"Small, transient supply shortfalls can be managed with demand-side management but longer and larger shortfalls need extra energy inputs...But they have to come from somewhere or the lights go out. "

So tell me your power supply where this would not be the case that if there is insuffucient power produced the shortfallnhas to come from somewhere or the ligths go out?

"These can come from utility-scale storage or long-distance transmission or both."

And, yes power has to come from somewhere, but it DOESN'T have to come from utility scale storage or long distance, or both.

That is a lie.

"Whenever W&S variability causes local supply to fall below local* demand there’s a problem."

Wherever nuclear variability causes local supply to fall below local demand, there's a problem.

So what magical power source do you have that this is NOT the case?

"Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:"

IS a lie.

Retard bum dumb destroyed was lying about renewables producing less than 10% in that time period WHICH WAS WHAT HE WAS ASKED TO ANSWER: how much renewables produced to demand.

And lied about how much DEMAND was when he kept bleating on about how much GENERATION was and CLAIMED it was demand.

Even you tried to correct him on his deliberate "confusion" most recently in 324.

“These can come from utility-scale storage or long-distance transmission or both.”

And, yes power has to come from somewhere, but it DOESN’T have to come from utility scale storage or long distance, or both.

That is a lie.

No, it's a fact. Deal with facts.

Retard bum dumb destroyed was lying about renewables producing less than 10% in that time period WHICH WAS WHAT HE WAS ASKED TO ANSWER: how much renewables produced to demand.

Wind and solar produced 9.47% during the week 15 - 22 Jan.

Fact. Deal with facts.

another way. Here are the weekly generation figures for 16-22 Jan:

Solar: 0.255 GW

Wind: 0.676 GW

Combined W&S: 0.931

Conventional: 8.899 GW

Total: 9.83 GW

So W&S as a percentage of total generation that week was:

0.931/(9.83/100) = 9.47%

Not 30%.

And lied about how much DEMAND was when he kept bleating on about how much GENERATION was and CLAIMED it was demand.

But it is demand. If generation exceeds demand, then the grid breaks. Already explained this to you.

There's no difference between domestic (German) demand and export demand - electrons don't care, they just have to *go* somewhere. So generation must = total aggregate demand (domestic + export).

Your topic knowledge is appalling.

"No, it’s a fact. Deal with facts. "

No, it's a lie, and I deal with liars like you by treating them with the same disdain and abuse they give reality.

“https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…”

Fact.

Deal with it.
German electricty generation, 15 – 22 Jan:

Total Renewables: 2.33TWh, 19.9%.

Fact. Deal with it.

#95 was BEFORE #146

FACT.

Deal with it, morondomookfuck.

"But it is demand."

No it isn't. It's supply.

Fucking moron has no clue what reality is.

"There’s no difference between domestic (German) demand and export demand "

So Germany is the entire world? Or Germany exports to Germany?????

Fucking idiot.

"Not 30%."

it was 85%.

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

DEAL WITH FACTS.

Germany manged 85% of power demand being supplied by renewables. They did not require HVDC to provide it, they did not even use all storage to provide it.

There was nothing misleading about the story.

There is no power supply that will not result in power outages if there is insufficient power supplied.

There is no idea from you on how to avoid your claims of problems.

You do not know what generation, demand, supply or export means.

You have only ever whined about renewables as being challenging, and only care about pointing out how insufficient supply is a problem if we don't build enough power generation.

You have lied and made shit up. This too is a fact.

You then go and complain when I make blank assertions from claims that you made when I do them RIGHT AFTER YOU MAKE THE BS CLAIM.

You have proclaimed you would provide a list showing how I insist there should be no HVDC or backup with renewables, yet not one location did you find it.

I have provided one direct quote of you to support MY claim about your lies.

You are a partisan hack trying to stop renewables from being pushed out by proclaiming unspecified catastrophe if we do a thing nobody has shown we should do and given no method of avoiding that catastrophe you claim could exist.

Facts? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE FACTS.

More facts: the anti-green brigade and pro-nuke fluffers and the AGW denialists have all insisted that renewable penetration would cause catastrophe much past 20% of total average generation because of "intermittent" supply.

Germany has manged over 30% just fine. And this build out was not produced to the expectation of covering that volume. NOT ONE OF YOU MORONS have actually stated how much the build-out of renewables in Germany was intended to supply (given your claims of its capacity factor compared to nukes and other fake-dispatchable suppliers). It's definitely not 40% and last I actually heard the plans for Germany was a while ago when it was "We will get to 20% or more renewables by 2020".

So you deniers and corporate shills and hacks complain that in a scenario where it isn't expected to cover 40% that it somehow has failed when producing 85% because it hasn't done it for a long stretch of time????

HOW THE HELL IS THAT A FAIL?

So Germany is the entire world? Or Germany exports to Germany?????

You fucked this up earlier when you tried to pretend that the export wasn't demand:

#247

And you mislead people with your claim that production = demand. But Germany exported a net of 4.5TWh in January. CLEARLY the production was higher than demand.

And at #265:

Remember, Germany is exporting all the while, between 2 and 10GW.

You were wrong then and you are wriggling now.

Own your faceplants and bullshit.

God but you need banning.

Germany manged 85% of power demand being supplied by renewables. They did not require HVDC to provide it, they did not even use all storage to provide it.

There was nothing misleading about the story.

For an eyeblink. That is what is misleading about this story. Sometimes the variable renewables wind and solar which produced the 85% blip can drop to >10% for an entire week.

The lack of meaningful progress in dealing with it is the real story. But it is the one you will not allow to be discussed, preferring instead to peddle misleading industry PR.

"You fucked this up earlier when you tried to pretend that the export wasn’t demand:"

And another fake claim from the moron of the year.

"You were wrong then"

Really? O was wrong? WHERE? EVERY SINGLE VALUE IS CORRECT

"Germany exported a net of 4.5TWh in January"

Is that not CLEARLY supply exceeded demand?

Fuck off you lying little streak of weak piss. Just because you hate reality doesn't mean I have to be banned you fucking retard trumpnutmuncher.

ESPECIALLY when you're too shit scared to solve this like humans, face to face.

You chickenshit liar.

“Germany exported a net of 4.5TWh in January”

Is that not CLEARLY supply exceeded demand?

NO! Jesus you idiot!

Read. The. Words:

But it is demand. If generation exceeds demand, then the grid breaks. Already explained this to you.

There’s no difference between domestic (German) demand and export demand – electrons don’t care, they just have to *go* somewhere. So generation must = total aggregate demand (domestic + export).

Can't you even begin to understand the basics?

"For an eyeblink. That is what is misleading about this story. Sometimes the variable renewables wind and solar which produced the 85% "

IS NOT MISLEADING IN THE STORY!

Do you know what is misleading about you and your idiotic screed?

The nuclear explosion in Fukushima has caused trillions in damage and YOU HAVE IGNORED IT.

Greg, you will, if you have the patience, see that dumbfuck retard here's MO is to go full retard and rile the shit out of people who DARE to say that renewables might work so that they can keep fucking lying.

He's a 100% fucking troll and if you want reality to even have a chance you either have to completely and permanently drop all reports of anything about renewables in a good light OR ban that fuckwit trollidiot from the blog.

That shitstorm sea of sewage calling itself "BBD" will REFUSE to let renewables be seen as anything other than a complete failure and unworkable idea.

I pointed out your lie to you, and then you switched to another statement. Then you strangely repeat your lie in #417, while trying to say it's a lie that wind and solar is low because renewables. If you want to say that 'wind and solar is low' is a lie, then you have to demonstrate that 'wind and solar is not low.' Repeating your statements about renewables cannot make 'wind and solar is low' a lie. That you say this statement is a lie while knowing there is a difference between renewables and 'wind and solar' is why I call you a liar.

"I pointed out your lie to you, "

Ah.so when you said:

Before you were saying it was 85%. Now it turns out that was for a different time period of a weekend. Stop lying.

You were lying, it had NOTHING to do with "a different time period". If you'd said "*a* lie", that would have been different, but youve just said this was *the* lie, the lie you were talking about there.

"and then you switched to another statement. "

Nope, I stayed on the statement YOU had made, I had not switched statement, just like, it now appears, you admit to lying about when claiming I had switched to another time period (indeed it was dumfuck wallyfeaturs who did that).

So that is a second lie from you.

Not doing bad. do you also whine about your own duplicities like you do everyone else's, or are you endemically corrupt and hypocritical "mike"?

"Then you strangely repeat your lie in #417"

WHAT lie in 417?

“Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:”

IS a lie. Because it was buttfuck mcstupidarse's use of the "low W&S" to "prove" I was wrong about renewables being about 30% of demand. Since W&S is not "renewables", bleating on about it is NOT proof of error in, or counter to, my claim about renewables.

THEREFORE his claim was a lie.

But you dont know what anything means, you only hope to take advandage of your own confusion and pretend that you're somehow right and someone who has been a thorn in your side is wrong.

Sorry, cupcake, you're entirely wrong.

And that's if it's just pure stupidity rather than active lying going on there, "mike".

"That you say this statement is a lie while knowing there is a difference between renewables and ‘wind and solar’ "

The point is that either YOU don't know or YOU DON'T CARE.

Because it's sure as shit that turdbreath monkeynutfeatures doesn't care that he's getting it wrong, he has a corporate cheque to cash in, and lies to promote to earn it.

When he was asked what renewables were, HE was the one who claimed the solar plus wind totals and then continued to proclaim I was "wrong" because renewables are NOT the same as wind and solar.

He didn't care because he's a useless shitstain of a human being.

Why didn't you care about it, monkeynuts?

Too complex for you, didn't CARE, or know you're talking bullshit?

Moreover, the statement you claim is a lie and was repeated in 417 was NOT in any of the posts you complained about.

Go back to badbraindumdump's post at 292, "mike".

Oh, and as predicted in 411 when I said

I will demonstrate your lack of knowing what “the details” are by asking you again right here: what details, and where are they to have been missed?

To your post at 410 when you proclaimed:

You are an expert on keep harping on without knowing the details.

Since you failed to provide any of the details nor where they were to be "not got" by me.

Sadface, cryface.

And when you swallowed dumdum's liquid load claim of "Buys you about 12 hours", did you miss the details like, oh, say, the complete lack of any calculation for that figure, especially when it is quite easy to work out if it's even near?

Seems like you love to not get details and complain about them.

Currently dumdum is helping sow doubt about the feasibility of doing anything about AGW and promoting the "do nothing" agenda of AGW denial, so you're really up for helping him, and all of a sudden, you're not so worried about asking him where he gets his data from or detail the working and proofs of his claims.

When you like them, you will just let the pass, even though you were awful insistent on "PROOF DAMMIT!" when he wasn't helping delay doing anything about AGW.

For all dumdum's whining about how people saying "we can do 100% renewables" are, somehow, because he's not given any proof this is actually reality, pushing people to stick with fossil fuels by not proclaiming renewables possibly too hard to even do.

And you haven't noted any lack of evidence of this claim even existing.

"W&S can swing from 85% to 2%."

Notice that "mike"? Or did you not care? When you complained

That you say this statement is a lie while knowing there is a difference between renewables and ‘wind and solar’

Had you actually read the thread you were complaining about, or had you merely read enough to confirm what you wanted to see?

Do you want to post that to dumdum? Call HIM a liar? Or do you wish not to undermine someone working toward the FUD and delay tactics of not doing anything "because it may be really really hard, like" that you prefer to see "win" in the political arguments you're stuck in?

And if you DO go back and see how your expectations changed the evidence you "saw" (as in that was all you saw), you NOW know why the scientific method is there and how it doesn't just apply to things you do in a lab or science class, it really does need applying everywhere in life when your aim is to describe reality as it is.

And how the lack of such scientific scepticism really does nullify any claims, no matter if they are "honestly held" or not, because the evidence is not what is real but what is presented.

#436 "...method is there and how it doesn’t just apply to things you do in a lab or science class, it really does need applying everywhere ..."
Mmmm yes. Shit boils down to this really. What works and how do we know?
The thing that ( off topicly ) came to mind reading your post
was this. Does tax lowering for corporations assist growth and
employment? Its almost a forgone conclusive thought for many.
But is it valid? Theres no shortage of data to examine.

#430 jeezuz!
No wow. Just no. Thats my view anyhow.
Batty on the other hand...

“W&S can swing from 85% to 2%.”

Notice that “mike”? Or did you not care? When you complained

Whoops. That was a typo.

W&S on April 30 was 65% of total peak generation / demand. On Jan 22, it was 2%.

* * *

Li D

Thanks for your kind words.

"Does tax lowering for corporations assist growth and
employment?"

Well, no.

For a very simple reason: they don't have to employ more people if they can increase profits by government handouts or tax breaks. Normally it would require more workers to produce more goods to produce more revenue to produce more profits.

If you're going to get more profit because the government hands you cash or free services, there's no need to go to the risk of employing someone new.

"No wow. Just no. Thats my view anyhow."

I didn't give a view, lid. I have given the parameters of consequence.

" “W&S can swing from 85% to 2%.”

Notice that “mike”? Or did you not care? When you complained

Whoops. That was a typo. "

Ah, shall I correct your typo?

"whoops. that was incriminating."

You KNEW you were talking BS. You keep claiming, for example 8 posts later, that you argue wind and solar === all renewables. EVEN "MIKE" tried to make you see your fallacy. Though they were attempting to make it my fault.

"W&S on April 30 was 65% of total peak generation"

So what was renewables? And 15-22nd Jan, what was renewables? And what is the topic of this thread as written specifically in the text Greg gave and the content of the publication he quoted?

And while you're avoiding those questions, here are more you need to avoid:

How much untapped storage was there from current storage systems that are not an additional cost for renewables, but a requirement for a modern stable national grid intended to be reliable?

How much untapped interstate power was available?

If Morocco has an excess of Solar and Germany a lack, does the electrons produced have to go all the way from Morocco to Germany?

When you cry fake tears at how complex and challenging renewable power is, do you have any plan that is less challenging?

When you cry your fake tears at how insufficient supply would cause power shortages, what plan do you have that doesn't have that problem?

When you cry your fake tears at misdirections, when will you stop misdirecting others by claiming bullshit equality between "W&S" and renewables?

When you scream fake outrage at plans of 100% renewables and insist it will "cost more", HOW much more? and how much more than WHAT? Where is this plan you're crying about and what's your alternative that avoids the pitfalls you proclaim?

PS why aren't you thanking "mike"? He's taking everything you emit here and guzzling it down like a pornhub amateur.

And don't you mean 55%, dungus?

And isn't that mostly due to turning off gas, coal and oil? If they were all kept on, what % would "wind and solar" be? And if the renewables managed 20% of the demand, then isn't it the fact that when there's the "perfect storm" of no sun and no wind, renewables managed 20+% not your "only 2%!"?

Out of the 30% they nominally produce, that gives a "wide variation" of 22/30=73% of nominal when still untapped hydro and storage of currently applicable ratios of HVDC and storage to generation are built out.

Oh noes, it could go and drop by 27% from expected!!!! For a few hours!!!! For which we'd have to use up maybe 4% of our EV fleet's battery storage!!!!!! END OF WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!

You KNEW you were talking BS. You keep claiming, for example 8 posts later, that you argue wind and solar === all renewables.

Nope, lies on both counts. I acknowledged the typo the instant it was pointed out and I have repeatedly made the point that since the entire discussion is about wind and solar variability then it is *misleading* to conflate biomass and hydro with W&S. Which, of course, is why I didn't do so and you did.

And don’t you mean 55%, dungus?

And isn’t that mostly due to turning off gas, coal and oil? If they were all kept on, what % would “wind and solar” be?

W&S would be exactly the same. Germany curtails fossil fuel plant in favour of W&S. You can see this instantly from the weekly data. But clearly you don't care about the facts.

Back to the numbers for 30/04:

Peak generation / demand was 75.55GW at 11:00.
Solar: 29.76
Wind:16.75
W&S: 46.51
W&S % of total gen = 46.5/(75.5/100) = 65%

Peak generation / demand was 68.17GW at 13:00.
Solar: 28.94
Wind: 15.66
W&S: 44.6
W&S % of total gen = 44.6/(68.2/100) = 65%

Peak generation / demand was 66.72GW at 14:00.
Solar: 26.32
Wind: 16.78
W&S: 43.1
W&S % of total gen = 43.1/(66.72/100) = 65%

Peak generation / demand was 64.34GW at 15:00.
Solar: 21.55
Wind: 18.77
W&S: 40.32
W&S % of total gen = 40.32/(64.34/100) = 63%

When you scream fake outrage at plans of 100% renewables

And yet again, you are making shit up.

What I object to is the incessant barrage of industry PR (lies, really) about 'cheap' renewables and the misleading presentation of W&S variability (85%!!) as if it was a benefit rather than a profound systemic problem.

All I care about is efficient decarbonisation. Anything that gets in the way, from anti-nuclear activism to misleading presentations of renewables potential, is the problem.

You KNEW you were talking BS. You keep claiming, for example 8 posts later, that you argue wind and solar === all renewables.

Nope, lies on both counts.

OK, you were lying on both counts, dumdum.

since the entire discussion is about wind and solar variability

And another lie. It's about renewables. Not wind and solar variability.

You LOVE the lies, don't you? Can't prevent yourself diving right into them. Because the truth is devastating to your checking account.

W&S would be exactly the same

Ah, and another lie from you, retard.

No. If it were supposed to be 100% renewables,then there would be no normally operating nuke or coal or oil or gas plants producing power.

You are INCREDIBLY stupid to think that ANYONE would buy your bullshit claims. Yet still you bullshit.

Germany curtails fossil fuel plant in favour of W&S. You can see this instantly from the weekly data.

Therefore that 55% was not due to wind or solar variability, was it you pointless waste of oxygen? It was due to not bothering with that useless nuke or coal or gas or oil.

But your bank account can't handle that so you keep pretending your idiotic ranting is somehow believable.

. You can see this instantly from the weekly data.

I can. So can everyone else. Which is why your idiotic claims are so trumpianly stupid to make. It's so easy to show you are talking complete and utter bullshit.

Peak generation / demand was 75.55GW at 11:00.

Lie. It was less than that. 13.4 GW was exported and not part of demand.

And so far for 2017:

77.97TWh renewables = 37.0%.

Look at it for the totals for 2016:

181.46TWh renewables = 33.4%

And for 2015:

182.60 TWh renewables = 33.4%

All from:

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

Facts. Deal with them, you blundering dunderheaded idiot.

When you scream fake outrage at plans of 100% renewables

And yet again, you are making shit up.

Nope, 100% of that was an accurate and apt description, you screaming frothing maniac.

All I care about is efficient decarbonisation.

Now THERE is a lie.

No, you only care about your paycheck and job at the nuclear industry PR firm you inhabit. You would prefer to go back to 100% smog producing coal than let renewables work.

the entire discussion is about wind and solar variability

OK, so what is your plan for renewables to be as variable as you claim, you lying streak of shit?

And see, lid, how with this batshit crazy moron bullshitting that any blog that dares talk about renewables will be as broken as deltoid with batshit betty on it, because BBD is 100% identically equivalently insane on nukes as batshit is about how AGW is a scam.

Sure, keep the retard and let them post their bullshit, but no discussion will be allowed that shows renewables could work without dumb idiots ranting and railing against renewables being impossible like Bloody Boring Dumbass shitting all over it in their insane crusade against reality.

So still no actual evidence of any catastrophe from BBD.

Still no plan that will work better.

Still no plan that he's complaining about.

Still just 100% content free insanity from the pro nuke shill going batshit.

Misleading to proclaim it's about wind and solar variability when it's all about when "conventional plants" were turned off, varying the output to zero. Misleading to claim it's all about wind and solar variability when it's all about demand variability dropping at weekends.

Misleading will be you whining about how it's "NOT only conventional plant variability, that's a LIE!" when the truth is that is PRECISELY how you caricature the situation, just choosing a target of the variation to focus solely on that does not help and indeed punctures your political and financial ideology against the FUD promotion about renewables you crusade about on every single thread on every single blog where you do not get 100% your own way to scare the shit out of people into paying massive inflated costs and take on incredibly stupid risks of nuclear power.

And incredibly misleading to pretend that you are never doing this, only the opponent who is fighting your insanity in public.

Nukes in the two periods BBD provided to "prove" wind and solar were unusable varied 45%. Yet renewables varied 15%. But somehow this is not about nuke variability.

Demand varied from 35GW to 75GW over that entire week 3 in 2017 in Germany, yet somehow this is not about demand variability.

Supplies from "non renewable" sources varied from 42 to 60GW, yet somehow this is not about conventional supply variability.

April 30th, conventional varied from 15GW to 49GW. Yet still this is not about conventional power variability.

The subject of the thread above the line is about renewables. Not "Wind and solar" never mind "wind and solar variability". The URL said RENEWABLES, not "wind and solar" never mind "wind and solar variability", my questions have been about renewables, my figures have been for renewables.

And this was, apparently supposed to be about GERMANY (post 177), yet you talked about US grid, which last time I looked was not built in Germany.

You bullshit and scream your insanity at the skies and when it fails insist on going somewhere else. But only when "rebutting" a claim you cannot handle.

I posted FACTS showing that nukes varied from 7.3-13.5GW and that it barely managed to get over 8% for much of the period in question, yet when this pitiful amount was shown, dumdum here whined "But they're closing down nukes! You can't use that!", yet when I point out that the 55% of production was a result of shutting down white elephants of fossil fuel production therefore you could not use it compared to 100% of the production but the 30% of production that renewables were generally getting, of which 2/3rds was not wind and solar but still absolutely renewabeles, suddenly it was "MISLEADING" to take into account shutting down plants and shutting down those plants anyway shows how variable renewables are!?!?!?!!

And not one of the whiners complaining about me care.

Do you, morons.

Which is why your complaints are rebutted but your concerns discarded. I may defend myself against attack but I don't have to worry about your good opinion of me. Or, indeed your opinion AT ALL.

If you had displayed any sense of actual care about reality, I would find it much harder to discard your whining as anything other than partisan idiocy and glee at finding someone to attack in safety. Because it really REALLY is only the cheapest and most cowardly bullying you're doing. Wait for someone to come along who you can attack without worrying about having to defend yourself.

Pure, unadulterated cowardice.

And therefore your "concerns" can be dismissed as entirely fake. They never bothered you before, with ample justification to be bothered if you were honestly worried about your points.

Why the hell did I bother?

BBD,

I received a paper this week from a principle planner who has been dealing with defining the assumptions that are going into mobility plans being developed for a large county (1). Richard indicated that a lot of his efforts are spent coming up with communication plans. Being well seasoned, or over the hill depending on how you look at things, he stressed that his objective or goal is to provide context to the assumptions in the plans- or as Richard stressed “the goal is to minimize distorted thinking and see the world more accurately.”

The EIA had a recent post on how the state of CA is doing in regards to reducing natural gas this spring:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31252

“....So far in 2017, increased hydroelectric generation and solar power generation in California have contributed to lower natural gas-fired power generation in the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) region, the electric system operator for much of the state”…

Genentech media noted the slowdown in residential capacity additions this spring vs last recently as well:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/residential-solar-capacity…

…”The decline is even more pronounced on a year-over-year basis, dropping by 31 percent from 284 megawatts (DC) in the first quarter of 2016, to 196 megawatts (DC) in the first quarter of 2017”….

(1) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-th…

Because your paycheck relies on it. Of course, being unsuccessful means no bonus pay for you.

Not that you HAVE bothered.

Still no actual evidence of any catastrophe from you.

Still no plan that will work better.

Still no plan that you are complaining about.

How much untapped interstate power was available?

If Morocco has an excess of Solar and Germany a lack, does the electrons produced have to go all the way from Morocco to Germany?

When you cry fake tears at how complex and challenging renewable power is, do you have any plan that is less challenging?

When you cry your fake tears at how insufficient supply would cause power shortages, what plan do you have that doesn’t have that problem?

When you cry your fake tears at misdirections, when will you stop misdirecting others by claiming bullshit equality between “W&S” and renewables?

When you scream fake outrage at plans of 100% renewables and insist it will “cost more”, HOW much more? and how much more than WHAT? Where is this plan you’re crying about and what’s your alternative that avoids the pitfalls you proclaim?

So what was renewables? And 15-22nd Jan, what was renewables? And what is the topic of this thread as written specifically in the text Greg gave and the content of the publication he quoted?

Where are the quotes you said you'd bring down on my head proving I am against HVDCs and backup for renewables?

BBD #452:

I was asking myself the same question.

But that means nothing. Actually nothing. No information, no progress, no reasoning, nothing.

So ask yourself this question: why are you pointless?

For example, I ask why dumdum keeps making such bullshit and easily destroyed claims and whinges.

So I can take it that you feel the same way, right?

If not, then why did you not realise you actually said nothing there? If you do, ask yourself why I had to assume?

"Genentech media noted the slowdown in residential capacity additions this spring vs last recently as well: "

Which would be because the current owners of the white house are trying to kill renewables. And increased capacity is still increased capacity. You know, in case you were confused. It's not like they took down 88MW of solar, is it. They still added just shy of 200MW.

Moreover, what does this do about Germany where the private homeowner solar cells aren't counted. Not even counted by dumdum as Zebra pointed out in post #88..

"I received a paper this week...

(1) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09..."

Hmmm.

Mark

Thanks, interesting market data. I didn't realise just how badly SoCalGas's storage capacity has been hit by and since the Aliso canyon leak.

But as you see, it's no use dealing in facts when people cannot handle too much reality.

Wow

Because your paycheck relies on it.

I retired several years ago and now live on an investment income. Nobody pays me to say anything nor ever will.

"I didn’t realise just how badly SoCalGas’s storage capacity has been hit by and since the Aliso canyon leak. "

Is that why you only complain about storage for wind and solar, dumdum? I guess you now know that it was a fake problem with solar and wind because ALL generation has problems with it.

"it’s no use dealing in facts when people cannot handle too much reality. "

Too true. Why do you hate facts so much, dumdum?

"I retired several years ago"

From a nuke plant marketing position.

" and now live on an investment income."

Which requires that the companies keep bringing in the ROI that means dividends.

"Nobody pays me to say anything nor ever will."

And another fake claim from you. Nobody SHOULD pay you. You need to visit reality sometime and stop worrying about your stock portfolio crashing when renewables change things about.

They certainly don't pay you to talk about what plan it is you're complaining about. Nor what plan avoids your claimed problem.

How much untapped interstate power was available?

If Morocco has an excess of Solar and Germany a lack, does the electrons produced have to go all the way from Morocco to Germany?

When you cry fake tears at how complex and challenging renewable power is, do you have any plan that is less challenging?

When you cry your fake tears at how insufficient supply would cause power shortages, what plan do you have that doesn’t have that problem?

When you cry your fake tears at misdirections, when will you stop misdirecting others by claiming bullshit equality between “W&S” and renewables?

So what was renewables? And 15-22nd Jan, what was renewables? And what is the topic of this thread as written specifically in the text Greg gave and the content of the publication he quoted?

Where are the quotes you said you’d bring down on my head proving I am against HVDCs and backup for renewables?

All of them unanswered.

No profit in actually having a substantive point, much easier to whine for you, isn't it.

Wow,
Why don't you tell us what the last quarterly profit was at Westmill Wind Farm..... also known as Wind Over Westmill or (Wow)....

And then tell us how "corrupt" it is for distributing a percent of the profits to it's shareholders...which includes you.

Thanks.

Ah, so by "also known as" you mean "not at all known as", batshit. So sacked from your tree pruning work for the council, betty? Stole from your customers, eh? Nicked any little boys' underwear you found was it?

Oh, and swindon is not devon, dumbass.

Life's a birch and then you die.

Yes Wow, I did notice you forgot to tell us how "corrupt" Westmill is for distributing it's profits to it's shareholders, which includes you.

Please, in detail...

Which includes who? You don't even know what the company you named is known as. But as well as being incompetent at geography as well as tree pruning, you also admit to having a fetish for collecting little boys underwear.

When there's a community project it pays to the people in the community. Which are people in the area. Ask a grown up for what all the words mean. And, no, I'm not an owner of that wind farm. Because it's a community project and I'm not in Swindon.

But you do have a problem now you're unemployed and on the KP watchlist.

Oh, and glad to hear that you discard utterly the free market and capitalism as corrupt, batshit! Well done for meeting reality and getting rid of that ridiculous faith of yours.

Next time John comes on I'll let him know you're changing your mind on economic policies and are discarding the corrupt and unworkable free market capitalism. It's not much of a change because you're still as clueless as ever, but it's SOMETHING.

So who is pushing vested interests here, Wow?

“I retired several years ago”

From a nuke plant marketing position.

No, I had my own business. For over 20 years. I will categorically state that I have never worked for the nuclear industry directly or indirectly in any capacity whatsoever.

You are lying again. Surprise.

"So who is pushing vested interests here, Wow?"

You, dumdum. Already said that. Alzheimers gotten to the optic nerve?

"No, I had my own business."

SURE you did. As a PR fluffer for the nuke industry, right?

"For over 20 years. I will categorically state that I have never worked for the nuclear industry directly or indirectly in any capacity whatsoever. "

Yeah, Pat Michaels said the same thing to Congress.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/25/michaels-climate-sc…

You, dumdum. Already said that. Alzheimers gotten to the optic nerve?

“No, I had my own business.”

SURE you did. As a PR fluffer for the nuke industry, right?

Lies the first time around, so no change.

Now I think about it, I recall you saying that you were a major shareholder in a solar project as well, presumably the one associated with the above-mentioned wind farm.

Go on, deny it.

"Lies the first time around, so no change. "

Lying again. As usual.

" the one associated with the above-mentioned wind farm. "

LOL! Now THAT I gotta tell John! You believe batshit! LOL!

And you had insisted I was lying about being a shareholder of a community solar farm! ROFL! But though batshit perv here is from Australia therefore doesn't know where Exeter is can be sort of understood, you claim to be from the UK.

Dayum! You're making TRUMPO look smart!

And you had insisted I was lying about being a shareholder of a community solar farm!

No, I don't recall even mentioning it at the time.

I think you are projecting like a poisoned dog.

"No, I don’t recall even mentioning it at the time. "

Aaaw. The weasel wording of the moron who knows what will happen if they make a concrete statement.

LOL!

Must be bitter for you, hmm, having to suck up to the dumbest AGW deniers around to help your case!

PS if your feet get cold, ask betty,they have so many socks they manage to turn each other in accidentally.

So did M2, oddly enough. AND he spent several posts proclaiming that he was honest and used consistent names. AND another moron denier on Barry Bickmore's blog tried to defend him.

But eventually the evidence was irrefutable, being as it was all on the same page, and he gave up and said he was using the wrong account because he got confused about which tab was open for which webblog.

But, hey, plenty of socks is how deniers think it's REALLY warming.

You just want to cash in before you cash out.

Aaaw. The weasel wording of the moron who knows what will happen if they make a concrete statement.

Quote me, then.

The *truth* is that you are making money out of the solar industry and I am not being paid by the nuclear industry and never have been.

That thing with facts again, Wow.

They matter, at least they do to honest people.

"Quote me, then. "

Then what?

What do I get for doing that? You will piss off and never come here again?

"The *truth* is that you are making money out of the solar industry "

Actually, that's what batshit betty claims. And you believe it.

And go read up on community projects for solar. Renewable community plants were most usefully used in the Hebredians because they were getting fucked over in charges to get power, so they chipped together and bought their own wind turbines to power the small village and that saved them money.

Most community projects don't make profit, they sell their generation to the grid, but it's there to power the community, hence the term. The community gets paid for it by reductions in payments for power, NOT by profiting.

But it's no surprise you don't know any of this.

So, I go and get that quote of you and you do what?

Oh, and while you mull that over, please peruse this list of pertinent questions for your shill paycheck to cover:

Some actual evidence of any catastrophe from you.

Your plan that will work better.

The plan that you are complaining about.

How much untapped interstate power was available?

If Morocco has an excess of Solar and Germany a lack, does the electrons produced have to go all the way from Morocco to Germany?

When you cry fake tears at how complex and challenging renewable power is, do you have any plan that is less challenging?

When you cry your fake tears at how insufficient supply would cause power shortages, what plan do you have that doesn’t have that problem?

When you cry your fake tears at misdirections, when will you stop misdirecting others by claiming bullshit equality between “W&S” and renewables?

So what was renewables? And 15-22nd Jan, what was renewables? And what is the topic of this thread as written specifically in the text Greg gave and the content of the publication he quoted?

Where are the quotes you said you’d bring down on my head proving I am against HVDCs and backup for renewables?

"They matter, at least they do to honest people."

Ah, that explains your abhorrence of facts, then, dumdum. Dracula doesn't faint at the sight of crosses faster than you faint at the horrible truths you can't bear to see in print.

Wow - "When there’s a community project it pays to the people in the community. Which are people in the area."

And it also distributes profits to it's shareholders, like the Westmill Solar Co-operative you are part of....

So why would you be part of a "corrupt" operation..."corrupt" according to you, because it earns a profit...

C'mon Wow, let's see some honesty here, your hypocrisy has already been exposed, what do you have to lose?

Hey, dumdum, in the meantime, please go through the "thought" process that led to this claim from you:

presumably the one associated with the above-mentioned wind farm.

I could do with a bit of a giggle to cheer me up!

So, betty, because I say profit is corruption as far as you caricature it, you are of the opinion that if something is criticised, it must be being engaged in, correct?

Oh, and yes, according to the free market ideology, profit shows that the market is corrupted. Which I assume you did not know because you think that free market capitalism is a load of bullshit.

Wow - "glad to hear that you discard utterly the free market and capitalism as corrupt"

As usual, you are arguing with yourself...

Wow - “No, a business corporation is organised and carried on primarily to sell to customers and exchange the customer money for the businesses’ goods or service.
That is all. All else is political dogma and hidden corruption"

"As usual, you are arguing with yourself…"

Oh, so you weren't posting as far as you recall. Fair enough, I'll assume you're denying your own posts too.

Wow - "So, betty, because I say profit is corruption as far as you caricature it, you are of the opinion that if something is criticised, it must be being engaged in, correct?"

Nope - it's because you told me you owned it.

The community gets paid for it by reductions in payments for power, NOT by profiting.

There's no difference between investing in solar and getting a £500 dividend and being part of an energy co-op and paying £500 a year less for your electricity. Call it profit or call it material benefit or whatever; it's all the same: there's £500 in your bank account that would not be there otherwise.

Wow,
Still waiting for you to explain why you are part of a "corrupt" profit making operation...

It's a simple question which you seem to have a hard time answering...

#452, at least I got an opportunity to clarify the issue. I thought you were claiming the grid itself locally can't handle the variability even if there is excess supply to cover the drop in wind and solar. I have seen this argued elsewhere, but you don't think that's an issue.

Betula, basic microeconomics argues that profits will be zero in a competitive environment.

"There’s no difference between ... getting a £500 dividend and ... paying £500 a year less for your electricity."

Yes there is, dumbass. It's the same damn thing as getting free food money handouts or growing your own veg in the garden meaning a smaller shopping bill, you retard. But you're well sold into the PR fluffery of your nuke cheque and therefore don't want to think there's any difference, do you.

Now, where's the answer to any of MY questions you lazy lying fuckwit?

Oh, and I suppose we can now take it as given you were employed by the nuclear industry.

#487 it's called "marginal cost". But batshit betty really doesn't care. Oh, and apparently you're going to be arguing with yourself because not even betty wants to read their own posts. Just an FYI.

Yes there is, dumbass. It’s the same damn thing as getting free food money handouts

From who?

or growing your own veg in the garden meaning a smaller shopping bill, you retard.

The analogy breaks if the energy co-op is grid-connected and sells energy to the grid and / or receives any kind of external subsidy.

Now, where’s the answer to any of MY questions you lazy lying fuckwit?

You don't start well:

Some actual evidence of any catastrophe from you.

Just as deniers say 'where's the catastrophe then?' when the actual argument is that current behaviour will lead to increasingly negative impacts in the future.

" sells energy to the grid "

Wrong.

" and / or receives any kind of external subsidy. "

That would.

Now, comeon, what "thought" process led to your claim:

" presumably the one associated with the above-mentioned wind farm. "

Love to hear it, but you hate to actually support your blatant bullshit, it so often leads to your humiliation.

Not to mention all the other bullshit you have claimed, been asked to answer (and you are the only one who CAN answer since they pertain to your complaints that you have internally held to with religious zeal).

Come on, stop fucking about and start explaining yourself. Until you do, I'll just leave the assertion of your ridiculous wrongness to blank assertion, since this seems to be entirely acceptable to you.

And yes, your tacit agreement that you WERE a nuke employee has been noted.

"You don’t start well:"

Ah, so the plan you are complaining about is me not starting well.... Got it. You're complaining about nothing.

YOU claimed that the people would riot if the lights went out, but we have had the lights going out and society is still here.

We've HAD the catastrophe you cried about, but there was the miniscule possiblity that you were thinking of something specific.

But you weren't thinking at all.

So next?

The Hypocrisy of Wow....

Wow - "Profit is unnecessary. All the bills are paid before profit. Everyone gets paid what they need. And if anyone has money in the business, they still have that business asset as collateral and to sell."

Wow - "ZERO profit is all a business needs. Less than that and the business will eventually fail. And more than that is merely evidence of a failure of the market to find the fair market price, and is a drag on the economy, making it inefficient"

Wow - "a business corporation is organised and carried on primarily to sell to customers and exchange the customer money for the businesses’ goods or service.
That is all.
All else is political dogma and hidden corruption."

Yet, you are part owner of a business that not only profits, but distributes part of those profits to it's shareholders....

So why do you choose to be part owner of a business that overcharges for it's product and is corrupt? And why shouldn't you be viewed as anything other than the arrogant jackass hypocrite that you are?

Thanks.

Days later and still the entertainment continues.

From madam "Wow"..."...you screaming frothing maniac."

More ironic words have never been written.

Betula..." And why shouldn’t you be viewed as anything other than the arrogant jackass hypocrite that you are?"

"She" shouldn't be. And isn't.

Batty. Piss off under your rock. You are
fair dinkum the most trollish crap artist muppet
who only exacerbates tension and never contributes
to the topic at hand.
Energy transition can and is and will happen.
Its a reasonable thing to highlight issues that need
looking at so that they can be rectified.
Its a reasonable thing to think they will.
Its not fucking reasonable for people with the same
goals to carry on like porkchops.
Save the abuse for denier scum whos motive is, well,
they are so fucking incoherent in their arguments, its hard
to work out a motive. Certainly isnt healthy scepticism.
Certainly isnt advancement of science. Certainly isnt a healthy
biosphere.

Li D - "who only exacerbates tension"

Right, because there was very little tension within the 461 comments before I entered the discussion. It was the act of exposing Wow for the hypocrite that he is that resulted in diverting the relatively calm, reasonable, understanding nature of the conversation to a more tense one...

Yes, you're a genius.

Anyone got any thoughts on the cella hydrogen storage idea?
Ive always been ambivialant about hydrogen cuz its so dangerous, but this cella shit looks interesting.

Li, it is not promising when the first link in a web search is broken. That said, the dangerousness is considerably reduced perhaps. There is still the issue of hydrogen production. Using solar and wind to produce the hydrogen might work.

Synthfuel is possibly a better option at the mo given current infrastructure and systems.

PS oi, patwanker, before you were enraged at my posts but now you're claiming them entertaining? Get your story to silence me straight, moron.

Should you buy an electric car if you live in a coal state?

gregladen — Fri, 10 Mar 2017 10:49:09 +0000

Should you buy an electric car if you live in a coal state?

If most of the electricity used to charge your electric car is made by burning coal, is it still worth it, in terms of CO2 release, to buy an electric car?

Yes. And you will also save money on fuel.

Don't believe me? Want me to show you? What, are you from Missouri or something? Fine. I'll show you.

A few years ago, when there were no affordable electric cars that were real cars, we decided to look into buying the next best thing, a hybrid. We wanted to get the Toyota Prius because it looked like a good car, had long proven technology, and all the people we knew who had one were happy with theirs.

I mentioned this to an acquaintance, also noting that I expected that we would save money on fuel. His response was that we would never save as much money on reduced fuel use to justify the extra cost of this expensive car. Just look in any car magazine, he said. They all make this comparison in one issue or another, he said. You are crazy to do this, he said.

I disagreed with him about the crazy part. Failing to do something that you can afford to do that would decrease fossil CO2 emissions was the crazy decision. You know, given the end of civilization because of climate change, and all. But, I was concerned that we would simply not be able to afford to do it, so I resolved to look more closely into the costs and benefits.

Sure enough, it was easy to find an article in a car magazine that analyzed the difference between buying a new internal combustion engine car vs. a Prius, and that analysis clearly showed that there wouldn't be much of a savings, and that we could lose as much as $500 a year. Yes, each year, the Prius would save gas money, but over a period of several years, the number would never add up to the thousands of dollars extra one had to spend to get the more expensive car. Buy the internal combustion care, they said.

But the article said something else about "green energy" cars that set off an alarm. It said that cars like electric cars would never catch on because they were quiet. Everybody likes the sound of the engine, especially when accelerating past some jerk on the highway, even in a relatively quiet and sedate car like a Camry.

Aha, I thought. This article is not about making rational decisions, or decisions that might be good for the environment. It is about something else entirely.

Hippie punching.

Then I thought about my acquaintance who had suggested that the Prius was a bad idea. And the hippie punching theory fell neatly into place.

So, I continued my quest for information and wisdom. I learned years ago that when you want to buy something expensive, contact a seller that you are unlikely to buy from to ask a few questions. Don't take up too much of their time, but start your inquiry with a business that sells the product you want, but that you will walk away from in a few minutes. That lets you discover what the patter in that industry is like, what the game is, how they talk to you and what you don't necessarily know, without it costing you dumb-points along the way. This way, when you talk to the more likely seller (in this case, the Toyota dealership on my side of town, instead of the other side of town) you are one up on the other noobs making a similar inquiry.

So I made the call, and said, "I'm really just interested in trying to decide if the Prius is worth it, given the extra cost, in terms of money saved on fuel."

"OK, well, it often isn't, to be honest. And I won't lie to you. I sell the Prius and I sell non-hybrids, and I'll be happy to sell you either one."

Good point, I thought. He doesn't care. Or, maybe, he just tricked me into thinking he doesn't care! No matter, though, because I've already out smarted this car dealer with my "call across town first" strategy.

As these thoughts were percolating in my head, he said, "So, it really depends on the numbers. So let's make a comparison. What car would you be buying if you didn't get the Prius?"

"Um... actually, it would definitely be a Subaru Forester. That's the car we are replacing, and we love the Forester. No offense to Toyota, of course..."

"Well," he interrupted. "Everybody loves the Forester. But, it does cost several thousand dollars more than the Prius. So, I'd say, you'd save money with the Prius."

Huh.

We bought the Prius. From him.

And now the Prius is getting older. It is still like totally new, and it will be Car # 1 for a couple of more years, I'm sure. But as the driver of Car #2 (an aging Forester) I am looking forward to my wife getting a new car at some point so we can further reduce CO2 emissions, and I don't have to have a car, for my rare jaunt, that is likely to need a towing.

And, when I look around me, and ask around, and predict the future a little, I realize that by the time we are in the market for a new car, there will be electric cars in the same price range of that Prius, if not cheaper. So, suddenly, buying an electric car is a possibility.

And, of course, the hippie-punching argument that we will have to deal with is this: Coal is worse than gasoline, and all your electricity for your hippie-car is made by burning coal, so you are actually destroying the environment, not saving it, you dirty dumb hippie!

There are several reasons that this argument is wrong. They are listed below, and do read them all, but the last one is the one I want you to pay attention to because it is the coolest, and I've got a link to where you can go to find the details that prove it.

1) Even if we live in a state that uses a lot of coal to make electricity, eventually that will change. Of course, my car might be old and in the junk yard by then, so maybe it is still better to wait to by the electric car. But in a state like Minnesota, we are quickly transitioning away from coal, and in fact, the big coal plant up Route 10 a ways, that makes the electricity for my car (if I had an electric car), is being shut down as we speak.

2) Even if the electric car is a break even, or a small net negative on carbon release, it is still good, all else being nearly equal, to support the energy transition by buying an electric car and supporting that segment of the industry.

3) It is more efficient, measured in terms of fossil CO2 release, to burn a little coal to transmit electricity to an electric car than it is to ship the gasoline to the car and burn the gasoline in the car. This sound opposite from reality, and many make the argument that making the burning happen in your car is more efficient than in a distant plant, but that is not ture. While this will depend on various factors, and burning gas may be better sometimes, it often is not because the basic technology of using electricity driven magnetic energy is so vastly more efficient than the technology of using countless small controlled explosions to mechanically drive the wheels. Electric motors are so much more efficient than exploding liquid motors that trains, which are super efficient, actually use their diesel fuel to generate electricity to run their electric motors, rather than to run the wheels of the train.

4) Reason 3 assumes an efficiency difference between internal combustion and magnetics that overwhelms all the other factors, but it is hard to believe this would work in a mostly coal-to-electricity setting. But there is empirical evidence, which probably reveals the logic of reason number 3, but that I list as reason number 4 because it is based on observation rather than assumption. If you measure the difference between an internal combustion engine and an electric engine in a coal-heavy state, you a) save money and b) release less CO2.

And to get that argument, the details, the proof, GO HERE to see How Green is My EV?, a tour de force of logic and math, and empirical measurement, by David Kirtley, in which David measures the cost and CO2 savings of his Nissan Leaf, in the coal-happy state of Missouri.

I'll put this another way. The best way to be convinced that an electric car is a good idea in a state where most electricity is generated by burning coal is if someone shows you the evidence. Where better to examine this evidence than in the Shoe Me State of Missouri???

So go and look.

gregladen Fri, 03/10/2017 - 05:49

Tags

I thought of another factor, but it may not apply - Any load you add to a given location will tend to be partly taken up by adjacent greener states, because, grid. Especially if the local vendor can get green cheaper than coal.

Ol' Bab

David, that is true and over time may become increasingly important, for a while. In MN, our green energy plan is partly fueled (as it were) by expectations that redder states, hippie punching states, like Wisconsin, Iowa, and the Dakotas (i.e, all our neighbors) are going to have to buy this green energy from us to meet their national requirements.

Of course, we have to get rid of Trump for that plan to keep working, but that will likely happen soon enough.

In a previous job we were measuring and accounting for energy and greenhouse gas usage for HVAC applications. One of the important things we had to keep in mind when dealing with electricity usage is the difference between site and source energy -- how much electricity is measured at the site of use (the building) and how much is measured at the source of generation (the plant).

Some calculations show that generation, distribution, and transmission losses can be huge (in the 70% range), meaning that for a coal plant every MJ of energy released by burning coal only 300kJ makes it to your charger, well before getting into the car. Unless these huge losses are accounted for (and they didn't seem to be in David Kirtley's article, that I noticed), it could make your estimates of greenhouse gas emmission from your EV off by up to a factor of 3.

Of course, the solution is to stop using coal or other fossil fuels for electricity. That will take a lot of time in building up increased renewable capacity as well as increased grid storage technology, but both prongs are gaining steam.

I'm looking forward for the day when fossil fuels aren't burned for heat, but are mainly used for plastics feedstocks.

It's still a good idea to go full electric. An ICE would be 25% ish efficient and a coal station 40%, or 60% near enough if it were CHP. And the actual propulsion is offset by regenerative braking, meaning that slow stop/start traffic would increase the mileage rather than reduce it as happens with a petrol engine. You can figure that you get 50% better efficiency for urban and suburban driving, but only a few percent for motorway driving.

And the reduction of local pollution is another positive factor.

How much petrol is burned getting it to the station? How much burned to get it out of the ground? How much burned to refine it? And how much lost in leaks?

I seriously doubt your 70% figure, unless your system was all low voltage (100V) AC, which is dumb.

Wow:

We aren't contradicting each other (or not by much). The 40% efficiency you cite for the coal plant equates to 60% losses source-to-site, with the other 5-10% coming from distribution and transmission losses.

With PV or wind, you don't have the 60% in generation losses. Well, with PV, you may have 75-90% "generation" losses due to the efficiencies of the PV, but those losses don't dump CO2 into the air.

Right now, my only objections to EV cars are (a) I have no place to plug one in, as I have on-street parking, and (b) I can't afford one.

Yeah, well, if that were your source of "70% losses", then you need to sue your fingers for lying about you:

site and source energy — how much electricity is measured at the site of use (the building) and how much is measured at the source of generation (the plant).

The source energy is not "what calorific value is contained in the coal we unloaded". So I still call bullshit on your claim there.

The Chevvy Volt is fairly cheap, it's definitely in the mid-to-low price range, but it's not old enough to be a common car in the second hand market. The Prius is a luxury sedan size and priced and specced accordingly,and the Tesla is a high end car with better range but also priced according to its' Beemer-class equivalents.

No off-street parking may currently be a bugger, but there are many cities where you can find charging stations very close by and this is no worse than the fact that you do not have your own pumping station on the verge of your property.

That, however, depends highly on what you do and what facilities you have. Much like the similarly early days of the petrol car (or, indeed, the early days of the catalytic converter car where you had to check especially for the right sort of fuel before pumping to make sure that the stuff was clean enough to use).

70% losses in transmission is crazy high. Hydro-Quebec sees about 5-10% losses (they claim a bit less), and a lot of the generation is 1000 km from the demand. The longest line runs from the James Bay to Boston! This is why, by the way, superconducting transmission lines haven't taken off: there isn't enough to save to bother.

I'm going to have to say that Buddha Buck here has a point. Transmission loss isn't the only loss. I have a copy of "Energy", a book from the "Life Science Library" (Life being the magazine), in front of me. In addition to transmission loss, there's Generator Friction, Badly Made Lines, Heat loss from the Transformers and inefficiencies in the end product (e.g. incandescent light bulbs). In fact, I've seen quotes of 25% efficiency when all these factors are taken into account.
Having said that, I agree with Greg. The "Long Tailpipe" has been investigated and discredited.

40% transmission losses sounds way to high, India is often cited as the worse case with 25% loss (or there about).

5% for the USA is given in this link
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3

and seems much lower in the UK e.g.

http://www2.nationalgrid.com/uploadedFiles/SharePoint_Documents/UK/Elec…

And none of those are missing from the value at the generator, Julian.

I wouldn't take this crap from someone insisting that Solar PV won't work, so why would I take it from someone who at least accepts that decarbonising is a good idea?

A 1GW station is 10GW what comes out at max rated operation. The calorific value of the coal when burned in a calorimiter may be 1.4GW when burned at the same rate, but that doesn't mean the power station is given a 1.4GW rating.

A coal power station is about 40% efficient. Not 30%. And it's not 30% efficient for hydro or wind or solar or nuclear. All three have values different, and most of that efficiency "loss" (for solar that would be the loss compared to insolation rate) is in the process itself, not transmission, and it's only the transmission loss that would be the difference between station and consumer.

For HVDC it's of the order of a couple of % per 1000km. For HVAC, I can't remember off the top of my head, but for most grid level HV, the loss is probably something like an order of magnitude higher.

He has a point, but since it's currently hiding behind a 70% line loss claim, those who want to put the kybosh on electric cars will see it and laugh their asses off and see it as "proof" that this eco hippy stuff is bullshit and anyone talking about it positively is a bullshit artist.

While not intentional, electric cars are tax evasion mechanisms. Roads etc. are paid for via motor fuel taxes. When you don't buy motor fuel, you're still adding to wear/tear on roads but not paying for them. There is no mechanism to recovery the lost revenue. Perhaps a per mile fee assessed through vehicle registration/licensing would work but there would be a lot of whining about it.

Wow:

Reading back over this, I don't see me making the "70% line loss claim" you attribute to me. Please quote where I said that.

What do I care about the power rating of the power plant? Why should that be more important than the amount of coal I have to burn to get that energy to my wheels?

So let's say we have a 1GW coal plant which is 40% efficient. In 1 hour, at peak output, it'll put 1GWh of energy into the grid. That will take 2.5GWh of coal to do.

The transmission and distribution lines are not perfect, and they will suffer 5% losses delivering the energy to the site (the home). So that 2.5GWh of coal is delivered as 950MWh of energy to the home.

At this point, this is 65% losses source-to-site.

I am not saying -- and never did say, never intended to say -- that the transmission losses alone were 65%, but that the over-all losses from generation to delivery were 65-70%.

Yes, different mixes of "fuels" yields different overall losses. I'm willing to say that the source-to-site losses for renewables (wind, hydro, PV) is solely transmission losses in the 5% range. But in a way, as long as those sources can deliver enough power when it is needed, it doesn't matter what the losses were. They aren't throwing CO2 into the air.

But coal plants are. What's your point in only looking at the output of the coal plant, and not it's input? The 40% efficiency (or 60% losses) account for a lot of the CO2 generated at a power plant.

"Reading back over this, I don’t see me making the “70% line loss claim”"

It's right here:

Some calculations show that generation, distribution, and transmission losses can be huge (in the 70% range)

in the context of this:

One of the important things we had to keep in mind when dealing with electricity usage is the difference between site and source energy — how much electricity is measured at the site of use (the building) and how much is measured at the source of generation (the plant).

now you may not have meant anything other than what Julian interpreted you to mean, rather than what I and nuberobs interpreted it to mean, but your wording was so obscure and wandering that it is open to, and requires, interpretation. You can't let yourself slack off like that. Because someone who has the idea that electric cars are BS will use your words as you said them and conclude that EVERYONE talking about electric cars is similarly BSing.

There was no goddamned reason to wave that 70% loss out either. Doubly so when you open with an "I am totally an expert in this, trust me". Because in that case your claim there is negated by your inaccuracy and your insistence of being taken at face value is not merely valueless but actually negatively impacting your words in the future.

What happens next time you want people to take your word for something? Your error here will be remembered and even if you're 100% right, it will only be investigated if there's no alternative available AND it's considered important enough to spend the effort. Because your opener was such a bust.

Kinda kills your ability to help, doesn't it.

"Reading back over this, I don’t see me making the “70% line loss claim”"

It's right here:

Some calculations show that generation, distribution, and transmission losses can be huge (in the 70% range)

in the context of this:

One of the important things we had to keep in mind when dealing with electricity usage is the difference between site and source energy — how much electricity is measured at the site of use (the building) and how much is measured at the source of generation (the plant).

You then need to start re-building capital by providing external evidence before you can rely on reputation to make it no longer an a priori requirement

Kinda kills your ability to help, doesn't it.

"Roads etc. are paid for via motor fuel taxes. "

Yeah. And?

Taxable losses by businesses are, even if unintentional, ways to avoid taxes.

Meanwhile the cars are more expensive and sales taxes higher, and the ability to collect road tax for such a small section of the drivers would totally remove the benefit of tax collection at the moment.

Your point is a bit like saying the tax free income is a tax dodge: all you have to do is earn so little you don't have to pay tax, yet you'll still get the defence of the military and justice system.

Kinda "so what".

So, in the quote you made of what I said, you seem to be interpreting "generation, distribution, and transmission losses" to mean "transmission losses, but not generation losses". I don't see how your reading makes any sense.

So please try again to say where I said 70% transmission losses.

But it is in the construct of the second quote, which was preceding and couched the context of the claim.

If you don't like being read, don't write. If you don't like all of you being read, then stop when you've said what you want read and don't write any more.

I didn't write what you posted, I only read it. You seem to have a problem with that. So my suggestions will help you avoid your problems reoccurring.

When you burn coal at a large fixed power plant, about 40% of the chemical energy becomes electricity. About 80-90% of that electricity gets to the EV drivetrain after transmission losses and battery storage losses. Using the low numbers, 32% of chemical energy in goes to the drivetrain. Coal generates 215 lbs of CO2 per BTU (crazy US units, but that's what EIA gives at the link below), so you get about 670 lbs CO2 per BTU at the drivetrain.

When you burn gasoline in an ICE-based car, about 20% of the chemical energy gets to the drivetrain. So 20% of chemical energy in goes to the drivetrain. Gasoline is about 157 crazy units, so you get 785 lbs CO2 per BTU at the drivetrain.

None of this counts exploration, extraction, refining, transporting the fuel, distributing it. It also doesn't take account of how much energy you need for one car versus another, driving style, etc. And it ignores the construction cost of the car. And it assumes a 100% coal grid.

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11

One thing I haven't really seen analyzed is the marginal carbon cost of a kWh. When you plug in the car, you are sucking out electricity, so the grid is going to get more supply. What is that supply coming from? Even in a grid with 95% coal, the marginal kWh might be coming from renewables. Or on the flip side, a grid with 95% renewables, the marginal kWh might be the kWh that keeps the coal plant from shutting down yet.

Given the coal to the power station is driven to a single source, whereas the petrol to the engine needs the car to go there and get filled, there's a bit of an imbalance there too.

And as I said earlier, CHP can get 60% ish efficiencies because they use the waste heat to, well, be heat rather than try and wastefully capture it for electrical generation.

in 2009 I compared a Honda Fit and a Prius. The Prius could not compete on price plus cost of ownership, and the emissions of the Fit were barely more than the Prius.

Electric does not yet make sense in CO.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-em…

The Union of Concerned Scientists says the breakeven is about 35mpg - any gas car that gets better mileage than that produces less emissions than an electric car that needs coal-fired electricity. I average 35-6 in the Fit. If the solar shingles promised by Elon Musk actually materialize, that would change my mind.

California Committee Explores Road Usage Charge In Place Of Gas Tax

In the long run, I'd guess something like this will have to happen.

Yeah, I don't think that's true in any sense. The production energy is little if any higher, and the most you could have said is that the return on the savings is untenable because of oil being so cheap in the USA and electric cars so much more expensive.

I don't see any place appropriate to post this, but Spencer, Christy, and Braswell have finally published: UAH Version 6 Global Satellite Temperature Products: Methodology and Results in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.

When asked why published in such an obscure journal Dr Spencer responded in full paranoid, tinfoil hat, black helicopter mode:

"Our first choice would be an AMS or AGU journal, but they have one or more gatekeepers who inevitably get involved in the review of papers with “Spencer” or “Christy” as authors.

I might remind you of the Climategate email passage “Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Trenberth also managed to get an editor to resign because Remote Sensing published one of my papers (which was never retracted though)…Trenberth apparently had some influence over that editor in the research realm.

Many of these journals are now tightly controlled to prop up the IPCC narrative.

APJAS is a high-quality journal."

Nothing to do with the fact he had already self-published on his website 2 years ago.

See, if that email were even remotely true, then they'd be able to gain political capital by TRYING to get it in review and shitcanned. But by avoiding that test, they're admitting that their claim is a load of bullshit.

did the car mags say Prius was worse than cars like Forester? I always thought they did comparisons with high mileage cars like the Jetta or compacts. Usually a 10k price drop for a high mileage car which is hard to make up.

India's high power loss may really be people just tapping the power lines.

Regarding all the discussions above about loss, please keep in mind that the study at hand here, as in formal as it is, naturally includes all of that.

Also consider that a shift to a green energy system reduces transmission costs significantly. No one is calculating that in. In an economy that favors electricity over exploding liquids, more electricity will be produced, and if that is all clean energy, it will have a lower annual transmission rate.

Also, increasing the total amount of battery out there is helpful. I just heard about a study showing that if Minnesota switches all the school buses over to electric, that would provide a large amount of battery storage during the summer when a lot of the busses normally sit unused. The buses can be used to store surplus sun and wind. The movement of sun and wind power across short to medium time scales by using the bus would have the net effect of building a carbon-free 300 megawatt power plant.

Re. Fuel Taxes. David Roberts had a post about this recently: http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/2/24/14707528/electric-vehic…

Here in Missouri I pay $75/yr for a "Special Fuel Decal" which is supposed to compensate for the fuel taxes I'm avoiding by not buying gas. In my comparison between my EV and my ICE car I was able to determine how many gallons of gas I avoided using each month. With those numbers, and the avg. cost of gas/month, I could calculate how much fuel tax I would have paid if I had used my ICE car rather than my EV. It turns out that Missouri is getting more money from my "Special Fuel Decal" than they would have if I had bought gas...about $26 more. The Feds are getting screwed though...losing out on $52 of road-building money.

I have no problem with paying my "fair share" but I wish the Feds were getting some of my "decal" money.

I have a handy-dandy chart of all this here: https://skepticalscience.com/How-Green-is-My-EV.html#120970

Greg Laden, why would transmission losses be lower with renewable energy? Aren't they using the same lines?

They wouldn't if they're from the same place.

But you can stick a solar panel on your roof and they're better at scaling down than the fossil fuel producers with similar efficiencies.

Tell me, do you not bother to engage your brain and even TRY to answer your question before you ask it? Try not being so lazy.

There's also the fact that renewables load follow, meaning less off-peak loss and less standby running storage.

Now you've given two reasons. I asked about why Greg Laden says it. I'm not claiming it's wrong, but am looking to see his reason which may be a third thing altogether, and I am certain is not a guess just to win points in an argument.

Oh, Boo hoo. You asked for a reason and I gave you two! How will you EVER cope?!?!?!?

Fing snowflake.

Greg,

What you seem to have missed is that a pure electric vehicle has far lower maintenance costs and the drivetrain will last a very very long time.

If you go to an antique shop and find an electric motor from the beginning of the 20th century, it will work just fine.

(There are lots of silly arguments here on the matter of efficiencies; I know it is hopeless to try to correct them, but you guys should do some more research.)

Zebra, good point. Question, how are repair costs on a Prius? What I have read is that IF you have to do repairs on a Tesla, you are paying a lot.

Only because it's a premium car and electric, therefore the naysayers will say any old shit to diss it.

Electric cars are simpler, more robust, and cheaper to fix.

Garages will demand what the market will bear, which means the actual cost is merely a floor for the pricing.

MikeN,

I don't know if anyone here has ever worked on cars, or maybe even lifted the hood on one, so it is understandable if this isn't obvious. But electrifiying the passenger car sector would have an enormous economic impact, and that's very bad news for a lot of people.

Make a list:

No Jiffy Lube.
No Midas Muffler
No Brake Shops
No Transmission Shops
No Tuneups
No pollution control sensors for the dealer to replace.
No hoses and air filter housings and all the stuff that keeps the supply chains in business.

And on and on. There's a reason dealers are desperately trying to block Tesla from selling, state by state, and do their best to slow their own sales of even hybrids. They will join the buggy whip-boys in obsolescence if we go all electric.

And then, it's not just Exxon-Mobil, but all the gas station operators.

The people who will benefit the most, strangely enough, are poor people. They will be able to buy reliable very-used cars, because what I said about the lifetime of the drivetrains is (barring intentional failure rate designs) not an exaggeration. Electric motors have one moving part. As long as the chassis holds up, they will keep on going, perhaps with a simple battery swap.

Not quite that bad; there are some misconceptions in that list:

More than just the engine needs lubrication (though much less frequently),
Electric cars still have brakes (though they last longer),
They still have gearing between the motor & wheels that replaces a traditional transmission,
They still have things like cabin filters that need periodic service/replacement...

It's more a matter of degree & frequency. It's not as though electric cars free the owner from all maintenance and will put the entire automobile service industry out of business.

It will have the effect of reducing demand and will cause a retraction of service outlets. And that won't happen all at once either.

Nevertheless, the key point is valid: the gradual replacement of ICE-powered cars for all-electrics will be disruptive, and will require changes across the industry.

But consider these current businesses to be a drain on human productivity that ties up talent and labor that can be/needs to be applied to other pressing needs in society.

So it's disruptive, but not necessarily a bad thing, overall.

Brainstorms,

Of course it will not happen all at once, particularly because it will be fought tooth and nail, just like renewables. I'm the last person to say it is a "bad thing".

But there isn't a "misconception" in what I said about the magnitude of the change.

There is an enormous difference between a single-ratio gear connecting motor and wheel and a modern automatic transmission.

Remember, it isn't just servicing but manufacturing that will shrink radically.

The ultimate design is one motor for each wheel. The whole assembly, including what you think of as a "transmission", will easily be swapped out if repair is necessary. Really, look under the hood of a car-- all that incredible kluge you see will be gone.

And again-- if you build them well, there will be less need for replacement vehicles, because if you maintain the chassis and suspension, they will just keep running.

Well, I just wasn't aware that the majority of labor, majority of cost, and majority of servicing needs for automobiles was all in the internal combustion engine and transmission.

Glad to know that nothing else on cars needs design, or manufacturing, or servicing. Who knew?

This will be a bona fide disaster! Luddites unite!

Brainstorms,

Dude, calm down.

From an engineering viewpoint, yes, we can build cars that will last a very long time, with very little servicing, if you eliminate the ICE.

Have you ever pulled an engine and rebuilt it? I have; it is absurdly labor and equipment intensive.

Do what I said-- look in the engine compartment, and tell me what will still be there if we develop modular, commodity, motors for each wheel.

Air conditioning. There will be some kind of cooling system to harvest heat in the winter. Steering, although maybe even that will be distributed and automated.

Mechanical brakes will be emergency-only. They will have to be programmed to operate once in a while so they don't freeze up from rust.

You don't understand how much "design" is driven by the need to fit things around the ICE, and deal with heat and fluids and gases.

You don't understand that even the suspension is way more complicated than it needs to be because of uneven weight distribution. Even with a hybrid, which I drive, the weight of the battery strategically located improves handling.

What are you worried about-- cupholder design and maintenance?

"Glad to know that nothing else on cars needs design, or manufacturing, or servicing. Who knew?"

Only one thing has to rotate at thousands of RPM for hours at a time. Unless you buy cars with REALLY overclocked windscreen wipers.... And even then, the wipers won't have to deal with nearby explosions, high heat and carbon deposits in the motor bearings.

Perhaps we can reduce the amount of servicing that cars require. But if we could, then we could do much of that now.. yet one might argue that we don't - intentionally. Perhaps. With electric cars, one might then conclude that there will be more pressure to factor in such "planned obsolescence", rather than eliminating the amount that exists now. Certainly if the industry gets upset by losing the (large) amount of labor for ICE servicing, they'll be all the more upset if we take away most of what remains with electric cars. Do we want to create greater enmity or encourage adoption?

I have pulled engines and rebuilt them. Yes, it's a lot of work. And expensive.

Look again: I'm not at all disagreeing with you about the disruption and the reduction of that industrial segment. I'm saying it won't be quite as severe as you're making it out to be. If it were, Tesla would be on Easy Street and be making money hand-over-fist due to high sales prices and next-to-no expenses. It still requires a design team, engineering, production staff, and service departments and staff to make the whole electric car thing a reality. And it will be disruptive. Jobs will change, jobs will go away, jobs will shift. And new jobs will come into being.

And don't begin to tell me what l know and don't know. You don't know my background or expertise. Time for you to chill, bubba.

"Perhaps we can reduce the amount of servicing that cars require."

WTF? "Perhaps"???? No ICE, big reduction in what needs servicing.

"yet one might argue that we don’t – intentionally"

Yeah, but we could be forced by gunpoint to buy ICE engined cars too. We could be forced to agree to an EULA that says our house electricity can't be used for our electric cars. Or the garage will hire hit men to kill you on sight if you drive about in an electric car.

The states could pass legislation specifically to ensure that you can't buy electric cars (hang on, they're really doing that one!).

None of it will actually make the electric car equally as labour intensive as the ICE car or need as much maintenance.

"Do we want to create greater enmity or encourage adoption?"

Hey, they're pissed off that you're even letting the electric car exist, so why not save some more enmity and just scrap the entire idea and just go with dirty coal and allow fracking. Then without all that enmity from them, they'll just demand you give them everything else they want. What? You thought that by avoiding something they hate that they'll somehow reciprocate? You got a lot of learning to do, son....

" If it were, Tesla would be on Easy Street"
They are, but they still have to labour under a republican government so insistent on getting out of the way of big business that they're deliberately screwing them over to ensure that they don't have to get in the way of the car dealerships.

" and be making money hand-over-fist"

They are, pretty much. Quite profitable. See their last report.

" due to high sales prices and next-to-no expenses."

Well, they've not been running this line long enough to have been expected to "save" in maintenance, they're still investing heavily in new product lines and new production facilities, all of which won't have gone cost-positive yet, but they're spending a lot of money because they're making money hand-over-fist. And re-investing it to grow the company.

Rhetorical questions are.. wait for it.. rhetorical.

We're all still, fundamentally, in agreement. The industry, the government, the utilities providers will all adapt. Over time. But not happily.

Hardly the first time in history something like this has happened...

And stupid rhetoric is stupid, in a non-rhetorical sense. Weird that, innit.

"But not happily."

They weren't happy when seatbelts were mandated. They weren't happy when VHS was a common home sale. They weren't happy when there was digital music online.

For all the bullshit they give about being "the entrepreneurs", and how they, taking all the risk, deserve bigger profits, do not in any sense, shape or form, take kindly to there being ANY risk, for ANY change. Even if it works out better (e.g. the tide rises, lifting their boat and everyone else, though a lot of capitalist "thinking" is that if someone else gets an "undeserved" boat-lift, then this is a calumny and stealing, and should therefore be scrapped for the lower tide level remaining), they will be unhappy.

And if we avoid making them unhappy because it would be making them angry, they would do nothing different. And STILL demand we do something else.

"Hardly the first time in history something like this has happened" Indeed not. And that's why “Do we want to create greater enmity or encourage adoption?” is a proven load of codswallop for policy. Because when given in to, they've just demanded more and been angry, and when not given in to, and forced to comply, it's worked out that their alarmism and doom mongering was a load of bollocks, and even ended well for them.

Why do brakes require less servicing for an electric car?

Because they don't use friction brakes, except at low speed, they use regenerative braking, which siphons off power back into the battery, rather than dissipating it in heat in asbestos brake pads.

You really aren't smart enough to think of ANY answer for your questions before you ask them, aren't you, "mike".

MikeN,

As you probably figured out, Wow and Brainstorms like to argue even if there isn't anything to argue about.

Anyway, you can make an electric motor stop and reverse itself with electronic controls, so if the system is reliable, you wouldn't need mechanical brakes at all. The bonus, as wow said, is that the kinetic energy of the car can be turned back into electricity to recharge the battery. That's how hybrids improve gas mileage.

Wow, really, I think what I said earlier is true: Lots of people these days have never even driven a car, never even opened the hood if they have, and only care about good "signal" so they can text while driving.

Most people have never driven a manual transmission, and certainly haven't had to double-clutch downshift when the brakes fail, or just used the engine to slow down in regular driving. So, converting the kinetic energy is not intuitively obvious.

Just sayin', give the guy a break. Asking questions to learn something is not the same as being a Denialist troll trying to cause trouble.

zebra, I don't see how "Lots of people these days have never even driven a car," is even relevant. I spent 20+ years not driving after passing my test. But even before I thought of taking driving lessons, I knew about engine braking (which is a way to reduce the loss of power in an ICE when stopping), and I knew about electric brakes because electric diesel locomotives use it. Because ordinary brakes cannot handle the load of stopping a modern fast commuter train.

I really don't see how your point, true or not, is relevant.

"Mike" has twice asked presumably rhetorical questions of others here because he "thinks" that he;'s found a "gotcha" and a single thought about it before he opens his dumbass browser and starts typing would

a) leave him looking less of a moron
b) let the discussion progress without useless-ass questions pretending there's an issue without going to the effort of putting any effort into making a case

But without having a new arsehole ripped for him in public, there's no chance he will consider for even a second checking if his "gotcha" was fucking stupid and refrain.

See

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

Just asking questions (JAQ-ing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent — rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.

"Asking questions to learn something is not the same as being a Denialist troll trying to cause trouble."

It doesn't take much reading of mikeN's comments to realize he's never asked anything resembling an honest question in his life.

You Brits are a tough crowd.

I think MikeN's questions and opinions are just fine and have no reason to question his honesty from what he has posted.

There is opinion.

There is being wrong.

And then there is lying.

Here is a test.

I think ECS is 1.6C.

Am I giving an opinion?

Am I wrong?

Am I lying?

If you tell me I am wrong and I refuse to change my mind - can you then say I am lying?

Not unless you can read my mind.

You guys mix up opinion, being wrong and lying pretty regularly.

I find it amusing.

"Science" is not like law or politics.

It is not amenable to "opinions". They're meaningless.

Science is like mathematics. You must demonstrate/prove your position.

Pushing self-serving "opinions" regarding scientific results, especially when all this has been pointed out to you, reveals DISHONESTY.

Nature does not care about your petroleum stock investments, nor will it change to suit them. You can't change reality just because it's financially inconvenient for you.

Manipulating other people as an alternative is DISHONEST.

I think ECS is 1.6C.

Am I giving an opinion?

Am I wrong?

Am I lying?

Yes

Yes because you've had enough explanations to convince anyone who isn't being willfully dishonest.

And now you are just trolling. Piss off.

mikeN, the question is no longer whether you do or do not lie, the question is how you can lie so brazenly and expect people to believe it is simply a mistaken opinion and not a lie made simply to get a response.

and of course, #57 goes to rickA, not mikeN.

RickA has told us multiple times why he lies (beyond being trained at it in lawyer school):

He makes a large financial return on investments in fossil fuels and he wants to manipulate the public and policy makers so that his rate of return will remain high.

He does not care who gets hurt. He does not care what the truth is. He does not care about science. He's not interested in learning (beyond learning enough to put out semi-convincing bullshit).

He only cares about himself and will step on anyone and anything to make money.

You're wasting your time trying to educate him or correct him or convert him.

BBD is correct (it is an opinion).

We don't know if it is right or wrong yet - so I have to mark you wrong on your second answer.

I am not lying. This is what I actually believe. It doesn't matter how many times you have told me your opinion, that doesn't make my honestly held opinion a lie. So I have to mark you wrong on your third answer.

When science pronounces what ECS is, I could turn out to be wrong. Even then - my opinion of today is not a lie.

Still - one out of three isn't bad.

What I find interesting is that my opinion falls within the official range of 1.5C to 4.5C of the IPCC.

So I find good company for my opinion - since the entire IPCC edifice agrees that 1.6C is one possible value of ECS.

Why doesn't the IPCC update its range to eliminate 1.6C, if it is impossible for ECS to be that low?

Oh yeah - they did, but had to lower AR4 ECS lower limit from 2.0 back down to 1.5C in AR5.

The truth is we don't know what ECS is yet - but we are all entitled to our own opinion of what we think it is.

Why - I personally would even allow for an opinion lower or higher than the official range (say 1.4 or 4.6C).

Brainstorms - I never told you I lie - the rest you made up.

Ok, so RickA can say the things he says about "opinion" because he's basically a post truth kind of guy.

I tend to cut him a little slack and simply say that he is not being honest with himself in the largest possibe sense: that he's not very introspective. That can apply to whether or not he's self-aware enough to recognize that he's being dishonest.

It's easy enough to fool yourself, and that's exactly why we have science in the first place. It doesn't help that nature is not a social construct in the way that the law is, nor is it a nice tidy little box of knickknack production like engineering. It's messy, which intimidates and scares some people. Others are simply burdened by the false notion that humans and nature are distinct, and Nature's sole purpose is to be used by Mankind... que sera sera.

The thing is, RickA is smart enough to know better which, given his delight in rhetorical word games that don't go anywhere, is what indicates a lack of 'intellectual integrity'.

I'm not saying that he doesn't consciously lie, just that a lot of it is so much politely arranged bullstite and should probably be identified as such.

What I find interesting is that my opinion falls within the official range of 1.5C to 4.5C of the IPCC.

You've had it explained dozens of times: the IPCC AR5 range is a bork. It got distorted by a few late-breaking EBM papers that would not now be given the weight they had to be given at the time. The range is going back up to (at least ) 2- 4.5C next time around for sure.

1.6C is incompatible with palaeoclimate and with observations. It is obviously wrong. Insisting on it in the face of what you have been shown here dozens of times doesn't just make you dishonest, it also makes you an arsehole.

Happy now?

Then piss off.

" What I find interesting is that my opinion falls within the official range of 1.5C to 4.5C of the IPCC."

What I find interesting is that you still complain that the IPCC is wrong.

"We don’t know if it is right or wrong yet "

Yes we do, dick. We definitely know already if it's right or wrong today, right now, in this real world.

"When science pronounces what ECS is"

"science" has, dick.

" I could turn out to be wrong. "

You are, dick.

BBD #62:

Thank you for your prediction of the future.

Let us check back when AR6 is published and we will see if your prediction is correct (or not).

Wow #63:

Could you remind me of when I complained that the IPCC was wrong. Thanks.

Wow #64:

What a relief!

Pray tell - what is ECS then?

You must know that to know whether it is 1.6C or not.

And please give me the cite - so I can go read the wonderful news from its original source.

Thank you.

"Thank you for your prediction of the future."

It isn't, it's a measurement of the present, dick.

"Pray tell – what is ECS then?"

Well over 2.2C, because TCR is 2.2+C and we're still out of equilibrium, therefore not at ECS yet.

"You must know that to know whether it is 1.6C or not."

Yes, it is not 1.6C.

"And please give me the cite"

You have been told this at lest six times so far this past year, dick.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

"Could you remind me of when I complained that the IPCC was wrong."

Could you sealion someone else, retard?

How disappointing!

You don't know what ECS is.

You merely have an opinion on what you think it will turn out to be (same as me).

Wow - I have bad news for you.

TCR is not presently 2.2C or higher.

I know this because we are only 1C (or so) higher than pre-industrial.

1 is not 2.2 or higher.

(see I can do math).

I think you are actually saying that you project a TCR of 2.2C or higher based on your linear projection of what you think TCR is as of today.

Unfortunately, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

You will also need to wait for the future to unfold before you know what TCR is, once we hit 560 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Why, it is even possible that we will never hit 560 ppm and CO2 could actually start dropping before it ever hits 560 ppm.

Anything is possible.

Oh well. Until then I will simply have to curl up with AR5 and be comforted with the range of 1.5C to 4.5C for ECS - which is the same range as it was in 1991.

That can apply to whether or not he’s self-aware enough to recognize that he’s being dishonest.

Possibly. It's also the case that he claims to have a background in engineering, which means his math/stat background is most likely equivalent to the sophomore level of a math/stat major - not very strong, and all plug/chug "for this problem use this formula" classes. That puts anything complicated outside his grasp and, as is the case with the right wing today, if something can't be understood quickly it has to be wrong.

"How disappointing!

You don’t know what ECS is."

You asked whether it was 1.6C, dick. We know you are wrong.

"TCR is not presently 2.2C or higher."

Yes it is, dick.

"I know this because we are only 1C (or so) higher than pre-industrial."

We know it is because it's a little higher than 1C with half a doubling.

This is simple maths. Divide one number by one half.

"(see I can do math)."

You cannot.

"I think"

You do not, dick.

"based on your linear projection of what you think TCR is as of today."

No, we have what we have TCR is today, dick.

Remember your avoiding the claim about needing one whole square inch of valve opening to determine the pressure of your car tyres measured in pounds per square inch.

"You will also need to wait for the future to unfold before you know what TCR is"

No we do not, dick.

"Why, it is even possible that we will never hit 560 ppm"

That does not mean TCR is undefined, you retarded little shit eating moron.

"which is the same range as it was in 1991."

And under which you are most likely wrong, by about a 90 to one chance.

And under the actual reality, not models, you are absolutely wrong right now.

Dean,dick is not an engineer.

He does not comprehend how to measure pressure until you use a full square inch (or full square meter if you're working under SI units).

He clearly is not an engineer.

What was the temperature when it was 200ppm CO2, dick?

dean #71:

You are correct - my math/stat background is not very strong.

As an electrical engineer at the University of Minnesota Institute of Technology (back in the day) I only had to take six quarters of calculus (two full years). I made it through vector calculus (that was my sixth quarter of math). I only took one quarter of probability theory.

Fortunately for me - I don't actually have to do climate science.

I just read what others have done and decide whether I think it is correct or not.

Isn't that what all non-climate scientists do?

I know enough to think that linear regression is suspect for a non-linear system.

I know enough to doubt when a weak test is used for a very small signal and the error and noise in the system is very high.

I know enough to know that what we don't know about the climate is still a lot.

I know enough to know we have to wait to see how predictions pan out.

I know enough to know no climate model has been validated.

I know enough to know that paleo evidence has larger error bars than instrument data.

But believe what you want.

That is your right.

Me - I am going to wait to see if we hit 560 ppm for CO2 in the atmosphere and then see what TCR and ECS turn out to be (at least we can then directly measure TCR and use it to estimate ECS).

I know enough to know that we will never reach equilibrium so ECS will be fought over even after we hit 560 ppm.

I know enough to know that the SLR at 560 ppm will also tell us a lot about the heat retained by the ocean - so that will be a useful data point also.

I await more data.

I hope for more nuclear power.

In the absence of more nuclear - I hope for an invention which produces non-carbon power, but which is cheaper than fossil fuel power generation.

I know enough to keep reading and keep an open mind.

I know enough to admit that even though I think ECS is at the low end of the range - I might be wrong.

But I know enough to know we don't know that yet.

MikeN, my doctorate is in statistics.i teach it. Your background doesn't give you the abilities you think it does.

"You are correct – my math/stat background is not very strong."

It is nonexistent.

"As an electrical engineer at the University of Minnesota Institute of Technology"

This is patently a lie. Unless you were the janitor.

"I know enough to know no climate model has been validated."

Among the many tings you claim to know but do not, you have ignorance and keep it close.

http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.ht…

"Me – I am going to wait to see if we hit 560 ppm for CO2 in the atmosphere and then see what TCR"

Proof your maths is nonexistent and your "knowledge" is actually ignorance. We already know TCR is above 2.2C. No more need to wait for 560ppm than it is necessary to wait for a year to find out what your salary is.

"But I know enough to know we don’t know that yet."

Again, this is not knowledge, it is ignorance. And you insist everyone else must be ignorant where you are.

Wow makes accusations that I am maliciously asking questions. Be pretty foolish when the answers are readily available. What type of 'gotcha' is there in asking about brakes in electric cars. I've heard of regenerative braking, but always assumed it was the same brakes but some means of recapturing the energy. Another question you started by agreeing with me on transmission losses then gave reasons for disagreement. A reasonable answer if you leave out the attacks. What sort of 'gotcha' is there in asking that?

"Wow makes accusations that I am maliciously asking questions"

And that is the GENEROUS interpretation "mike". We can go the other way if you prefer.

" Be pretty foolish when the answers are readily available. "

Yes "mike", it is.

" What type of ‘gotcha’ is there in asking about brakes in electric cars."

By the way you asked it, you retard.

"Another question you started by agreeing with me on transmission losses then gave reasons for disagreement"

Yes, because when you're making a valid comment I will accept the comment AS IT IS GIVEN, not prejudged based on who gave it.

But that does not mean I accept everything you say just because you said something one time that was sort of right.

"A reasonable answer if you leave out the attacks"

It is a reasonable answer even with the attacks. If you do not like the attacks, precious, you need to stop being a dumbass in public in an attempt to make people waste time dealing with your disingenuous bullshit.

>Wow and Brainstorms like to argue even if there isn’t anything to argue about.

The two are not similar. Brainstorms argues reasonably.

And he goes elsewhere when he's on the receiving side of Wow's indignant wrath.

Somewhere down the line, Wow confused "being correct" with "being right" and concluded there's no need or value in being sociable, charitable, empathetic, or polite.

Here comes Wow with his hammer to demonstrate that and beat it firmly into place... ::wince::

" concluded there’s no need or value in being sociable, charitable, empathetic, or polite."

Absolutely correct.

And there is still nothing that has shown it is worth anything other than as a "Welcome Mat" sign on your back.

However, unlike those who whine about tone, I don't insist that others must follow or even applaud my methods, they are free to choose their own.

But none of those whingers feel it necessary to be polite when it gets in the way of their crusade to force their opinion of how to discoursse on others.

Because I see polite as being the recognition that someone has the right to approach their life their way, and not calling someone a fucking moron when they're being a fucking moron is NOT polite. And I see the bitching about tone as IMpolite.

Therefore from my point of view, you have been excessively impolite, brainstorm. Hasn't stopped you though.

And your complaining won't stop me.

"Here comes Wow with his hammer to demonstrate that and beat it firmly into place"

Tell me, why do you make me a man?

Do you feel it harder to believe a woman is able to be as tough as a man?

Dean @ ~ 71

I agree.

Dean @ ~ 76

"Your background doesn’t give you the abilities you think it does."

Exactly. And both he and RickA really don't know what they don't know. They confuse their 'known unknowns' with their 'unknown unknowns'.

RickA

Fortunately for me – I don’t actually have to do climate science.

I just read what others have done and decide whether I think it is correct or not.

Isn’t that what all non-climate scientists do?

No. Some know how to learn, and are interested in doing so. For the rest, that is why some awareness of epistemology (how we know what we know) and metaliteracy help fill in the gaps.
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/02/scientific-meta-literacy/

And just for the record, consensus matters.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/24/hostility-towards-a-scient…
If you're going to place a bet, you're better off going with professionals who are well published in peer reviewed journals and who are well cited by other professionals in that field. It's just self-indulgent to throw in with some outlier, who frankly in some cases, should be recognized as questionable by anyone who has taken a basic college course in critical thinking.

If you had spent suffient time learning about how the field of climate science works, let alone about the science itself, you'd have a better idea of just how much expertice and understanding is involved in something like, say, the IPCC. And you'd be a little less sanguine about what is required to cover it (even second hand) to form an opinion of your own.

Otherwise you are just a postmodern maven of false balance and manipulative rhetoric adrift with no meaningful foundation.

I've known, and worked side-by-side with plenty of tough women. And I'm married to one now. Makes a great partner.

And I've seen plenty of insecure women who resort to bullying tactics to try to offset their perceived lower place on the pecking order, especially when dealing with men they see as being somehow superior.

Reminds me strongly of you, Wow. Wife keeps you on a short leash at home, does she?

Ah, so you think that the only way a woman can be tough is if they're insecure.

Is that why you post stupid assertions, because you must reduce everyone down to your intellectual level?

Note: no swear words were used. Isn't that totally polite?

"Polite" is just the bullshit someone has when they have nothing of substance to "win" on, so must try to win by changing the game.

Ah, so you think that the only way a woman can be tough is if they’re insecure..

Whut?

You mean "What?"?

You were asking that about only one unsubstantiated assertion about motives for statements made.

You need to fill in the request for the other blank assertion.

Do you feel it harder to believe a woman is able to be as tough as a man?

What is 'tough'?

1/ Raising six kids in a refugee camp

2/ Rarely losing a street fight

Why must tough be only one thing?

RickA #75

my math/stat background is not very strong.

That is very obvious by the way you keep going on about the need for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 before TCR can be calculated, although I suspect the cause is not the level of instruction you have received, but a lack of understanding of basic mathematical concepts.

Is that why you post stupid assertions, because you must reduce everyone down to your intellectual level?

Project much, do we?

And your comprehension skills are lacking. Again. Given that you have as much capacity for Theory of Mind as RickA has for climate science, we shouldn't be surprised.

>Tell me, why do you make me a man?
>
>Do you feel it harder to believe a woman is able to be as tough as a man?

There is a difference in variance in men and women. Women tend to be more average. So someone who behaves poorly or is retarded is more likely to be male.

MikeN has as bad a grasp of statistics as rickA.

"Project much, do we?"

Ah, so when you have no rebuttal to the accusation, you go the schoolyard "I am rubber, you are glue".

Pretty much what I'd expect from you. You know those racists who insist they're not because they have a black girl friend? You are just like that, with your "Oh, I have a wife who is strong". The racist thinks that having a friend of a different race makes them non-racist, but they merely know that particular person and KNOW they're just another human like them. But they STILL think the same racist shit about other people of that race they don't know.

Because they're still a racist.

And you remind me of that person, brainstorm.

Please note I still insulted you, despite not once using a swear word.

Makes "you used swear words" a fucking stupid metric to gauge insult, doesn't it you retard.

"MikeN has as bad a grasp of statistics as rickA."

Also fond of the nonsequitur.

"more average"???

They have less than the average body hair. Less than the average muscle mass. More than the average breast size, more than the average uterus.

And men start off female. It's quite some time into the pregnancy that the clitoral slit inverts for the human who will have the male genitals.

And some of those "more average" are due to social pressures that either do not require women to risk to get reward or do not reward women as well. Break those social constructs and women will have to exert themselves and risk more to gain social standing and then there could very easily be a negation of that assertion, even in the few places it applies.

But simplistic thinking is another thing "mick"/"dick" does.

"someone who behaves poorly or is retarded is more likely to be male"

"Mike" and dick both behave poorly and are patently retarded. And both male.

But a statistician would understand that this sample size has a variance as big as the sample size, therefore no conclusion can be made from this test of the assertion.

Engineers don't have to worry about "sample size" and variance. And a janitor at such a facility would pick up nothing on the subject, though would hear enough phrases to pass as an engineer on the internet.

Average is the average among women, not all people. More women will be closer to the mean of women than men to the mean of men.

Dean, assuming that
1) Wow is below average, well below average(of all people)
2) The trait for which he is below average is something that has a bell curve like distribution
3) For this trait, women tend to be more average(closer to average of women than men are to average of men)

then I think it follows that men will make up the vast majority of the bottom end of the distribution.

So women aren't people "mike"? Wow. That's some serious sexist bullshit right there.

But on average, a woman is the same as the average woman if you select only women to average.

By definition.

I take it, then you're an extremely subnormal man, "Mike".

"Average is the average among women, not all people. More women will be closer to the mean of women than men to the mean of men."

Good lord.

I know.

You really don't expect someone so uncomprehending of what they're saying, saying such complete and utter misogynistic bullshit on the internet out of nowhere, do you.

Especially since this was supposed to be how this not-average would be male....

Richard Simmons #91:

When CO2 has doubled to 560 ppm, we don't need to calculate TCR - we can measure it. Then use the measurement to verify whether various calculations for TCR are correct or not.

Wow says that "TCR is 2.2+C".

Now, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is - but I read Wow to be saying TCR is 2.2+C and not that it will be 2.2+C at some point in the future.

Now, if Wow said he calculated TCR to be more than 2.2+ - rather than saying TCR is more than 2.2+, than that would be different.

However, you use the word calculate and Wow uses the word "is" - which are quite different words with different meanings.

As I explained, I think Wow is wrong - whether he meant "is" or projected a future value.

RickA #104
Confirmation that you lack understanding of some basic mathematical concepts.

P.S. Why are so many people incapable of reading my name correctly?

>Why are so many people incapable of reading my name correctly?

Let me ponder on that.

>So women aren’t people “mike”?
Women is not the same as people, which is women and men. But of course you knew that and just wanted to 'opine'.

"When CO2 has doubled to 560 ppm"

We don't have to dick. And your insistence that we have to indicates the proof that you are not an engineer nor even educated.

It had to double to get to 400ppm.

And half a doubling can show you what TCR is just as well as a full doubling can. All you need to do is know how to multiply by two.

But you cannot.

Because you are an uneducated moron incapable of doing any more than counting fingers without recourse to asking someone at your workplace. Even another janitor.

">So women aren’t people “mike”?
Women is not the same as people"

So, "Yes" is your answer, "mike".

"Wow says that “TCR is 2.2+C”."

Because it is, Dick. Because it is.

Wow #107:

Wow says "All you need to do is know how to multiply by two."

Yes - but what are you multiplying by two?

Not 2.2C.

According to my math it must be 1.1C.

And I think you would agree that 1.1C IS not 2.2C.

So TCR is not 2.2, but according to you 1.1C times two.

Your times two is an assumption - in fact a linear assumption, which may not turn out to be correct.

It is a guess about the future.

Also, we do not know the global average temperature when CO2 was 200 ppm - so we cannot actually measure TCR from a doubling of CO2 from 200 to 400 ppm.

But we do know the global average temperature at 280 ppm, because we have an instrument record going back to that date - and we can measure the global average temperature in the year in which we hit 560 ppm and actually measure TCR.

Instead of your technique, which is to estimate it by multiplying by two.

My technique is to measure TCR.

Yours is to estimate it.

Quite different.

Richard Simons #105:

I apologise for getting your name wrong.

I simply forgot the correct spelling between the time I read your comment and reached the bottom of the thread.

I suspect I mixed you up with the famous Richard Simmons (and I am guessing about his spelling).

Anyway - I am very sorry.

"Yes – but what are you multiplying by two?"

1.1, dumbass.

I think you'll agree that 2 times 1.1 is 2.2.

"So TCR is not 2.2, but according to you 1.1C times two."

No, TCR is 2.2, but according to you 1.1 times two is not 2.2

"Your times two is an assumption"

No it isn't.

" which may not turn out to be correct."

No, it is correct. Maths. Ask someone who went to school what it is.

"It is a guess about the future."

No, it's a knowledge about today.

"Also, we do not know the global average temperature when CO2 was 200 ppm"

No, we do. Paleo records.

"so we cannot actually measure TCR from a doubling of CO2 from 200 to 400 ppm."

You can't because you're an uneducated moron. But those who went beyond kindergarden can.

"and actually measure TCR."

We don't have to wait, still. We know NOW you are wrong, dick.

"My technique is to measure TCR."

No your technique is not to know how to multiply.

"Yours is to estimate it."

No, mine is to measure it.

But, Greg, this sort of behaviour really does prove that dick here should be banned. They are wilfully ignorant and incomprehensibly dense, yet lie about all of this because they are the absolute dunning kruger. Retaining the ignorant bullshitter merely makes for more work undoing his pervasive and voluble ignorance.

And kim, because you remain 100% absolutely incomprehensibly silent about this aberrant stupidity and refusal to acknowledge anything from dick here while whining and bitching and moaning and complaining and berating everyone for saying things in a manner and style you want silenced proves that your complaints are completely null and void.

Same for all the morons whining about tone.

As long as you refuse to deal with content with MORE vehemence and disapproval, your complaints about TONE are vapid and meaningless.

Wow #112:

Let us remind readers of the definition of TCR.

Page 82 at the following link:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_…

". . . while TCR is defined as the annual mean GMST change at the time of CO2 doubling following a linear increase in CO2 forcing over a period of 70 years . . ."

CO2 doubling is referring to 560 ppm, a doubling from pre-industrial level at 280 ppm.

Following means we can measure it following the doubling.

Before the doubling, we are merely estimating it.

As proof, I offer the PDF (probability distribution function) which is offered for TCR.

There is no single measured value, because it is an estimate.

Tone is important and you should be careful what you wish for.

Greg could decide to ban you.

Dean,

I can only guess at where MikeN is coming from . But that's because instead of trying to engage in a conversation, you guys go into this silly argumentative mode, not to mention getting sucked in by RickA's childish word games.

Being a statistician, you know very well what MN is talking about. It may be grounded in some kind of strange sexist misinformation...again, who knows... but why not ask for where he gets this idea about the shape of the distribution?

Exploring the strange ideas that come from the alt-right or wherever it is is one of the reasons I still check in on various blog comment threads that otherwise tend to be repetitive.

Yo, MikeN, what studies are you talking about that show a different shape for the distribution curve for women? What characteristics are being measured?

"Let us remind readers of the definition of TCR."

Let us remember that you do not know what ECS or TCR means, but cherry pick definitions to suit your moment and insist on purely that claim that supports your current narrative, being 100% devoid of either honesty or sanity.

See, for example, this:

A measure requiring shorter integrations is the transient climate response (TCR) which is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty-year period centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year.
Climate sensitivity - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

But you do not understand what "per unit someghing" means, because you are not an engineer, not even schooled at an educational establishment, having failed the entrance exam of infants school.

"Being a statistician, you know very well what MN is talking about. "

Yes I do know. He's talking from a mixture of ignorance, bigotry, and dishonesty, as he always does.

"Why not ask what he thinks the shape of the distribution is?"
Irrelevant: when you use numbers incorrectly it matters not one whit whether things are skewed, symmetric, multi- or uni-model, discrete, continuous, or a mixture. They are happy in their ignorance and dishonesty, and facts are irrelevant.

We know TCR now because we can use deltaCO2 and deltaTemp to determine TCR (deltaCO2/deltaTemp) at any time period where deltaCO2 and/or deltaTemp is small enough that finite differential analysis is approximately equal to the instantaneous differential.

It does not, canonically, require you to wait until either deltaCO2 or deltaTemp are widely separated, because the approximation of a finite differential to continuous variable differential does not hold when the finite change is large.

A thing that ANY ENGINEER would know.

You, however, DO NOT know that.

Ergo, you are no engineer.

"“Being a statistician, you know very well what MN is talking about. ”

Yes I do know. "

And the point being "mike" doesn't know what he's talking about.

Dean,

I am not familiar with MikeN or have forgotten previous comments.

But what is the point of Greg posting about electric cars or any other topic if "lurkers", should they exist, can't read about the substance-- including the phony arguments of the usual suspects?

Pretty much my thinking, too.

Some leeway, because in any discussion, thoughts come up and without anywhere to expand or expound, the idea dies. Since this isn't a school lesson, side trips aren't antithetical to the purpose of the location, but it certainly could be decided that it should be. But absent that, some sideways discussion and divergences should be temporarily allowed and even encouraged. Just if it goes on too long either it should be closed or a thread to discuss THAT should be opened.

Off topic is a waste of the topic, but the gain of discussion on that topic outweighs the loss of on-topic discussion. Though the integrated loss will outweigh the gain, since the off topic remains off topic all the time and only gets a one time boost of being new.

Wow,

Glad you agree if that is what you are doing.

At the risk of setting you off on another rant, #117 is pretty confused...I'm just saying that in the interests of those hypothetical lurkers. Too many and/or.

Of course, this is an example of RickA getting people to respond to a junior-high word game with too complicated an explanation.

Really, we are using both a simple extrapolation and model results. Engineers do this all the time; you reach a decision based on multiple inputs and lines of reasoning, not one number.

"Glad you agree if that is what you are doing. "

You too, zebra.

This topic is about electric cars, not about off topic rambling. Or is the difference that you don't realise what you're doing?

I also wonder why people are so "glad" when reality is realised by someone who realises reality? Are you glad when down remains "toward the earth"? Are you glad that your legs are still attached to your butt? Are you glad you have typed?

What, precisely, makes you "glad" here?

Wow #115:

Perhaps you could explain your understanding of "centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year".

What do you understand "centered at CO2 doubling" to mean?

Do you understand that is an estimate of a future value, done using a simulation?

Do you understand CO2 doubling refers to 560 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Do you understand that we are not currently at 560 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Do you understand that it is possible we will never even hit 560 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Do you understand that we will be able to measure TCR when we hit 560 ppm and compare the measured value to the simulation estimate we grind out today?

I am very interested in your thoughts, since you brought up this other definition of TCR.

zebra #121:

I don't think Wow admits he is doing a simple extrapolation.

He actually believes that TCR, today, is 2.2+.

Not even understanding that TCR doesn't exist until a doubling of CO2 has occured.

Everything being done relative to TCR and ECS today is merely estimates of what it will turn out to be, using a variety of different techniques.

No climate scientist would ever say, today, that TCR is 2.2+.

I concede that some might say TCR will turn out to be 2.2+, once we have doubled CO2 to 560 ppm, although some would put the estimate much lower.

I don't think it is word games to distinguish between what is and what they think it will be - but everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

"Perhaps you could explain your understanding of “centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year”."

Oh, I definitely could, dick. It's to do with models. Not with experimental measure, though.

"I don’t think Wow admits he is doing a simple extrapolation."

Perhaps, then you can explain what you mean by "extrapolation" because under the definition of extrapolation here:

extrapolation
ɪkstrapəˈleɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: extrapolation; plural noun: extrapolations

the action of estimating or concluding something by assuming that existing trends will continue or a current method will remain applicable.
"sizes were estimated by extrapolation"
Mathematics
the extension of a graph, curve, or range of values by inferring unknown values from trends in the known data.

I am not doing an extrapolation.

Dick, do you not know how far you are walking (or running) until you have walked or run (or sprinted) for one full hour?

When drag cars do their quarter mile sprint, do you shout at the commentators that they cannot extrapolate the speed of the cars in miles per hour like that?

"...do you not know how FAST you are walking..."

Wow's definition of TCR discusses a 1% increase per year to get to the CO2 doubling.

My definition discusses 70 years.

If you punch up a financial calculator, and compute the future value of 280, increasing at 1% per year, for 70 years, you get to 561.89 in the 70th year.

In other words, to get to the CO2 doubling in the simulation WOW is discussing, takes 70 years, which ties back to my IPCC definition.

So they are saying the same thing - it is just that Wow's definition doesn't define the time period to get to CO2 doubling, while my cited definition does (70 years to double assuming 1% increase compounded annually).

Just thought I would throw that out for Wow's consideration.

Someone claims to be an engineer. Doesn't know how you calculate velocity...

"Wow’s definition"

Not mine, dick.

"My definition"

Is wrong.

We can calculate TCR now. We have. You are wrong. You were wrong last year when you claimed it, you were wrong the year before when you claimed it, and you're wrong still today.

Wow #126:

Correct.

Because the time it takes you to run 26.2 miles is not necessarily 26.2 times the time it takes you to run the first mile.

Your two times is a linear extrapolation.

We don't know the relationship is linear (in fact we know it is not linear, but logarithmic).

More importantly, after one runs one mile in a time of 5 minutes, one doesn't say my time to run 26.2 miles is 131 minutes.

One says something like, assuming I run each mile in 5 minutes, as I ran the first mile, I will complete the marathon in 131 minutes.

Think about this for a minute and I think you will agree.

"Because the time it takes you to run 26.2 miles is not necessarily 26.2 times the time it takes you to run the first mile."

I did not ask how long it took you to run 26.2 miles you moronic retard. I asked you do you have to run a full hour to find out how fast you run.

"Your two times is a linear extrapolation."

Incorrect you mouth breathing shit eating turdbrain. It is a calculation. Actually educated people know how to do them. They were taught to us many years ago in school.

"We don’t know the relationship is linear "

Irrelevant you ignorant blowhard. We know TCR now.

"More importantly, after one runs one mile in a time of 5 minutes"

You believe that you cannot claim how fast you are running t do that. Yet this sort of calculation is part of the school maths class for anyone over the age of 8. Indicating AT THE VERY LEAST you did not get school after year 4 or whatever.

"Think about this for a minute and I think you will agree."

Yes, I agree you're a moronic retard with no ability or schooling. Since you are a moronic retard with no ability or schooling, you will not think about this and refuse to accept this fact.

Wow - what you are doing is telling me how fast you ran a marathon after only running part of the marathon.

Dickhead, no, I am not. I am saying you can run at 12 miles per hour for 5 minutes.

Well not YOU, obviously. You probably can't get nurse to wheel you around that fast. But most active people can manage 12 miles per hour for 5 minutes.

Wow #134:

I will leave it to other readers to decide if that is in fact what you are saying in connection with TCR.

Wow

I'm still confused by what you are saying about TCR. Where does the 2.2C value come from again?

It's very high. The current estimates are around 1.6C - 1.8C at the point of doubling (560ppm).

CO2 has increased by 120ppm from the reference pre-industrial value of 280ppm to 400ppm.

There's been about 1C warming since pre-industrial period (by convention 1750CE). Most of it since 1950.

So the transient response to 120ppm CO2 is 1C or thereabouts.

The transient response is held to be approximately 60% of the equilibrium response (ECS):

1 is 60% of 1.7

Calculating the delta T at equilibrium using the method in Knutti & Hegerl (2008) and assuming ECS to be 3C per doubling of CO2:

ΔT = S ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))/ln2

ΔT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.5C at equilibrium

So observed transient warming is what we'd expect if ECS = about 3C.

It's also right in line with what you would expect if TCR at doubling is in the 1.6 - 1.8C range: 1.8 is 60% of 3.

RickA

Not even understanding that TCR doesn’t exist until a doubling of CO2 has occured.

That is the formalism. No, it does not mean we cannot estimate the transient response to a forcing change informally as we are doing here. Please take this squirrel outside and drown it. Thanks.

"I’m still confused by what you are saying about TCR. Where does the 2.2C value come from again?"

Still the same place as before.

1.1C after half a doubling. 2x1.1=2.2

Identical to the last time. Did you expect any massive change in how maths works in the last six months?

"So the transient response to 120ppm CO2 is 1C or thereabouts. "

More than that. Best estimate is 110% of the warming and it's warmed just over 1.0C, and very nearly, 1.1C.

"ΔT = S ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))/ln2"

That is still 100% identical to the last time you posted this. Since you do not expect your own maths to change in the interim period, why did you think that simpler maths, using just subtraction and multiplication would have?

Bernard J also posted his calculations and a reference to a paper doing the work.

Since maths is still the same even months later, you can go look at that again. That's the nice thing about the past: it stays happened.

Yes, dickhead, and we will see how you think it impossible to measure speeds in miles per hour if it only happens for 5 minutes.

From an ignoramus janitor who pretends to be an engineer on the internet. And doesn't have the first idea of finite differentials.

1.1C after half a doubling. 2×1.1=2.2

That's a linear extrapolation of a logarithmic forcing. It's incorrect, hence the high result. You need to use the correct method, eg. the one I keep posting.

Bernard J also posted his calculations and a reference to a paper doing the work.

He took this over to ATTPs and it didn't fly.

BBD #137 says "No, it does not mean we cannot estimate the transient response to a forcing change informally as we are doing here."

Believe me - I understand that.

You are calling it an estimate.

Wow is actually saying that is what it is.

I am merely trying to get Wow to understand the difference.

I would also point out that Wow says 1.1C is 1/2 a doubling.

However 1/2 a doubling puts CO2 at 420 ppm - which we have not reached yet.

Maybe Wow is extrapolating to 420 and then doubling it?

I cannot tell what Wow is doing because he doesn't explain it well enough.

One think I am sure of - it is not the same thing as computing speed from a distance and a time already completed.

But Wow doesn't appear to understand this.

"That’s a linear extrapolation of a logarithmic forcing. "

No, that's a conversion just like between "miles per hour" and "miles per hour" when one is measured over 1 hour and the other over 5 minutes.

TCR is, definitionally, the transient response. The derivative of a graph of CO2 vs Temperature. And the longer a delta you leave, the less accurate to the TCR your value is.

"He took this over to ATTPs and it didn’t fly."

Papers don't.

But Wow doesn’t appear to understand this.

You aren't in any position to be condescending RickA. You think ECS is 1.6C which is incompatible with palaeo evidence and so clearly incorrect, but you don't appear to understand this.

"Wow is actually saying that is what it is."

And I am correct and both you and BBD are incorrect. As has been mathematically shown.

"However 1/2 a doubling puts CO2 at 420 ppm – which we have not reached yet."

Yes, however, it's slightly less than 1.1C change so evens out. All taking this into account would make you (slightly) more wrong.

Oh dear, how mean of me. Being kind to a retard like yourself.

"I cannot tell what Wow is doing because he doesn’t explain it well enough."

No, you're just too much of an uneducated dumbass to understand. Just like you don't understand English or questions, and prefer to answer different ones to avoid showing how MUCH of a fucking moron you are.

But we do now know how much of a fucking idiot you are. You insist that unless something happens for one full hour, you cannot say how fast someone has gone in miles per hour.

Wow #143:

Your conversion is still just a linear extrapolation.

The transient response is not the derivative of a graph of CO2 vs temperature.

That is not correct.

Um, Wow, your estimate is incorrect for exactly the reasons provided - it is linear extrapolation but the forcing increase from rising CO2 is logarithmic. You cannot superimpose a linear extrapolation on a log curve and get the correct result.

BBD #145:

I am not being condescending.

Far from it - in fact I am bending over backwards not to be insulting or belittling.

I am simply pointing out that Wow is wrong.

And doesn't appear to understand that fact.

And I am correct and both you and BBD are incorrect

No, you are incorrect and Knutti and Hegerl who are credentialled experts are correct.

RickA

Both of you are in error. Let's see who has the integrity to admit it and adjust their position.

"Your conversion is still just a linear extrapolation. "

I am not extrapolating anything. I am calculating. Something that engineers as well as physicists (and other science-like professions) do so often they 100% comprehend that it is a calculation and not an extrapolation.

You, however, are an ignorant moron who cannot comprehend how pnwed you are.

Papers don’t.

Bernard didn't have a reference supporting his TCR calculation. IDK what you are talking about.

BBD #151:

The difference between Wow and me is that we don't know if I am wrong yet.

1.6C for ECS is within the PDF of the IPCC range for ECS values, which means that value is not inconsistent with palaeo evidence.

Just less likely to be the correct value.

However, less likely is not wrong.

We have to wait and see.

I am not extrapolating anything. I am calculating.

By linear extrapolation.

Come on, wow.

You, however, are an ignorant moron who cannot comprehend how pnwed you are.

So Knutti and Hegerl are ignorant morons who don't know how pwned they are? And every other climate scientist who (routinely) uses this standard method? Really?

"" And I am correct and both you and BBD are incorrect"

No, you are incorrect "

No I am not, BBD.

"and Knutti and Hegerl who are credentialled experts"

And talking about something else....

It's not Knutti and Hegerl who are wrong, just like it's not the IPCC is wrong when dickhead's definition if TCR refers to the IPCC.

In a model you can calculate TCR. But reality is not a model. I am talking about measurements right now today. Knutti and Hegerl use the result of a model that tells them the % of ECR that is viewed is TCR, and correcting measured warming under that model.

Something you do not seem to be able to comprehend, so obsessed you are with what others say and unconcerned with what they mean.

"By linear extrapolation. "

Nope. No extrapolation.

Are you extrapolating when you calculate that at $4/lb that a quarter pound of beans will cost you a dollar?

No.

I am not extrapolating at all.

1.6C for ECS is within the PDF of the IPCC range for ECS values, which means that value is not inconsistent with palaeo evidence.

No, that's wrong. The IPCC AR5 range isn't a single PDF, its a bodged together synthesis of lowball EBM results (now known to be too low) with everything else. The palaeo range is higher - 2.2 - 4.8C (PALAEOSENS Members, 2012 op cit, many times).

1.6C ECS is incompatible with known climate history, therefore it is too low.

"1.6C for ECS is within the PDF of the IPCC range for ECS values,"

And that value is wrong.

Just like you, dickhead.

And talking about something else….

No, they weren't. Read the reference if you doubt this.

"No, that’s wrong. The IPCC AR5 range isn’t a single PDF"

It's also only one version of it, so not even the IPCC say dick is right, he just cherry picks because he's a fuckwitted moron.

Moreover, that range is a result of combining many different models, some of which disagree with others (indeed most of them), so this is yet again the moronic retard cherry picking one model which is in diagreement with most other models, and insisting he's possibly right when actual measurement of actual reality indicates he is absolutely wrong.

"" And talking about something else…."

No, they weren’t. "

Yes they were. Try comprehension.

Your insistence, BBD, is no different from Dickhead here pointing to an ECS definition that says it is per doubling of CO2 and insisting he therefore is right, or pointing to the IPCC PDF and saying his 1.6C is in the range therefore he's right.

You point to Knutti et al and claim you are right.

Both of you are making the same error.

You do not comprehend what they're saying, you only read it. Then interpret it to fit your narrative.

Try comprehension.

Dick is too fucking stupid to be able to.

You are just blinded by presumption.

1.1C after half a doubling. 2×1.1=2.2

How is this not a linear extrapolation? Can anyone explain that to me?

Yes they were. Try comprehension.

Try reading the reference.

You are just blinded by presumption.

This is getting really tedious, Wow.

Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No...

Well I don't comprehend it, so somebody 'spain it to me.

(A little less tizzy and a little more attention to the lurkers please. Parse, if you hae a point.)

re 166. No.

Because you haven't said what you don't understand. "No" and "Yes" are quite simple words with no room for miscomprehension.

Unless you're Bill O'Rilley.

"Try reading the reference. "

I did.

Hence my conclusion.

"This is getting really tedious, Wow."

Not my fault, BBD.

"" 1.1C after half a doubling. 2×1.1=2.2"

How is this not a linear extrapolation?"

How is it one?

If a bullet is fired from a gun with a muzzle velocity of 1000m/s, it is not extrapolating to say it is travelling at a muzzle velocity of 1000m/s.

Extrapolating would be saying "And in 10 seconds time it would have gone 10km".

Likewise, I am saying that TCR is close to 2.2C because 1.1Cx2 half-doublings=2.2C per full doubling.

Well I don’t comprehend it, so somebody ‘spain it to me.

If you have a look at my #136, I set out in detail what I am doing. What wow is doing is this:

1.1C after half a doubling. 2×1.1=2.2

Which I think is simple linear extrapolation which won't work because the forcing change from increasing CO2 is logarithmic, not linear.

This is why wow's TCR estimate for 560ppm is quite a bit above the 'standard' one.

Likewise, I am saying that TCR is close to 2.2C because 1.1Cx2 half-doublings=2.2C per full doubling.

Wow, that *is* an extrapolation. You are projecting the relationship between dF and dT into the future and holding the relationship between the two to be linear.

Right, I've got to feed the family :-) Back later.

BBD,

"extrapolation"

See, you guys have been sucked in to the junior-high definition debate.

Why doesn't everyone just agree on a full-sentence description for each term and then proceed to explain what the point is they are trying to make? If you can't agree on the word, make up a new one to fit your full-sentence description.

I think of extrapolation applying to empirical data-- it is stated in the quote that we assume a linear increase in CO2, which is such.

There is a mathematical model (more than one, but for the sake of discussion...) that relates the CO2 to mean surface temperature.

If this relationship is manifested as a rate, then we are calculating the MST at the point in the future when that linear (extrapolated) increase in CO2 reaches 560 or whatever.

Now, it doesn't really matter if you like my definitions or not-- if you want to discuss substance, stop with the JHS word games and provide your own.

So far, RickA is winning because he has sidetracked any serious discussion, whether of electric cars or global warming.

"If you have a look at my #136, I set out in detail what I am doing. "

And I, apparently, know what you are doing far better than you do, BBD.

You are arguing that the current temperature trend is copacetic with the ECS of 3.0C per doubling, and the consequence ****FROM MODELS**** is that TCR is 1.6C.

*I* am arguing that we currently see the TCR for the half a doubling and this indicates that TCR is 2.2C per doubling CO2.

****YOU**** are seeing this as an extrapolation because

a) you desperately NEED me to be wrong
b) you insert from your own insistence (see a, above) a claim that by the time we reach 560ppm temperatures will have risen by 2.2C.

(a) is 100% your dumbass ego problem.

(b) is 100% your fiction, not mine.

Zebra, close, but no cigar.

You can calculate the instantaneous value from models (mathematical ones for "accuracy") or finite differences in either simulations (discrete time steps) or real life (you need two measurements at separate times to get a value for the rate of increase).

It's extrapolation to then say "this rate will continue", but I have not said so. Nor anything like that.

I have said that the TCR, rated as degrees rise per doubling of CO2, is 2.2C.

This is a calculation and not an extrapolation.

But you were a hell of a lot closer than either BBD or dickhead. Possibly by trying to be generic enough to be applied to any scenario.

"Wow, that *is* an extrapolation."

That is not. There is no projection there. It's 100% between now, today, so NOT the future, and the past, ALSO not the future.

It does not project. It merely approximates by finite differences, the TCR value, the rate of change of a value. Which is an instantaneous value, the integration of which gives a total change in the value over time.

It also doesn't project where CO2 will go.

Dickhead "tries" (badly) to save his asinine claim of TCR and ECS by insisting that since CO2 might not double, he could be right about TCR and ECS which is an asinine claim. You, however, buy into that narrative with your insistence that I am projecting.

Dickhead IS RIGHT that we might not double CO2. Hugely unlikely because fuckwits like himself insist that we don't have to and shouldn't. Where he remains utterly and incomprehendingly wrong is that not doubling CO2 doesn't have anything to do with his claim of TCR.

IF he'd claimed we would see less than 1.6C of warming, his claim that we might not double CO2 could be used as unlikely wish fulfillment, but it can in no way be used to support his ignorant and busted claim about TCR/ECS.

I am not projecting anything. I make no claim here of future changes in CO2.

But that does not change the FACT that by measurements of actual real life Dickhead is wrong with his claim of 1.2TCR and 1.6C ECS.

Indeed by actual measure dick may even be wrong on the face of the "We'll see 1.2C rise after CO2 has doubled" claim of his. It could quite possibly be over 1.2C change already, and we're nowhere near a doubling of CO2.

I make no claim of future TCR, nor claim of future CO2 concentrations.

Right here, right now, unextrapolated, TCR measured is about 2.2C per doubling of CO2.

Wow,

You just demonstrated my point perfectly. I said "I don't care if you agree with my definitions." I was illustrating what I call "giving a full-sentence definition".

It's what serious scientists and engineers do when embarking on a project. Then, they proceed to disagree, or not, about the actual thing they are discussing.

But you still want to argue about definitions.

Arguing about definitions is what people do when they don't have anything substantive to contribute.

If you didn't care, why did you post that?

Clearly you aren't being honest with at least yourself.

And can I only post responses to you if you said you cared to receive them? Or am I forbidden to have my say to you if you claim you do not care about anyone else's opinion?

What does it say of your opinion if you conceive it as valid to not care one whit for the opinions of others? And what point is it to give your definition when you believe it correct and valid to discard without thought or care anyone else's definitions? ESPECIALLY when it's the definition that they themselves used in their words?

Without knowing what I mean by a word, you consign yourself to a humpty dumpty conversation.

In which case, everyone here has been talking about electric cars. Because you must use definitions that make this so.

Therefore your complaint is 100% your fault. Just redefine the words to fit what you feel they should be saying and shut up.

Note, when you claimed you did not care, I stopped reading. You may have said something else to clarify what you meant, but, frankly, you don't seem to care.

Wow # 167

RickA lost all credibility a long time ago, as far as I'm concerned.

Wow: heavy on the rhetoric, evasive pedantry. And "Bill O'Rilley?" Gratuitous. You're starting to piss me off, though I'm trying to be sympathetic, because you obviously have some sort of weird comment addiction. Maybe you need an interention.

BBD is pretty much the most straightforward one here.

But your point is well taken, I tend to be elliptical which is made worse by the fact that I don't always read for the same content as everyone else. I apologize for that, it's a really bad habit.

What I was fishing for was a good parsing of Knutti and Hegerl's reference. Can you guess why? (No need to answer that.)

I was probably stepping on BBD's toes, but I estimated that the exchange would likely be diverted from what I was interested in.

OK?

"And “Bill O’Rilley?” Gratuitous. "

Actually I thought it quite amusing. "Never a miscommunication" call-back.

"evasive pedantry."

Evading what? Clear the shit out and cut to the chase. Evading what?

"You’re starting to piss me off"

Irrelevant.

"BBD is pretty much the most straightforward one here."

But he reads something and, quite a lot like dickhead here, gets a straightforward interpretation then does not and will not budge from it.

Hell, look at the calculation done.

"Assuming ECS of 3.0.... with TCS calculated to be 60% of ECS..."

We don't have equilibrium. This is 100% measured. OLR at TOA is still out of equilibrium with ISR at TOA.

But he insists that this is saying the same thing as "dCO2/dT" from two measured points giving TCR.

Because BBD has read, interpreted in a "straightforward" (and incorrect as far as his insistence on the paper is concerned) way and will not budge.

Exactly like dickhead here reads IPCC giving a range of 1.6-2.5, ergo he may still be right and no subsequent information can change that because it's not in that IPCC report.

"I tend to be elliptical which is made worse by the fact that I don’t always read for the same content as everyone else."

Don't worry about that. If you're terse you can miss out pertinent information, extraneous though it may be. Terse may get to the nub, cut out the crap, and get down to brass tacks, but 75% of communication is non verbal (discounting vocal as not verbal), therefore adding more in to replace that is still useful.

More thought may cut down on the effort expended for equal outcome and cut down on the effort required by others and as a courtesy you may wish to be less wordy and get to the point. Just remember that this is as a courtesy, not a requirement. And it takes a back seat to getting out what you think needs to be out.

Concentrate on that, and let the pro forma details look to themselves, unless you wish to expend effort to perfect your post.

"What I was fishing for was a good parsing of Knutti and Hegerl’s reference"

I could redownload it and cutnpste (if the PDF access allows it, if not I have to reconvert to a text only format or something), but the paper is about working what models tell us about what we should be seeing at this point in time and noting that they show consilience with the current data.

They are working on the form of MODEL CONFIRMATION. Is what we see compliant with what models tell us should be the case.

It can, for example, give some guess as to what the delay from TCR to ECS for a specific dCO2, which my method ignores, because it's not a model, only a measurement in the experiment.

My method (not mine, see Bernard's post if anyone can find it, to see an example of someone else who arrived at this possibly independently, maybe my reading it was forgotten but left its trace) includes all the known and unknown unknowns, the only remaining thing not accounted for is how much of the past is now equilibriated, or in other words how far out of equilibrium are we?

Knutti et al are talking about a different thing.

BBD's interpreting it and will not budge. And is too "straightforward" to revisit it. It's now embedded preconception.

Extrapolation definition:

The extension of a graph, curve, or range of values by inferring unknown values from trends in the known data.

Wow's statement:

1.1C after half a doubling. 2×1.1=2.2

Clearly, that is an extrapolation. And because it is linear and the increase in CO2 forcing is logarithmic, it is wrong.

It really isn't possible - or necessary - to explain this any more clearly.

BBD #158:

You are entitled to rule out anything below 2.2C for ECS, if you wish.

I will stick with the IPCC FAR, SAR, TAR and AR5 range of 1.5C to 4.5C and wait and see what TCR turns out to be, and then use it to estimate ECS.

Then we will have a number we can use to say who is right or wrong.

Until then, we are merely speculating and waiting (like the outcome of the Mann v. Steyn case).

Until then we don't know the answer, other than to say that ECS will likely be between 1.5C to 4.5C.

I think it is silly to rule out part of the official range - but that is merely my opinion.

We are all entitled to our opinions.

Knutti et al are talking about a different thing.

Funny, isn't it, how all the numbers in #136 fit together: the observed transient response about 60% of the best estimate ECS (modelled or palaeo, take your pick).

Methodology correct, results in line with mainstream science.

You are entitled to rule out anything below 2.2C for ECS, if you wish.

Palaeoclimate behaviour does the ruling out, not me. You can deny it, but it's still going to be there when you stop going la-la-la.

You don't understand how conservative the IPCC is, RickA, or how it got wrong-footed by a couple of EBM studies that wouldn't get the same weighting today.

We don’t have equilibrium. This is 100% measured. OLR at TOA is still out of equilibrium with ISR at TOA.

But he insists that this is saying the same thing as “dCO2/dT” from two measured points giving TCR.

This is gibberish.

"Extrapolation definition:

The extension of a graph, curve, or range of values by inferring unknown values from trends in the known data."

I know. I gave the exact same one above, dumdum.

" 1.1C after half a doubling. 2×1.1=2.2

Clearly, that is an extrapolation"

Clearly it is not. If it were a claim "after another half a doubling, we'd see another +1.1C" that WOULD be an extrapolation.

But you do not read any more than dickhead does, do you.

"I will stick with the IPCC FAR, SAR, TAR and AR5 range of 1.5C to 4.5C and wait and see what TCR turns out to be, and then use it to estimate ECS."

You remain wrong, dickhead.

"" Knutti et al are talking about a different thing."

Funny, isn’t it, how all the numbers in #136 fit together: "

No.

No more than it's funny how my figures fit together too. TCS within range. ECS average higher than 3.0.

It's funny how you think that your numbers are right because they're fairly close and my numbers are wrong despite being fairly close.

But you are well capable of doing a dickhead and reading what you want and discounting any contrary evidence, especially if it's based in reality, when it counts against your claims.

"This is gibberish."

I suppose to someone as dim as you it is. But to get it down to your level I may have to invent HTML markup to make a pop-up book appear.

BBD #185:

Perhaps AR5 got wrong-footed.

Or perhaps AR4 got wrong-footed.

Occam's razor says AR4 is the one most likely to be wrong (1 out of 5 instead of 4 out of 5).

But there is no way to know presently.

We have to wait.

Wow. FWIW, I wasn't interested in my parsing of Knutti et al, but in hearing you and BBD drill down on it a bit.

Enough about that: Carry on.

Occam’s razor says AR4 is the one most likely to be wrong (1 out of 5 instead of 4 out of 5).

That's bullshit, RickA, as in 'rhetoric designed to convince while simply ignoring the facts'. Which I have now explained to you several times.

Perhaps you are being dishonest again.

How anyone can expect to get away with bollocks like this leaves me speechless:

” 1.1C after half a doubling. 2×1.1=2.2

Clearly, that is an extrapolation”

Clearly it is not. If it were a claim “after another half a doubling, we’d see another +1.1C” that WOULD be an extrapolation.

But you do not read any more than dickhead does, do you.

Yes, read that again and try not to howl with laughter.

Wow, you are a sad, sad case.

Circulating back to my #54 - what diverted this thread was the accusation that MikeN was lying.

It is always a mistake to starting throwing around the "L" word in a thread.

People get to have an opinion - even if you disagree with it.

Sometimes people are wrong (like Wow in this thread).

It is really very very difficult to know whether someone is making an intentionally false statement, especially from just posts.

Even Wow, wrong as he is, probably believes he is correct.

I would never accuse Wow of lying - even though he is wrong.

Much better just to stick with saying someone is wrong (in your opinion).

I think this thread also demonstrates the undesirability of name-calling.

Does this thread reflect well on Wow - who likes to name call in most every post?

I think not.

But we are each entitled to our own opinion.

Speaking for myself - I will continue not to call names.

If I think someone is wrong I will say so - but not call them a liar because they refuse to change their mind to conform to my opinion.

And I will continue to wait for the future to unfold - rather than trying to force it to meet my preconception of what it will be.

People are free to continue calling me names.

It matters not to me, because it detracts from the name caller's credibility (in my opinion).

Lurkers will have to weigh in to let us know if I am right or wrong about that assertion.

Wow. FWIW, I wasn’t interested in my parsing of Knutti et al, but in hearing you and BBD drill down on it a bit.

It's all there at #136. I would only be repeating myself.

If TCR is about 60% of ECS then Wow estimates ECS to be ~3.6C per doubling. This is within the plausible range (that is, compatible with palaeoclimate behaviour) although a bit on the high side. The standard estimate for TCR is 1.6 - 1.8C, compared to Wow's 2.2C, which is on the high side.

And that's it: we differ over 0.6C, which puts us much closer together than the deeply silly RickA, who doesn't understand the methods, the IPCC process, the EBM stuff, palaeo evidence or anything much else as far as I can see.

It is always a mistake to starting throwing around the “L” word in a thread.

Not when there are deniers about pretending that they are acting in good faith.

BBD #197:

Denier - another word which diverts threads.

I am not denying that the earth has warmed.

I am not denying that the climate changes.

I merely think it doesn't change as much from our CO2 emissions as you do.

No one knows whether I am right or you are right or even whether the IPCC is right.

We have to wait, gather data, take measurements and in due course we will hopefully have enough information to look back and decide who was right - you or me.

I cannot say you are wrong.

And you cannot say I am wrong (of course you can say it, but you cannot prove it).

That is why it is a mistake to call me a denier.

It is just name calling.

It's clear rickA learned nothing from any math, science, or engineering courses he might have taken -- likely because he disagreed that problems could have solutions that meant something. In his view, any comment about the problem would be sufficient since everything is simply an opinion.

The real question is whether the intellectual and moral rot he demonstrates led to his libertarian "views", or whether the group of miscreants and vermin who identify as libertarians were the only group that would accept him.

I merely think it doesn’t change as much from our CO2 emissions as you do.

Thus denying a huge body of scientific evidence that makes an ECS as low as 1.6C vanishingly unlikely. So, you are by any reasonable definition, a denier.

We have to wait, gather data, take measurements and in due course we will hopefully have enough information to look back and decide who was right – you or me.

>1C transient response to 120ppm CO2 *already* provides enough information to push an ECS of 1.6C off the table. As you have been told over and over again. And you wonder why people think you are fundamentally dishonest...

BBD @ ~ 196
Thanks.

BBD #201:

Yes - but only if all of the temperature increase is due to CO2 emissions.

We don't know that.

It is possible that some natural variation is a portion of the warming.

It cannot be ruled out - which is why the ECS extends down to 1.5C.

You can pretend you know what the answer is - but the answer is not known today.

All we can do is wait and see what the answer turns out to be.

dean #199:

I have offered up my no regrets solution to the "problem" several times.

1. Generate as much energy as possible with nuclear power.
2. Invest in research to invent a non-carbon producing power source which is cheaper than fossil fuels are.
3. Invest in grid level storage - we don't really have a satisfactory solution to that problem - which is needed to overcome the problems with intermittent renewables. Pumped hydro is just not available everywhere (as far as I know).

Under 1 and/or 2 (if we can invent something) we can cut down on our CO2 emissions, whatever we think ECS or TCR will turn out to be.

With adequate 3, we can deploy more renewables without emitting so much carbon (for when it is dark and not windy).

What is your plan?

Yes – but only if all of the temperature increase is due to CO2 emissions.

We don’t know that.

Yes we do. It's all in AR5 which you seem happy to misrepresent, sorry, reference upthread when it suits you.

More dishonesty.

What is your plan?

To keep kicking your arse as long as I see it here.

It cannot be ruled out – which is why the ECS extends down to 1.5C.

Nope. Another fucking lie. Low ECS estimates have to do with the strength of net positive feedbacks.

I think I mentioned it before, but is there a term for a blog thread exploding at a late time? There were 105 posts from Mar 10-19, and had quieted down and moved to the second page, now in one day it doubles.

Dean, you started by saying my statistics was poor. Given the assumption I make about higher variance for women, then is the conclusion valid? What are you saying is poor, the statistics calculation, or the statistical assumptions I start with?

Zebra, different variance in intelligence between men and women is reported. The thread died down, but it was an issue that Lawrence Summers brought up as an explanation for fewer women in science and engineering(the high end of the distribution). I don't really know if that's the case for 'behaviour', just making a joke about Wow, but Dean said it was lousy statistics.

Listen to this carefully, RickA:

You cannot have high natural variability and low climate sensitivity at the same time. High nat var happens because the feedbacks to radiative perturbation of the system net positive and are fairly strong.

So they will amplify small changes in natural forcings, producing a significant degree of natural variability.

Those same feedbacks would *also* amplify radiative forcing from CO2. So it is physically impossible to have a climate system that is both relatively insensitive to CO2 forcing yet exhibits significant natural variability.

Read that as many times as are necessary for you to understand it.

If nat var accounted for a significant amount of the total modern warming, then the sensitivity to CO2 forcing is probably higher than currently estimated (>3C).

Meditate on this.

For the hypothetical lurkers, even though I don't think any rational person would be reading this nonsense:

I will indulge in a slight definition nitpick; RickA #204 is not offering a "plan" but a goal. A plan would tell us, for example, what government policies should be implemented to achieve the items listed.

But that aside, it is interesting in two ways.

The only justification economically for investing in nuclear plants would be if burning FF (coal, for example) did in fact lead to serious negative consequences. If you think the lower end of the projections/predictions for warming is the correct one, the logical approach is promoting wind and solar and conservation, because if it ends up it's OK to burn coal and gas, nuclear can't possibly compete. So, you would have sunk much less capital into "white elephant" electricity generation. You would have less consumption, and the solar panels and wind turbines would be useful for their lifetimes as auxiliary (e.g. peaking and charging) sources.

The other point, which is more along the lines of a "plan", and brings us back to the original topic, is that promoting electric cars, through government subsidies and regulation, would promote nuclear generation and provide large-scale storage capacity for renewables.

Duh.

Mike N,

Still looking for a specific reference.

It all depends on the test (e.g. IQ) you are talking about and how it has been adjusted (calibrated) historically.

If it is designed to yield a standard normal distribution for a particular group, then you can't rely on the outcome for some other group.

Perhaps Dean can expand on this.

"If it is designed to yield a standard normal distribution for a particular group, then you can’t rely on the outcome for some other group."

IQ test scores are transformed to fit a Gaussian with mean 100 (standard deviation differs from test to test).

The issue is that IQ tests don't reliably measure anything having to do with "intelligence", and only vaguely relate to innate abilities. They are best described as measuring how acclimated people are to a social system.

Comparing performance from one group to another, even on the same test, simply gives you an indication of how they score. It tells you nothing about (for example) how women will fare in a discipline compared to the performance of men in the same discipline.

Zebra, here's one, though it says the differences are not because of the statistics I cited that Dean says is junk(I think).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240323443_Sex_Differences_in_V…

On the other hand, another paper found a 5 point higher IQ for men and the same variance.

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx

This one tested at ages 7,11,16 and found higher variance and a higher mean for boys at 16 but lower at 7 and 11.
http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/PAID2011.pdf

Harvard had a debate over what Lawrence Summers said. The slides do not show the studies used, but 35/37 studies found higher male variance.
https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html

Comment in moderation due to 4 links,
35/37 studies found higher male variance.
https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html

"But there is no way to know presently."

There is.

Actual measurement records today.

"Yes, read that again and try not to howl with laughter. "

The only bit is the bit you were saying, bbd. But it's not THAT funny. Just expected.

Extrapolation is not a conversion of numbers. It's not an extrapolation to change 15 m/s to 30mph, despite one second being shorter than an hour. But in this you are 100% identical to dickhead here.

You are a lunatic idiot, BBD.

"I have offered up my no regrets solution to the “problem” several times."

But you insist there is no problem. Hence the scare quotes and the denial of reality and probabilities.

"Yes – but only if all of the temperature increase is due to CO2 emissions."

More than all the temperature increase is due to CO2 and feedbacks arising therefrom.

"Denier – another word which diverts threads."

No, it's an accurate description that deniers then divert threads because of being identified.

"If TCR is about 60% of ECS then Wow estimates ECS to be ~3.6C per doubling. "

But that 60% is not a fact, it's a result from model runs and analysis. It's somewhere around that. But it isn't exactly that.

Current best guess, including the paleo data, is 3.2. The difference could be just the caution of scientistis reducing the upper end from models or measurements in the past, or due to more of the past CO2 rise having been equalised. But somewhere 3.0-3.4 seems the peak of the distribution, with a longer upper tail and a truncated lower one.

The two figures are different because they work it out differently.

TCR is ~2.2C per doubling right now, today, based on the historical values.

Knutti is looking at this from the "other end", hence the back-calculation from ECS estimates. If TCR were 65-70 of ECS, he would calculate almost exactly the same value. If I picked a shorter period and took an average, I might possibly get a lower value. But the values calculated are correct. They are NOT extrapolations.

"Speaking for myself – I will continue not to call names."

Couldn't give a shit. If you were accurate or just honest, you could swear like a pissed off navy sailor and it would still be a massive improvement.

Being a lying deceitful arsehole is not countered by being well-mannered.

"The issue is that IQ tests don’t reliably measure anything having to do with “intelligence”, and only vaguely relate to innate abilities."

They tend to measure logic rather than intelligence, and the test is pretty much debunked as valid. It's *a* measure, but it's rather like measuring nose length. It can be done but it means bugger all.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-fl…

TCR is ~2.2C per doubling right now, today, based on the historical values.

Based on a *extrapolation* from historic values. Do you truly not get this??

This is you at #187:

If it were a claim “after another half a doubling, we’d see another +1.1C” that WOULD be an extrapolation.

So, you are extrapolating. You *make* that claim. Repeatedly.

Please own your own behaviour. This is a minor point of order, as we can both see that the actual numbers aren't very far apart and not the actual point of contention which always was correct methodology and calling an extrapolation an extrapolation.

zebra #210

the solar panels and wind turbines would be useful for their lifetimes as auxiliary (e.g. peaking and charging) sources

W&S are not dispatchable and can therefore never be used as peakers.

"Based on a *extrapolation* from historic values. Do you truly not get this??"

Bow can you get "extrapolation" FROM historical data TO HISTORICAL (just recent) data?????

What the fuck do you think you're thinking????

If the stock market rise is currently averaging about 11% per year, that is NOT an extrapolation. If polls indicate that Trump's popularity has fallen since his inauguration, that is NOT extrapolation.

TCR currently, right now, is 2.2C by measurement NOT EXTRAPOLATION.

FFS, you moronic tit, the ABSOLUTE BEST I can come up with is you're getting yourself fucking arse over tit confused between approximation and extrapolation merely because they're both not canonically accurate.

An extrapolation would be to take that 2.2. figure CALCULATED NOT EXTRAPOLATED and the EXTRAPOLATE THE RESULT OF IT CONTINUING.

By insisting that the 2.2 figure is an extrapolation because it is a measurement of the current rate approximated by finite difference you are 100% absolutely identical to dickhead's claim "We have to wait and see what TCR and ECS is!".

"W&S are not dispatchable"

Neither are coal or nukes. And you need fast small expensive and inefficient gas power to manage that.

You are, still, 100% moronically accepting a bullshit paper and bullshit claim because you idiotically found someone who said something and supported it with numbers that you like and will not or cannot test the claims yourself.

Bow can you get “extrapolation” FROM historical data TO HISTORICAL (just recent) data?????

What the fuck do you think you’re thinking????

I have to ask you the same.

Historical data = ~1.1C transient response (observed) to 120ppm

The ~2.2C TCR at 560ppm is an extrapolation.

TCR currently, right now, is 2.2C by measurement NOT EXTRAPOLATION.

No, that is completely wrong. Transient response, right now, by observation, is about 1.1C.

You need to rethink your position here.

Neither are coal or nukes.

Incorrect, just like the last time. Here is the same link I posted last time you made this mistake:

Source: Energy Education:

A dispatchable source of electricity refers to an electrical power system, such as a power plant, that can be turned on or off; in other words they can adjust their power output supplied to the electrical grid on demand.[2] Most conventional power sources such as coal or natural gas power plants are dispatchable in order to meet the always changing electricity demands of the population. In contrast, many renewable energy sources are intermittent and non-dispatchable, such as wind power or solar power which can only generate electricity while their energy flow is input on them.

These are standard definitions of technical terms used by the energy industry. They are what they are, not what you assert them to be.

"The ~2.2C TCR at 560ppm is an extrapolation. "

The ONLY one claiming that is YOU, dumbass.

I'm not.

I'm claiming TCR right now is 2.2C per CO2 doubling.

You are doing EXACTLY THE SAME as dickhead. But only when he does it do you notice how fucking idiotic it is.

AGAIN. If a car is travelling at 60mph it is NOT AN EXTRAPOLATION. It's its velocity. YOU DO NOT wait until it's gone a mile to see how fast it's going right now. If only because after a mile, it's no longer the right now you were asked what the fucking velocity of the car was.

YOU sit there and claim it has to double CO2 before we can get TCR.

YOU are just as fucking moronically wrong as dickhead.

At least you're not claiming to be an educated engineer. But that's one hell of a damnation with faint praise there. "Hey, you're dumber than a sack of spanners, but you've never claimed otherwise!"

The ONLY ones claiming that TCR is the increase of temperature as soon as CO2 gets to 560ppm are you and dickhead.

And you're both as fucking stupid as each other.

"YOU sit there and claim it has to double CO2 before we can get TCR."

Actually it's even more fucking ridiculous than that. You insist that TCR has to be the temperature change experienced when atmospheric CO2 doubles from 180ppm to 560ppm.

SHOW ME THE FUCKING DEFINITION THAT INSISTS THIS IS THE ONLY REGIME TCR IS POSSIBLE TO DEFINE FOR.

Because nowhere, NO WHERE in "per doubling CO2" does it say "from 180ppm to 560ppm".

You are, 100%, absolutely as fucking ignorant and stupid as dickhead here.

BBD,

You want to argue definitions, find some 8th graders.

Thermal plants cannot be "turned on and off", as has been explained many times, in order to match the load.

This language is just as much childish, manipulative, word-play as what RickA does.

Why not address the physics and engineering involved and let people decide how well each meets the application?

1. Thermal plants operate continuously because it would be extremely wasteful of fuel to allow them to cool down and then have to reheat the structure each day.

2. In addition, the expansion and contraction involved would rapidly degrade the structure and reduce operational life.

3. Nuclear plants have the additional problem of fuel isotope "contamination"; there is a very constrained time sequence in stopping and starting-- if you don't follow it, you get Chernobyl.

So thermal plants, other than specially designed (and expensive) peakers, operate (burn fuel) constantly, which is why you can buy electricity cheaper at night.

-A wind turbine can be feathered and held motionless if there is no demand, so you get no wear on the system.

-Solar panels are purely electrical systems, which means that if there is no current flowing, there is no degradation, other than whatever thermal effects are due to insolation.

Those are physical facts, not definitions.

For example, shitheads, when we get to 560ppm, what do we use then to answer "what will the response of the climate be if we increased it to 1120ppm?". Can't be TCR because both of you fucking idiots think it only applies between a doubling from 280ppm.

(NOTE: That should have been 280ppm earlier too just noticed I'm hitting 1 instead of 2 with the third finger)

So because you two asshats insist it is purely and solely defined as the change between 280 and 560ppm CO2, there needs to be a different name for what the climate does between 560ppm and 1120ppm. Because 1120 is not 560.

"" Neither are coal or nukes."

Incorrect,""

No, dumbass, you are wrong, again. See also zebra, who just went on longer because he still doesn't know how much of an unthinking retard you are on this specific issue. If "civil language, please" is of any use, their use of less intemperate language should change your mind. If yours doesn't, then either it's pointless to demand "civility" or with some people, specifically in this case, YOU, BBD, it doesn't fucking matter because you're against the idea of being wrong.

Again, just 100% like dickhead, above.

"A dispatchable source of electricity refers to an electrical power system, such as a power plant, that can be turned on or off;"

So solar and wind, then. You can turn wind on or off by engaging or disengaging the motor. You can turn solar on or off by putting a tarp over it.

Try turning on Fukishima or Hinkley C when it was down for nearly (or over now?) a year.

In the USA they issue timeouts for maintenance of their nuke plants during summer because it's during summer that many of those plants cannot run due to lack of cooling. And count that as not an outage because it's timed and arranged, therefore doesn't come off the availability figures for nukes, despite the nuke plants being unavailable.

One would suppose this is done because they do it for all the water-cooled power generation.

But wind and solar aren't water cooled and don't get arranged to be taken down for a month or two every year.

MikeN,

Excellent reference.

What I find fascinating is that the man's argument could be characterized as following the pattern he describes as "female" thinking, while the woman's position comports more with my (male, mathematically intuitive) nuanced thinking.

So, you've provided a reference to support the claim that for some characteristics, there is a higher variance in men than women. However, I don't think you can then generalize to any characteristic, which is what you appeared to be doing.

zebra

You want to argue definitions, find some 8th graders.

You want to pontificate about energy, get the terminology right.

-A wind turbine can be feathered and held motionless if there is no demand, so you get no wear on the system.

-Solar panels are purely electrical systems, which means that if there is no current flowing, there is no degradation, other than whatever thermal effects are due to insolation.

No wind = no electricity. No sun = no electricity. These factors are not in the control of the plant operators therefore W&SPV are not dispatchable.

I’m claiming TCR right now is 2.2C per CO2 doubling.

Then you are a fuckwit and this conversation has run its course.

There's a bit too much idiocy on this thread at the moment.

So because you two asshats insist it is purely and solely defined as the change between 280 and 560ppm CO2,

Learn. To. Read.

Me at # 137:

RickA

[RickA:] Not even understanding that TCR doesn’t exist until a doubling of CO2 has occured.

That is the formalism. No, it does not mean we cannot estimate the transient response to a forcing change informally as we are doing here. Please take this squirrel outside and drown it. Thanks.

Emphasis added for poor readers.

MikeN,

Just to clarify, I only read the "edge" debate and that's what I was referring to.

BBD,

What part of "definition debates are for dummies" don't you get?

Really, really, childish.

"No wind = no electricity. No sun = no electricity."

No coal=no electricity. No cooling = still no electricity. Broken = yet more no electricity.

" So because you two asshats insist it is purely and solely defined as the change between 280 and 560ppm CO2,

Learn. To. Read."

I. CAN. READ.

BBD, retarding away says:

“The ~2.2C TCR at 560ppm is an extrapolation. ”

Go check where you said that, moron.

YOU said it.

NOT me.

zebra

You haven't much of a clue what you are talking about. I *know* this because I do know what I am talking about and your errors are gratingly obvious. For example:

Thermal plants cannot be “turned on and off”, as has been explained many times, in order to match the load.

That would be 'childish, manipulative word-play', aka a strawman. Nobody said the plant has to be turned on or off, only that its output can be varied in response to demand.

You use this strawman as a launchpad for the claim that nuclear cannot load-follow. But it can:

Nuclear power plants in France and Germany operate in a load-following mode to help stabilise the electricity grid on a minute-by-minute basis, and to balance daily and weekly shifts in supply and demand. In Germany, load-following has become important in recent years with the introduction of intermittent sources of electricity generation (for example, wind).

Generally speaking there are four operating modes currently used by the nuclear power plants in France: base-load generation mode (constant power), primary and secondary frequency control (grid balancing), and load-following.

[etc]

Coal plant can be made much more flexible but there's less point in discussing coal as the trajectory now must be towards phaseout.

My advice to you at this point would be to stop calling me 'childish' etc and improve your topic knowledge until it's as good as you currently imagine it to be. Then, perhaps, we can continue productively.

"There’s a bit too much idiocy on this thread at the moment."

And you're borrowing it big time, and adding your own content of idiot fucking moron on top as a side dish.

"Then you are a fuckwit and this conversation has run its course."

Yeah, that fucking works. With retards like YOU, in your own "mind". Doesn't ACTUALLY work, fuckwit.

TCR right now is 2.2C. Delta ln(CO2%) =0.5 Delta T = 1.1C. TCR=2.2.

Just because you don't know what the hell you're talking about doesn't mean "you're a fuckwit" actually words, moron.

"Coal plant can be made much more flexible "

And wind doesn't need to be much more flexible. It follows demand like solar and generally ramps up when solar is lacking (and vice versa).

Coal plants need coal.

AND cooling.

Fail to supply and no electricity.

Not forgetting "Oh, they could be more flexible!" != "they are dispatchable!!!!".

Fucking idiot.

"Nobody said the plant has to be turned on or off,"

Lying fuckwit. To quote your quote:

“A dispatchable source of electricity refers to an electrical power system, such as a power plant, that can be turned on or off;”

Meanwhile, W & SPV aren't dispatchable because no wind = no electricity / no sun = no electricity. These factors are not in the control of the plant operators therefore W&SPV are not dispatchable.

That's what the term means. That is how it is used in the energy industry and that is how it will be used here.

"But it can:"

But it doesn't. As zebra knows because they read while you just crammed propaganda then stopped, running load following is still hellaciously slow, wastes a shitload of electricity (radioactive decay gotta radioactively decay, bro), poisons the fuel and quenches it early, damages the plant and reduces efficiency.

So it costs more, has to be specifically optimised (most of France's fleet DO NOT and CAN NO load follow, even at the slow rate of load follow that is the best a nuke can get), produces less to sell, and ends earlier than "normal".

Meanwhile you whine about how backup is needed and not costed in to estimates of how to go 100% renewable...

It's not well worded but you are guilty of selective quotation.

In full:

A dispatchable source of electricity refers to an electrical power system, such as a power plant, that can be turned on or off; in other words they can adjust their power output supplied to the electrical grid on demand.

Actual shutdown / start isn't necessary for dispatch (load following), only adjustable output.

Meanwhile, coal and nukes aren’t dispatchable because no fuel = no electricity and no cooling = no electricity.

"That’s what the term means"

No it does not. It means it can be changed on demand. Pretty much the only stuff like that is spinning (or hot) generation, hydro, flywheel and pressurised air, which last three are just stores of temporary use.

Meanwhile solar also includes solar thermal. No wind never happens any more often than nuke failure does, less even, and being load following there's less need for generation (see greenman's youtube video posts on the subject) so total generation capacity can be quite a lot lower and baseload generation itself reduced.

But it doesn’t. As zebra knows because they read while you just crammed propaganda then stopped, running load following is still hellaciously slow, wastes a shitload of electricity (radioactive decay gotta radioactively decay, bro), poisons the fuel and quenches it early, damages the plant and reduces efficiency.

More half-baked crap from wow.

Facts:

The economic consequences of load-following are mainly related to the reduction of the load factor. In the case of nuclear energy, fuel costs represent a small fraction of the electricity generating cost, especially compared to fossil sources. Thus, operating at higher load factors is profitable for nuclear power plants as they cannot make savings on fuel costs while not producing electricity. In France, the impact of load-following on the average unit capacity factor is sometimes estimated at about 1.2%.

Since most current nuclear power plants are designed with strong manoeuvrability capabilities (except for some very old NPPs), there is at most limited impact (within the design margins) of load-following on the acceleration of ageing of large equipment components. However, load-following does have some influence on the ageing of certain operational components (for example, valves), and thus one can expect an increase in maintenance costs. Moreover, for older plants some additional investment could be needed, especially in instrumentation and control, to become eligible for operation in load-following mode.

"It’s not well worded but you are guilty of selective quotation. "

IOW "Yes, I said that, but I didn't mean it, because it doesn't work my way".

"in other words they can adjust their power output supplied to the electrical grid on demand."

But why the hell is this a requirement for a power source THAT EXPENDS NO FUEL?????? Why would this be impossible to use because it couldn't be turned off to "save" the nonexistent fuel source?

It matters with coal gas oil and nukes because the fuel costs money. So if you burn it and waste it then you spent for it and gained nothing from it.

That claim there is NOTHING to do with dispatchability, only profitability maximisation.

Oh no, the sun shining on that field is being wasted, we have to turn the solar panel off so we can save the sun's energy!!!!

Fucking idiot.

And with wind, as zebra points out, you can cut out the mechanical wear by disconnecting the rotor from the induction motor and planing the blades to capture no energy from the wind.

If you happened to be so dipshit nuts that you worried that the wind farms were slowing down the wind....

"Facts:"

No, more bullshit from an idiot.

Facts:

https://www.ft.com/content/9efe8604-e7a9-11e5-a09b-1f8b0d268c39

Yeah, nukes are profitable.....

Meanwhile, W & SPV aren’t dispatchable because no wind = no electricity / no sun = no electricity. These factors are not in the control of the plant operators therefore W&SPV are not dispatchable.

“That’s what the term means”

No it does not. It means it can be changed on demand.

And W&SPV plant operators cannot guarantee that there will be *enough* spare capacity available to increase output at times of high demand.

No wind never happens any more often than nuke failure does,

You don't need no wind for wind plant to be unable to meet peaking demand. Just a little bit less than necessary will do it every time - and *that* happens with increasing frequency the more baseload and conventional load-following plant you remove from the grid.

And with wind, as zebra points out, you can cut out the mechanical wear by disconnecting the rotor from the induction motor and planing the blades to capture no energy from the wind.

That was just childish word-play on zebra's part, wow. The issue is with peaking demand and the requirement for spare capacity available for dispatch to meet it.

If it's dark (or cloudy, or winter) then SPV spare capacity can be non-existent. So SPV isn't classified as dispatchable because the plant operators don't control the diurnal cycle, clouds or the seasons. Same applies to wind - zebra tricksily reversed the problem rather than admitting that he was wrong. Since the plant operators can never guarantee that there will be enough wind to provide a dispatchable headroom for peaking demand, wind isn't dispatchable.

Why don't you email a wind farm operator of your choice and just ask them to confirm this? They will.

Meanwhile, coal and nukes aren’t dispatchable because no fuel = no electricity and no cooling = no electricity.These factors are not in the control of the plant operators therefore coal/oil/gas/nukes are not dispatchable.

Run out of gas? No electricity for you! It happened a few winters ago.

And nuke plant operators cannot guarantee that there will be *enough* spare capacity available to replace an unplanned outage of a nuke station, which, being unplanned, is outside the control of the operator.

"You don’t need no wind for wind plant to be unable to meet peaking demand."

And you don't need fuel in a nuke station for a nuke plant to be unable to meet peaking demand.

But you've made so much shit about how "no wind" is a "problem" for nuke retards like yourself that this newest claim is just backpedal city.

"Just a little bit less than necessary will do it every time "

Same with every power supply. Even if you go full retard and put 75% of your power in nukes, you have to buy a shitload of energy off others to cover the FACT that nuke plants supply less than necessary.

So nukes are not dispatchable.

"That was just childish word-play on zebra’s part"

And another "But I don't benefit from it, so it's a "childish word-play"" non-dodge.

No, the ONLY way being able to stop production of wind generation is to cut wear and tear on the mechanisms. No moving parts for solar PV means there's no mechanical wear and tear.

So EVEN IF you tried to dodge the fact that "oh, it has to be able to switch off and on on demand" is pertinent because you "lose" operating lifetime, wind covers it right there and it's irrelevant for solarPV.

But that you claim it "childish word play" merely cements the fact that you do not care what it means, you want to interpret it to mean that solar and wind (what happened to the rest???) are not dispatchable because of a blogroll by non-specialist scientists that comport with what you want (note it is WANT) to believe.

"Why don’t you email a wind farm operator "

I'm a major owner of a solar farm. It's a local project so "major" is just "high up in the ranking by investment into the build", there's a shedload of us chipping in.

I've talked to farmers and the're fucking ecstatic over wind farms. Not so hot for nuke power stations, though.

Instead of reading nuke fluffer PR jobs, go ask people working in Hinkley or used to work in Didcot and ask them.

"If it’s dark"

Demand is lowest.

" (or cloudy"

Is windier.

", or winter"

Is also windier.

BBD,

The point of the exercise for me is to have a different paradigm for the generation and utilization of electricity (and reduce CO2 production in the process.)

If you can't discuss the topic without invoking the existing paradigm, it demonstrates that you don't have a grasp of the engineering and economics and social framework in question, and/or are incapable of independent reasoning.

Feel free to re-read what I said at 210.

Also, since it's been a while since I discussed it here, my different paradigm:

Transmission of electricity is either public sector or very highly regulated private; and completely separate from generation. This "utility" entity facilitates direct transactions between generators and consumers with no favoritism.

If you wish to discuss without using terminology created by the existing monopolistic utilities to further their anti-competitive position, feel free.

zebra #263:

Very interesting paradigm.

The other day I was driving by a substation near my house and I was wondering about the feasability of burying a small modular nuclear reactor under every substation and hooking up the substation to get power from the small modular nuclear reactor.

I have done no calculations so I don't know if this is feasible - but I was thinking it would be great to size the reactor to provide all the power that the substation handles for a 30 year period of time.

At the end of 30 years, the "owner" of the reactor swaps out the old and puts in a new.

It would be buried pretty deep - say 50 feet or more, so security would have time to spot a bad guy trying to dig one up to try to break into it.

Perhaps we could use thorium in these reactors.

Anyway - if a substation region pooled together and formed a coop they could buy or lease the reactor and the price of electricity should be pretty stable for 30 years.

Would that fit into your paradigm?

Both the generation and distribution is kind of private in my scenario (if it is even feasible and not just unrealistic wishing).

RickA,

As usual, you aren't making any sense at all.

This is the exact opposite of what I said.

Just get some investors together, buy one of those "small modular nukes", and put it on an appropriate piece of land. Then offer to sell electricity to individuals or businesses at your fixed 30-year price.

The transmission lines will be government-owned and available for everyone to use, just like the roads.

The only power generation that is not able to do that is renewables, and not because of technical issues, but because government interference (even if its state level government) forbidding it.

But most places, renewables do just that. Rent or buy land (or FiT on your own roof) and pay for the generators to be built and then sell the product to the grid.

Unlike Mackay, who claims "oh, best scenario 10W/m^2", we get something averaging over 45W/m^2. Aye, this is the south-west, but it's also a hell of a lot higher than that load of hot air blew out.

The problem for the big generation companies is that solar and wind generate power at the most profitable times, and trade prices are depressed from the astoundingly high peak spot prices (ask your local Aluminium smelter about business rates at peak), where they use it to prop up profits.

'Course when they cherry pick the profitable postal routes and leave the nationwide coverage to the "inefficient" government postal services, they're happy as larry to pick up the profitable lines and depress the profits elsewhere, but they're not so chipper when their profits are being picked up by a newcomer.

"At the end of 30 years, the “owner” of the reactor swaps out the old and puts in a new."

And then the old one is sent to landfill or shipped off to "India" where it will be dumped because it;s even cheaper to just throw rubbish overboard at sea where nobody sees you than to get even slave wage labour to pick it apart and recycle....

Wow 266,

"most profitable times"

Yes. Obviously, a smallholder can undercut those prices if there is an actual free (competitive) market in operation.

I wouldn't worry about decommissioning Rick's "small modular reactor" since they don't exist at this point. Same problem...too much initial capital to allow for competitive pricing of the electricity.

Whereas, one can scale up wind and solar over time if you have some land and the market is good. Economies of scale are really increasing in manufacturing the components.

zebra #265:

Ok - that makes sense.

Do the utilities own the transmission lines in the USA now?

Or does the government already own them?

I had the impression (which could totally be wrong) that the utility companies own them.

They certainly repair them after storm damage.

That is why I though in my hypo both generation and distribution would be private.

If the lines are owned by the utilities (Xcel in my area) - how do you see the ownership being transferred to the government?

Wow #267:

I see the waste being recycled.

We certainly have a good track record of recycling nuclear reactors, don't we!

Wow #271:

No - we have not.

There is a lot of energy just being held at all the various nuclear plant sites in the USA, in casks and so forth - just waiting to be recycled.

I think we should be recycling all the waste in the USA - it just makes good economic sense.

So someday I predict we will.

zebra

Transmission of electricity is either public sector or very highly regulated private; and completely separate from generation. This “utility” entity facilitates direct transactions between generators and consumers with no favoritism.

No. Generation and supply are inseparably linked in realtime. You don't understand how grids work. They do not store electricity.

Therefore grid balancing (generation vs demand balance) must be *instantaneous*.

This is inimical to pick'n'mix paradigms which don't work IRL.

Sorry.

If you wish to discuss without using terminology created by the existing monopolistic utilities to further their anti-competitive position, feel free.

Oh do stop the bullshit. You made some basic errors. Own them. Don't try and pass the crap on to me.

Unlike Mackay, who claims “oh, best scenario 10W/m^2”, we get something averaging over 45W/m^2. Aye, this is the south-west, but it’s also a hell of a lot higher than that load of hot air blew out.

Plus:

I’m a major owner of a solar farm.

Great. Source the 45W/m^2 figure. I want to see evidence of it. Link to it now.

Otherwise, I will feel free to disbelieve you again.

The problem for the big generation companies is that solar and wind generate power at the most profitable times,

Not in the UK and N Europe. Solar peaks in summer early afternoon which is minimum annual demand. Maximum annual demand is winter evening.

Christ, don't you even know this?

RickA,

There are currently several different setups in the US, as I understand it.

It doesn't have to be government owned, as long as it is subject to rules similar to those for "common carriers", and the rules are strictly enforced. That means you have to treat all buyers and sellers equally, just like a UPS or a taxi service.

You charge for the "transportation" service only, and at established rates. So, a municipality could contract with a private company to do that, or do it itself. Like trash collection, for example.

This would of course have to be a federal regulation, since electricity moves across State boundaries.

The point is to promote competition so that the best match can be achieved between the generator and the consumer. You know, that "free market" thingie.

BBD,

You keep repeating this nonsensical thing about grids.

Electricity is bought and sold in real time all the time, with multiple suppliers and multiple consumers.

Separation between generation and ownership of transmission and distribution already exists in multiple locales.

The monopolistic paradigm has nothing to do with the physics of electricity; I think you have some strange misconception about the latter.

I just have no idea why you are talking about "storage"?

Electricity is bought and sold in real time all the time, with multiple suppliers and multiple consumers.

But not hundreds of thousands (millions?) of suppliers and tens of millions of consumers. In real time. Without supply shortfalls.

I just have no idea why you are talking about “storage”?

What happens when your chosen supplier cannot meet demand?

I'm still not clear what it is you are proposing, although I note that you've now conceded that in the US, federal regulation would be required to create the necessary grid interconnections to integrate a much enlarged renewables sector. IIRC, you weren't having that last time around.

To be clear about federal regulation and grid interconnection:

The point is to promote competition so that the best match can be achieved between the generator and the consumer. You know, that “free market” thingie.

You need a fully-interconnected national grid for this to work. Nothing like this currently exists in the UK, hence the need for federal regs and grid interconnection before that 'free market thingie' can begin to operate (not that it ever actually does, coz free markets don't exist, but whatever).

Meant "exists in the US".

We have a national grid in the UK.

BBD,

The requirement that grid operators act as common carriers requires federal regulation; it has nothing to do with physical interconnections. I said..."since electricity moves across State lines"...; how would that happen if there were no physical connections already?

Anyway, I still don't get what you are thinking here.

-The number of customers stays the same.
-There are more potential suppliers. Arguendo, let's just say people add rooftop solar; this is going on constantly in California, for example.
-If there are more suppliers, then wouldn't it be less likely for there to be a shortfall?

You really haven't made clear what exactly you think is going to happen because the numbers increase. In case you haven't noticed, we have very fast computers that engage in all kinds of near-instantaneous transactions in very very large quantities.

What's the problem??

I had an earlier comment with several links, and it is hung up in moderation.

We have a sort of national grid, which has several regions which are interconnected.

Electricity is bought and sold (even between regions) all the time in the United States.

See:

https://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/rto.asp

Anyway, I still don’t get what you are thinking here.

Okay, here are a couple of articles that hopefully clarify where I am coming from:

No brainer - rebuild the grid

California grid expansion

Upgrading US power grid for 21st century

There is *so much* to be done. And no room at all for handwaving.

RickA

Those links at #284 are must-reads for you. It is nothing like as simple as you think.

BBD #285:

I never said it was simple.

I simply pointed out that we do have an almost national grid, which has regions which are interconnected, and with third parties buying and selling electricity intraRTO and interRTO all the time.

It is not simple.

zebra:

It looks like the small modular nuclear reactors are slated to be available in 2023 in the USA and cost about $90/MWH (from my reading).

I am trying to calculate the cost of a 50 MW reactor for 30 years and get about 1.182 billion (90 * 50 * 24 * 365 * 30).

Assuming 500 homes per MW, that is a little over $1500 per year per home.

Say about $131 per month for the electric bill, per home.

A bit pricey.

But so very very green, which would be a selling point.

Maybe my math is wrong and it will be cheaper.

BBD,

Stop dodging the question.

What's the problem??

You are a fantasist who knows nothing about the real world issues and won't even read the links provided summarising them.

That's the problem.

it has nothing to do with physical interconnections.

It has *everything* to do with physical interconnections.

Ask a grid engineer.

I simply pointed out that we do have an almost national grid,

No, you don't. Just RTFRs and stop talking.

"But not hundreds of thousands (millions?) of suppliers and tens of millions of consumers"

Tens of millions of consumers, hell yes. Thousands of suppliers? Not far off right now, and no reason for it to limit to millions.

Net metering makes everyone with power generation a supplier.

Your biggest problem is you complain about wind and solar but the problems you complain about them exists for ALL power generation.

But you don't have a goddamned clue what's there but have stuck in your head what MUST BE right.

Again, 100% identical to dick.

"I think we should be recycling all the waste in the USA"

We don't know how. Not economically AND safely. And the VAST majority of that waste is stuff like clothes, piping, concrete,water, plastics, and so on that are just in a building.

"" The problem for the big generation companies is that solar and wind generate power at the most profitable times,"

Not in the UK and N Europe"

Yes in the UK and N Europe.

"Oh do stop the bullshit. You made some basic errors"

Stop the bullshit and avoidance yourself dumbass.

Yes in the UK and N Europe.

No, wrong again. Wind's all over the place and solar is just wrong - max in summer early afternoons, zero in winter evenings when demand is highest.

Back it up with references or admit that it's crap.

Where's the link for your outlandish 45W/m^2 annual average area power density?

"What happens when your chosen supplier cannot meet demand? "

Same as any other power plant.

You do it like this:

Late afternoon and early evening in winter is when the demand on Britain's power generators and transmission system reach their highest levels of the year.

Cold, dark winter evenings massively increase heating and lighting demand.

Most offices and factories are still operating, but many domestic customers are returning home from work and school, and street lighting is on.

To top it off, when high-pressure weather systems cover the country, sometimes for days at a time, cold still air reduces output from the country's wind farms.

[...]

[This is] the winter seasonal peak, when heating and lighting loads from millions of homes, offices and factories all become highly correlated in early evening.

Invariably, load usually peaks between 1700 and 1730 GMT on winter evenings during between November and February, a phenomenon that National Grid terms the Triad, after the three-highest half-hourly demand periods in the year.

Dates, times and the volume of electricity demanded for all the Triads since 1990 are available on National Grid's website. In winter 2012/13, the Triads occurred on December 12, January 16 and November 29, all between 1700 and 1730 GMT.

"You need a fully-interconnected national grid for this to work. Nothing like this currently exists in the UK, "

?????

https://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/

What's missing?

Wow #299:

I think BBD meant there is no fully-interconnected national grid in the US.

There is an interconnected grid, but it doesn't cover the entire United States.

Zebra, that was one of the three assumptions I made, that the trait in question(rude behavior) exhibits this differential.

BBD, Zebra said charging and peaking. Using wind and solar for charging grid storage is certainly possible. Peaking could work if highest demand is when solar is most needed. Is summer afternoon really a minimum? I would think that's when the AC is used the most?

What’s missing?

Your ability to read.

# 281

BBD, Zebra said charging and peaking. Using wind and solar for charging grid storage is certainly possible.

But only if you have already built it. According to some armchair experts here, it is not necessary.

The next assumption is that there will be, on average, more generation from renewables than demand and that there will be a net annual surplus. That is a hell of a big maybe.

Peaking could work if highest demand is when solar is most needed. Is summer afternoon really a minimum? I would think that’s when the AC is used the most?

I said in the UK and N Europe, not in the US. Please *read* what I say (including the example quote at #298).

MikeN,

"assumption"

Sure. But you could assume anything about anything. If you read the "edge" debate carefully there is a lot of information about issues with measurement. It's not just in social/behavioral sciences, but biases in those areas are particularly tricky to discern. And bias in the measurement instrument can lead to a difference in the variance between groups, not just in the central value.

I have read some of this stuff with respect to education, but I claim no expertise-- I'm good with instruments for the physics lab, not measuring how much of a jerk someone may be. So again, maybe someone like Dean could elaborate some more.

Of course, speaking of people being jerks, discussions with BBD....

The problem with BBD on this subject is that he can't answer the simple question I posed: What's the problem?

The problem for BBD and the current utility companies is that changing the paradigm means changing the paradigm, which disrupts a business model that relies on economic rents not productivity.

"Peak demand" is an artifact of the system, not a natural law. But the language that BBD clings to is designed to obscure that fact.

In your case of AC, for example, AC with thermal storage means the "peak" can be spread out and occur during the time when the sun is shining.

"I think BBD meant there is no fully-interconnected national grid in the US."

That is the case (thought there are quite a lot of interconnected states, the difference may be the size precludes any useful 6000km links with AC so it'd wait for HVDC). But he specifically said "nothing like that in the UK" maybe he meant "nothing like what we have in the uk".

We connect to Europe with HVDC.And we do that because of our nuclear power stations. Hinkley C requires a doubling of our link to France because our total Hinkley generation would be too much to replace when (not if, when) it goes unexpectedly down. And we just don't have the backup generation, so we double the link to France. We also plan to link to Denmark for the Scandanavial renewable generation they have.

And the line will pay by allowing us to sell overproduction of nuke power to Europe at night. Which only works because there's so little use of nuke power.

"“Peak demand” is an artifact of the system, not a natural law. But the language that BBD clings to is designed to obscure that fact."

As is baseload. It was invented to describe how much unresponsive non-dispatchable but cheap and efficient generation of coal power was needed to cover the mimimum. You need at least that nameplate capacity.

Following demand much better, renewables of solar and wind save 40% of nameplate build-out. So even if you were to demand as much as double production to cover catastrophes that occur, merely for different reasons, with coal, gas or nuke stations, but insist on it solely for renewables and deliberately ignore that this is the case for non-renewabes too, it's still only 20% more in reality, if you simplistically just plonk nameplate for nameplate.

Something nuke fluffers like Mackay don't mention (like their other erroneous assumptions) and those who want to believe nuke fluffers (like BBD here) don't bother to find out.

"But only if you have already built it."

But you have to build it for ANY new energy plant. Morons here refuse to acknowledge that WE ALREADY HAVE BACKUP..

And by morons, I mean you.

Apparetly you were incorrect, Rick. Dumbass here says "I said in the UK and N Europe, not in the US."

" Peaking could work if highest demand is when solar is most needed."

Night time pricing is below cost to make power "needed" at night.

Much demand is based from businesses, specifically industries, who can change their power use to make best use of spot prices, and thereby fit demand to supply.

It's why the UK has or had Economy 7. To make home electric heating use oversupplied (because coal power generation and nukes both supply energy whether you want to dispatch it or not, being non-dispatchable) power and create an artificial demand at night.

Another think dumbass here doesn't comprehend because it's not part of the Hot Air narrative.

zebra

In case you haven’t noticed, we have very fast computers that engage in all kinds of near-instantaneous transactions in very very large quantities.

What’s the problem??

A vast, hyper-complex real time computational transaction system which balances the national US grid from second to second. What could possibly go wrong? Especially in the age of Russian and Chinese cyber-warfare?

Fortunately for your children, I very much doubt that any US government (even this one) would ever permit such a massive, fundamental threat to national security.

All your sententious (but tellingly vague) twaddle about 'paradigms' is just cover for the standard peddling of free market snake oil.

“Peak demand” is an artifact of the system, not a natural law. But the language that BBD clings to is designed to obscure that fact.

Tut, tut. I was talking explicitly about peak demand in the UK and N Europe being winter early evening. Your fundamental dishonesty is showing.

- industrial activity has not stopped but a sizeable percentage of the population has gone home

- it is cold and dark and lighting and heating are maxed both in domestic, street and industrial contexts

- it is time to prepare the evening meal so big spike from electric ovens, microwaves, kettles etc

- TVs, tablets and gadgets are all switched on

That is peak demand in the UK and N Europe. It happens in early evening during winter. Go check. All you will find is references confirming exactly what I said. Bollocking on *irrelevantly* about AC just confirms that you are as stuffed as Wow on this point.

Following demand much better, renewables of solar and wind

This was and still is a lie. See unequivocal demonstrations above.

W & S do not in any real sense 'follow demand'. They are not dispatchable. Plant operators do not control the wind, the clouds, the diurnal cycle or the seasons.

Why all the endless lies? Clearly there is a fundamental issue here.

Following demand much better, renewables of solar and wind save 40% of nameplate build-out.

Just crazy shit. W & S are highly variable. So actual output is a fraction of nameplate capacity. This is called capacity factor. It is a measure of how unreliable renewables output actually is.

To watch wow try and turn this into a totally false claim about demand following is, frankly, jaw-dropping.

Zebra - why don't you tell wow to stop the blatant crap? Please explain your weird silence in the face of all the garbage and lies on this thread.

"A vast, hyper-complex real time computational transaction system "

Ah, now, when deniers want to complain about hysterical doommongering, they can point to you, BBD. Well done.

"which balances the national US grid from second to second"

It's already done, BBD. Hell, Europe does it. Ask any business owner in the industrial sphere.

"I was talking explicitly about peak demand in the UK and N Europe being winter early evening."

Being a lower peak than summer?!?!?!??!? AC is a bigger thing than you can possibly conceive.

And moreover this could only be the case if you're mangling electrical demand and heating demand, which IN THE UK means gas burning heaters.

And, yet again, it's windier by quite a lot in the UK in winter.

Oh bugger.

For you.

"– TVs, tablets and gadgets are all switched on"

LOL! How fucking clueless! Yeah, right. The big time power users are people watching Eastenders.... FFS. You moron.

"" Following demand much better, renewables of solar and wind "

This was and still is a lie. See unequivocal demonstrations above. "

No, it's what you want to BE a lie but refuses to be.

"W & S do not in any real sense ‘follow demand’. "

Yes they do.

"They are not dispatchable."

Neither is coal or nukes or all but specifically designed stations.

"To watch wow try and turn this into a totally false claim about demand following is, frankly, jaw-dropping. "

Only because you will not admit reality.

Again, 100% like dick.

And, again, 100% like dick, you're an incredibly false lying little shitstain who cannot and will not accept anything against your preconceived politically and monetarily derived demands.

"Zebra – why don’t you tell wow to stop the blatant crap?"

Because it's not crap its a truth you WILL NOT accept.

Just like dick WILL NOT accept that his ECS of 1.6 is wrong.

He, like you, points to papers that he can twist to support him being right and ignores and calls "crap" and "lies" and "unsupported" anything and anyone who tries to tell him different.

"Why all the endless lies? Clearly there is a fundamental issue here."

Yes, I assume that your continuous and immobile bullshit claims are because you're a nuke fluffer.

"So actual output is a fraction of nameplate capacity."

And for nukes it's 60%.

For solar it's about 40%.

Oh, and for wind, it can be over 100%. Power goes as wind speed cubed.

BBD,

The US grid is at this moment frighteningly vulnerable to cyberattack. So please, stop being absurd. Distributed generation and the upgrades that my approach would entail would make it more, not less, robust.

I have no idea what your description of the specific "peak demand" conditions of the UK has to do with what I said.

In the past, I have pointed out, in contrast to your ideas about the US having a "national grid", that each geographical area will find its own solutions to particular needs.

So, if your need is heating, use thermal storage heaters-- I'm pretty sure they are off-the-shelf in the UK. Or heat pumps. Or use gas for heating and cooking...it's more efficient than burning gas to generate electricity. If you need streetlights, convert to LED, which will give a significant savings in energy consumption. And for heaven's sake...tablets come battery included!. What, the great humanitarian disaster would be if people had to remember to keep them charged?

You are confusing (as is intended by the terminology) demand for some function with demand for electricity.

And speaking of dishonesty: Nothing I have suggested precludes using nuclear if that's what your particular geographic area decides. Or coal, if you are willing to absorb the cost of externalities.

So, again, what's the problem?

BBD,

I have critiqued wow on style (ranting) and clarity of language (some of which is the result of the ranting style, I suspect), because I can't understand the points some times.

But I am not interested, as I have said, in arguing definitions and he said she said gotchas.

And most of the time when wow is being clear, I don't see anything I need to contradict, as far as my main theme goes.

" and clarity of language"

Some of that is because I think much faster than I type and I can be several sentences beyond where the characters appearing are, so there can be runon sentences, changes of tense, and other time-based errors in grammar.

If it appears that it would be read by the person it is written to, since this effect usually comes when talking to someone, not expressing to a general audience, if that person has clearly demonstrated that they prefer not to comprehend anyway, I can't be arsed going back over my post to clear it up.

Though on occasion I've used the wrong word or initialism and had to correct that, since it would necessarily cause confusion about the subject, which is accepted as existing (in most cases, but not all), rather than the argument, which will not be by the one in denial.

The dumbass thinks that solar doesn't follow demand (or wind), yet how can Germany be a net importer of power yet a net gain in the monetary balance of trade on power if it were not for the FACT that solar produces most when market spot prices are highest? And why would the market price be highest when demand is only middling, and not when demand is highest?

Other problems with nukes include: have a jellyfish invasion bloom = No electricity. Have a heatwave (meaning lack of cooling water at times of highest demand) = no electricity. Have a drought (meaning water levels too low to provide cooling, as is arranged and elided by the capacity factors the US claim for their power stations) = no electricity.

Solar power may be very slightly reduced if you don't have enough water to wash them clean occasionally, but they don't stop working without water....

zebra

The US grid is at this moment frighteningly vulnerable to cyberattack. So please, stop being absurd. Distributed generation and the upgrades that my approach would entail would make it more, not less, robust.

Rubbish. Hundreds of millions of more notes (smart meters) multiplies the vulnerability by magnitudes.

The risks of making every aspect of the grid a part of the internet of things are off the scale.

I have critiqued wow on style (ranting)

What about the blatant lies? Speak up, or be complicit by silence.

In the past, I have pointed out, in contrast to your ideas about the US having a “national grid”, that each geographical area will find its own solutions to particular needs.

RTFRs at #284 and stop peddling free market snake oil in terms so vague and opaque as to make criticism difficult. Although I have little doubt at this point that this is a feature not a bug.

zebra

All guff:

So, if your need is heating, use thermal storage heaters [exhausted after 12-24 hrs then need *more energy* but no SPV to speak of in winter]– I’m pretty sure they are off-the-shelf in the UK. Or heat pumps. [huge expense, guzzle electricity in winter and most people don't have big enough gardens] Or use gas for heating and cooking…[we're supposed to be phasing it out as too much leakage plus CO2 emissions] it’s more efficient than burning gas to generate electricity. If you need streetlights, convert to LED, [being done, but lighting a nation still takes a shitload of juice] which will give a significant savings in energy consumption. And for heaven’s sake…tablets come battery included!.[ which need charging] What, the great humanitarian disaster would be if people had to remember to keep them charged?

Pure fantasy island.

* * *

See wow at #316 and #317.

Utter garbage. I'm busy as you can probably tell. Please sort the mess

BBD #324:

Happy to help out.

Wow says nuclear capacity factor is 60%.

Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor

It is much higher than that.

For the largest USA nuclear facility it was 90.4%.

Nuclear capacity factor is much higher than 60% in the USA and it is much higher than 60% worldwide.

Wow is wrong about his definition of dispatchable also.

Wow also doesn't understand TCR or what linear extrapolation is.

Wow is wrong to name call.

Wow is wrong about a lot of stuff.

But thats ok.

People can be wrong and often are.

BBD is wrong to start using the lie word again.

I am sure Wow believes he is correct - although he is woefully wrong.

That makes him wrong - but not a liar.

Since I have no idea if Wow is being knowingly deceptive, I cannot say he is a liar - so I will just stick with this.

Wow is wrong.

". Hundreds of millions of more notes (home PCs) "

With that change, do you realise how dumb tour claim is? When posting on the internet?

"Wow says nuclear capacity factor is 60%."

Right. It is.

"For the largest USA nuclear facility it was 90.4%."

By deducting the outage in summer because it was planned. It's out in summer because it cannot be kept cool enough.

Not like I've failed to point this out before or anything....

"All guff:"
Aye, every single complaint you've made against renewables is complete and utter guff.

"What about the blatant lies?"

Where? Just because you're an idiot who insists that something MUST be a lie because you read something different somewhere and interpreted it yourself, 100% like dick does with the IPCC AR5 report, you are whining about something only YOU think is a lie.

Have raised this with you before, but truly critical to discuss 'fully burdened' benefit streams. The fuel trade-offs (savings) are only a portion, and frequently the lesser portion, of payoffs.

Here, for example, are four EV value streams (http://getenergysmartnow.com/2012/03/26/naming-electric-vehicle-value-s…):

* The Woolsey Effect: Contributing to national security by reducing reliance on oil from places like the Middle East.
* Gas Station Anxiety Relief: reducing number of times having to go to the gas station & (with hybrid extended range) reducing the tension of 'my fuel is down' need to get to the gas station ASAP. (Example over weekend, my teen-age daughter left my Ford C-Max Energi with close to zero gas. Well, was able to plug in & run off to a meeting w/mileage to spare ... w/out that electricity range, would have had to run to gas station and enter meeting with (likely) hands smelling of gasoline).
* The Sound of Silence: For >90% of drivers/passengers, I suspect, the silence is a real benefit.
* Breath of Fresh Air: In driveway, in parking lot, etc, nice nice to have face-level fumes.

Lots of additional value streams -- for example, reduced maintenance (especially on EVs, but also on HEVs (reduced brake liner replacement, for example); ego/status symbol (the vehicle 'as statement' isn't only Corvettes & Hummers); etc ...

"Wow also doesn’t understand TCR or what linear extrapolation is."

I know. You don't.

Your complaint is exactly the same as Dick's complaint against you for not accepting we don't know ECS is about or below 1.6C.

And despite this being pointed out to you, you do not and will not, and CAN NOT make the connection.

For precisely the same reason why dick thinks he's right and he could still be correct to claim ECS is 1.6C or lower. And just like his insistence it only means due to CO2 doubling, and NOT due to "whatever caused the MWP".

Another reason why you're a bloody retard, BBD.

There are also relief for power production (and cost to the consumer, though this necessarily means reduced profits for the companies doing the selling):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSdnycHfLnQ&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&ind…

Btw, having an EV in a coal-dominated market provides another useful payoff: creating higher value from off-peak power. See discussion here: http://getenergysmartnow.com/2013/10/28/dispelling-electric-vehicle-myt…

Wow #327 says "By deducting the outage in summer because it was planned."

Nope - wrong again.

They did not deduct anything.

If you read the link you will see they divided by 365 days and 24 hours per day, as well as by the nameplate capacity.

If they had deducted the outage in the summer, the denominator wouldn't be 24 hours per day for 365 days per year.

Nope - the plant output was 90.4% of the power it could provide for the entire year of 2010 if you compare the total output to the nameplate capacity for each hour of the entire year.

You are wrong Wow.

Call some more names - it is so persuasive.

Wow #331:

You are quoting me - not BBD.

You are wrong about even your quote attribution.

Wow - you are wrong.

"They did not deduct anything."

No, they do. They don't count arranged outages or planned ones in their availability figures.

UK gets, as does just about every other nuclear powered country, 60%. Some of the smaller countries with less experience gets less (e.g. pakistan gets, IIRC, a smidge over 40%), but the USA gets 90% by disclaiming, unlike all the others, outages that were planned for, or unplanned outages that arise either within the nominal outage period (therefore they can for short periods get MORE THAN 100%), or unplanned extensions of outages, because they account things differently.

Like I said, this may be because they do that or did that with earlier coal powered stations.

If you expect to be offline one third of the time or running half or less capacity for three months, then you can just figure in your expectations into your "nameplate" and then find yourself as close to 100% as your calculation of how much non generation you will achieve will allow.

And also note that even the USA get 40% or thereabouts on new designs. Each plant is a unique one-off, part of the reason for the massive cost. And they have no figures to work with on how to drop the claim of power production to account for "known outages".

To an extent, especially on a count of "how well are you doing compared to your competitors", this calculation makes sense. But only if you compare like with like. And that isn't what you do when you proclaim 90% compared to Solar 40%.

Or when you compare UK nukes at 60% with the USA's claims of 90.

For the same reason you can't compare "murder rates" or assaults reliably without accounting for the different terms for those crimes in different countries.

Yet still it's done. And like with nukes, for political and partisan reasons.

Wow #336:

You never cease to amaze me.

You said "They don’t count arranged outages or planned ones in their availability figures."

I think you are totally incorrect.

However, I am willing to be corrected.

Cite please.

“What about the blatant lies?”

Where?

we get something averaging over 45W/m^2. Aye, this is the south-west, but it’s also a hell of a lot higher than that load of hot air blew out.

I know you are lying about this because (a) it's impossible and (b) you have blanked three separate requests to provide a link backing it up.

The problem for the big generation companies is that solar and wind generate power at the most profitable times,

Repeated several times, despite clear evidence shown that it is a false claim.

Following demand much better, renewables of solar and wind save 40% of nameplate build-out.

You've been shown umpteen times that wind and solar are not and cannot be load following and the claim that capacity factor represents an efficiency is a total inversion of the truth (a lie).

And for nukes it’s 60%.

For solar it’s about 40%.

Oh, and for wind, it can be over 100%. Power goes as wind speed cubed.

All wrong.

"I think you are totally incorrect."

I know that is your opinion.

"However, I am willing to be corrected."

Evidence to date has indicated otherwise. Go read up the DUKES report. I keep calling it DAWES for some reason, though.

BBD,

Last chance.

I gave you a list of some strategies that people use to reduce electricity usage or shift the time of purchase.

This has nothing to do with you continuing to dodge my question.

I am simply proposing that consumers be allowed to achieve their goal-- whether it be maintaining the temperature of their house, or being entertained by electronics, or whatever, by whatever means they choose.

That means that I, as a consumer, can buy electricity from wow's windfarm, and use some of the methods I suggested if I feel it is necessary, to maintain my comfort.

As I said, this does not preclude you from buying electricity from a nuclear plant, perhaps because you value the security and convenience that gives, and don't want to be bothered with changing household technology.

The only change from the present would be as I described-- the grid operates under rules that allow all buyers and sellers of electricity to have equal access.

Last chance: What's the problem?

People with your inclinations will buy from the nuclear plant, people like me will buy from wind and solar.

What's the problem?

" And for nukes it’s 60%.

For solar it’s about 40%.

Oh, and for wind, it can be over 100%. Power goes as wind speed cubed."

All wrong."

Where?

"from wow’s windfarm,"

Solar.

I suggested it be lined with some turbines to the north, but planning permission makes it a new proposal. Adding more panels is currently considered a better proposal.

For example, BBD, see:

http://ele.aut.ac.ir/~wind/en/tour/wres/enrspeed.htm

Wow #340:

I need a cite.

I googled and came up empty.

Give me a cite to this dukes report.

Or quote from it.

I think you are wrong.

I gave you a list of some strategies that people use to reduce electricity usage or shift the time of purchase.

And this stops winter demand peaking in UK and N Europe (my original correction to Wow's rubbish, please remember) how exactly?

You didn't say. Probably because (as I pointed out in my admittedly rushed response) none of what you suggest actually does anything except smear an evening peak into a seasonal one. It's still a peak in demand and it lasts for several months, during which solar is pretty much out of the game.

Facts trump rhetoric, as usual.

This has nothing to do with you continuing to dodge my question.

You never, ever responded to my correct and substantiated point that before we enter the sunlight uplands of a free market energy utopia, we have to evolve the grid. A project that will cost ~$2tn and take decades - and require federal intervention in the US. Something you keep, well, dodging. Perhaps when you concede that point, we can move on.

What's the problem?

[You:] And for nukes it’s 60%.

For solar it’s about 40%.

Oh, and for wind, it can be over 100%. Power goes as wind speed cubed.

[Me:] All wrong.

[You:] Where?

One has but to google 'capacity factor' and look, Wow.

Here's some entirely representative figures from a solar power company:

SPV = 10-25%

Wind = 25%

Hydro = 40%

Coal = 70%

Nuclear = 89%

CCGT = 38%

As you can see, everything you said was wrong. Just as I keep telling you.

"I need a cite."

Sure you do. And if it doesn't fit what you want, like every other cite that did that and disagreed with you, you went and denied it or just wen "That's your opinion".

Kinda sucks to be you, really.

"One has but to google ‘capacity factor’ and look, Wow. "

And one only has to look at actual reports and see you are talking, once again, out of your crap hole.
And, like every fact that you do not want to know, and yet again, 100% lke dick there, you completely ignored the post:

For example, BBD, see:

http://ele.aut.ac.ir/~wind/en/tour/wres/enrspeed.htm

For a dumbass who says "you merely have to read" you don't bother fucking well reading, do you. Because you're as much a denier as mick or dick.

BBD,

Bye.

And that 10% is capture efficiency.

I.e. turning 1200W/m^2 to electricity.

And that 90% is again deducting "expected loss" so that's still an unexpected and uncontrolled loss of 10% when you cherry pick the current top gun.

For which the owner is going to be rather certain to push forward, even if they had to do a "dieselgate" to provide it.

Wow #331 said "And just like his insistence it only means due to CO2 doubling, and NOT due to “whatever caused the MWP”."

According to the Ljungquist 2000 year temperature reconstruction, the temperature rose about .7C over a 400 year period, from about 550 ad to 950 ad.

Then the temperature fell about .8C over a 700 year period, from about 1000 ad to 1700 ad.

According to the consensus, this was all totally natural - not caused by human CO2 emissions, as the emissions were fairly constant at 280 before 1750.

The magnitude of the .7C rise and the .8C fall, is fairly close to the current temperature rise from 1700 ish to today of about 1.0C, about .2C of which is the 2015-2016 el nino.

I find that all very interesting for those who say that natural variability should cancel out over fairly short periods.

How do we know we are not in a period like 550 ad to 950 ad?

That could explain 7/8 of the 0.8C modern rise (excluding the el nino).

Of course, I understand the current rise happened a little faster.

And I do believe that human emitted CO2 is part of what caused the modern warming over the last 250 years.

But what if 1/2 of the modern warming is natural?

What does that do to calculations for TCR and ECS?

I think science will address this issue in due course and I am happy to wait and see what the answers turn out to be.

zebra

People with your inclinations will buy from the nuclear plant, people like me will buy from wind and solar.

Point of order: I need to put a stop to this creeping misrepresentation. I do not advocate for nuclear vs renewables (that's another of Wow's incessantly repeated lies). What I am *trying* to get over here is that for high penetrations of renewables you are going to need a new grid. And no, I don't think we can leave that to the free market. This was - and remains - our original and unresolved argument.

The only change from the present would be as I described– the grid operates under rules that allow all buyers and sellers of electricity to have equal access.

The change from the present necessary to integrate enough renewables to represent a meaningful energy transition will require an major evolution of the grid. So no, not 'the only change' at all. This is where we diverge, massively.

BBD,

Bye.

We crossed.

Better luck next time.

Wow

For example, BBD, see:

http://ele.aut.ac.ir/~wind/en/tour/wres/enrspeed.htm

You've confused an idealised model with an actual turbine (or array) which rarely operates at close to peak efficiency because of variability and lulls in wind speed. It is the latter which mean that wind farms only ever produce a percentage of their nameplate capacity when output is averaged annually. IIRC offshore wind is about 40%, which is still 60% shy of your claim (and that's ignoring the 'it can be over 100%' which is just nuts; capacity factor can *never* reach 100% let alone exceed it).

Once again, I marvel at how cocksure you can be given the chasms in your knowledge.

"According to the Ljungquist 2000 "

That is your opinion. But you cherry pick to support it. And elide any information otherwise. Just like BBD.

Speaking of which,

"Point of order:"

Nah, you lose it when you do not listen and do not argue with honesty or intelligence but barricade yourself against anything that does not support your preconceived requirements of reality.

You know, what deniers do.

You therefore lose the ability to request a point of order.

SPV = 10-25%

Wind = 25%*

Hydro = 40%

Coal = 70%

Nuclear = 89%

CCGT = 38%

*IIRC offshore wind is about 40%

You therefore lose the ability to request a point of order.

Not at all. Zebra was confused - possibly by your endless lying - and need to be set straight about where I was coming from.

Wow

You do realise that zebra is a free marketeer, don't you?

"You’ve confused an idealised model "

Wrong. Energy of a moving body is mv^2. If the air is moving, it has that energy. And per unit time, the amount of air that passes varies with v.

Therefore the energy extracted will be varyable to the third power of the wind velocity.

Whether it captures 1% of the energy from the wind that passes the blades or 10% or even 100% does not change the velocity dependency being the cube law, any more than the square-cube law is wrong because mass and area are "idealised models".

You claim "all wrong" and one example shows you were incorrect at least in one of those multiple claims, therefore "all" at the very least was wrong.

But, like any good denier, you do not care and refuse to accept any error.

Which is why zebra said "Bye bye", and why you don't get to claim "point of order".

When you are entirely dishonest in reality you do not get a pass on being treated as valid in any of your asinine claims, since you have shown either that you are incapable or unwilling to be convinced of an error even when it's plain as day.

You got REALLY shirty about dick doing it.

But you engage in it yourself without a glimmer of self-reflection and shame.

RickA

But what if 1/2 of the modern warming is natural?

What does that do to calculations for TCR and ECS?

I already told you at #209. Why am I having to repeat myself?

You cannot have high natural variability and low climate sensitivity at the same time. High natural variability happens because the feedbacks to radiative perturbation of the system net positive and are fairly strong.

So they will amplify small changes in natural forcings, producing a significant degree of natural variability.

Read that as many times as are necessary for you to understand it.

If natural variability accounted for a significant amount of the total modern warming, then the sensitivity to CO2 forcing is probably higher than currently estimated (>3C).

Meditate on this.

"You do realise that zebra is a free marketeer, don’t you?"

Talk about ad hominem...

Moreover this seems to be an unwarranted extension.

And even (and this gets to why ad hom) it were the case, WHY DOES THAT INVALIDATE HIS CLAIMS OR QUESTIONS????

It does not.

Dick is wrong not because he's a denier but because EVIDENCE is against him or his CLAIMS are unsupported or so badly supported that the "support" is to all intents and purposes wrong.

He's wrong for his arguments and claims, NOT because he's got money invested.

His investments may be WHY he keeps bleating on about how we shouldn't do anything, but that is not why his claims in support of that position are wrong.

You've spent so much time arguing AGW deniers, you've become a denier yourself. Their tactics (such as they are) have become so much a part of what you experience they are now "normal" and you ape them without even noticing, since every argument you see is framed against that as the norm.

When dick is right, he's right.

And you don't decide to believe nukes are shit because dick is a denier, do you.

But you DO want me to disbelieve zebra just because his political ideology is "free market"?

Wow

Go tell the wind industry that it can't calculate its own capacity factor correctly.

You have no idea how ridiculous you can be at times (or you wouldn't do it).

"But what if 1/2 of the modern warming is natural?"

But what if ECS were 3.4, dick? You'd be wrong.

Will you therefore insist that you must be wrong because the answer to that question to you were "Well, in that case, it's not 1.6 and I'm wrong", would it.

Because you'd insist that the rhetorical question is leading and therefore unsupported.

Yet you claim, without support, that 50% of the warming is natural, in a JAQing off on the internet.

Accept mine instead, or admit that this "technique" is a load of bollocks and should rightly be ignored. AND THEN STOP TRYING IT.

Whether it captures 1% of the energy from the wind that passes the blades or 10% or even 100% does not change the velocity dependency being the cube law, any more than the square-cube law is wrong because mass and area are “idealised models”.

Wow, wind speed variability determines capacity factor. You are hopelessly muddled again.

Please stop.

"Go tell the wind industry"

I don't have to.

Once more you are mistaking a correction of your asinine stupidity for a criticism of those whose job it is to work there.

THEY KNOW that siting can cause MORE THAN 100% of nameplate. And they know too why: because the average of a mean to a higher power is higher than the average to a higher power of the mean.

Fuck, anyone who's done A level maths should know it.

m-bar squared != m-squared-bar.

Go ask a teacher or google up maths on averages to find out for yourself.

Or tell every mathematician that they've got it wrong.

“You do realise that zebra is a free marketeer, don’t you?”

Talk about ad hominem…

You *agree* with zebra that we can just sit back and let the frigging market fix it for us???

Seriously?

We should be told.

THEY KNOW that siting can cause MORE THAN 100% of nameplate.

Utter bullshit!

100% nameplate capacity is the plant operating at 100% of its capacity 100% of the time. That is a physical impossibility. You are being completely silly now.

Please stop.

Typical industry figures:

SPV = 10-25%

Wind = 25%

Offshore wind = 40%

Hydro = 40%

Coal = 70%

Nuclear = 89%

CCGT = 38%

We can't use methods that release fossil carbon into the air to move things, heat things, see things. At every single level.

People easily forget in this kind of conversation that it does not matter where the electricity comes from or how it is made, when deciding to change over to an electric vehicle. You change to the electric vehicle. Meanwhile, you change the way you make the electricity to use sun, wind, etc.

We don't wait for one system to some how perfect itself for another system to start being developed. That is known as circular illogic. Using that logic to slow down the energy transition is a circle jerk.

As it were.

http://getenergysmartnow.com/2013/10/28/dispelling-electric-vehicle-myt…

Well once again we have reached an impasse.

I don't think high natural variability and low climate sensitivity are ruled out by the evidence (yet).

I will not rule out 1/2 natural and 1/2 human until the evidence rules it out - which has not happened yet.

So we wait and see.

I guess we will all just have to agree to disagree.

See you guys on a different future thread.

Bye.

"Wow, wind speed variability determines capacity factor."

But you have to assume the speed of the wind to arrive at that, idiot. And site it at a better place than "average" and you get much more power.

With coal, it burns based on the coal's calotrific value, less losses in the system. Therefore capacity is always less than 100%. Entropy.

Wind has NO calorific value, since it is not burned. Therefore if the place is windier than average, a 1.5MW rated turbine may return on average a power rating of 2MW.

Much like a 200W solar panel is rated at 200W in the UK, but if you placed it facing North, it won't get that. And if you place it on a turntable, it will get more. In the case of a solar panel, though, that is the capacity claim, not the actual theoretical power, which would be the (1400/4) that is the total insoation, since not all photons will produce an electron.

And, indeed, one reason why solar heating is more effective than solar PV electric heating. And, happily, is still VERY effective in winter, even in the UK.

One thing we don't do well with, though, is jellyfish swarms. They tend to plug up the water intakes for our nuclear power plants and, as the planet warms and may predator species die off, those jellyfish bloom more and more often in summer in the UK and remove nukes from producing until the inlet is cleared.

Face it, by your standards, nukes just cannot do a damn thing, they're a massive white elephant and only retards and morons would push them as the right solution to ANYTHING.

Greg

We don’t wait for one system to some how perfect itself for another system to start being developed.

Exactly what I am trying to get across. You don't wait for the supposedly free market to do it. You have to start building the new system, not telling fairy stories about, it or pretending invisible hands will build it all on their own.

"I don’t think high natural variability and low climate sensitivity are ruled out by the evidence"

Your think is not supported by reality, however.

Someone thinks you should be beheaded as an infidel. Should we wait to find out who is right?

But you have to assume the speed of the wind to arrive at that, idiot. And site it at a better place than “average” and you get much more power.

Wind = 25%

Offshore wind = 40%

That's as good as it gets.

This has become a painful waste of time and will remain so until you go.

Remember, if there's a heaven, and there's people who think there is, then if you deserve to die, you will be meted out the correct punishment, and you should have been beheaded. And if you did NOT deserve to be killed, you will go to heaven and your killer will be the one punished. Again, the right result will happen after we let the event take place.

So should we just let you be beheaded, because either you did deserve it or you didn't and heaven's pleasures await for you?

After all, they're of the opinion you are satan's helper, and you, I assume, though I could easily be wrong here, do not think you are working for satan. So we should do nothing to stop them trying. After all, it's just an opinion, and we should not do anything about it now. Nothing has been proven about your deserved fate.

"Wind = 25%"

And that means it doesn't vary with wind speed cubed????

You're a fucking lunatic, dumdumb.

Whats 25% of 1? Now what's 25% of 8? Now what's 25% of 27? Now what progression were those results? Did they go up LESS THAN by the cube power ratio?

Or are you a complete dumbass, just as ignorant and willingly so as dick or "mike"?

"That’s as good as it gets. "

Ah, so you claim that the experts don't know how to calculate the output of a system. Best go tell them they should be claiming 20% of the profits.

Fucking moron.

Zebra, of course the assumption could be weak. I didn't bring up IQ. It was a joke about Wow, then Dean accused me of bad stats and I clarified the assumptions needed. He never responded to my question about where the bad stats is, perhaps because it got lost in the thread explosion.

BBD, I get the impression you and zebra are almost entirely in agreement. What is the disagreement as you see it, and what do you think is zebra's view of it?

"I didn’t bring up IQ. It was a joke about Wow, then Dean accused me of bad stats and I clarified the assumptions needed. He never responded to my question about where the bad stats is, perhaps because it got lost in the thread explosion."

The bad work is thinking that IQ scores measure something remotely related to intelligence. The don't.

All you can do when you compare performance on IQ tests across groups is to say that there is a slight tendency for one group to perform differently than another. That may be indicated by the scores (although you need to remember that IQ scores are not raw data, they have been massaged to fit the mythical "normal distribution") -- you can't (or shouldn't, as the only person putting breakers on is yourself) draw conclusions past that.

So the statistical conclusion given the assumptions is valid? You said it was bad stats before I said anything about IQ, though perhaps 'retarded' is defined by IQ.

>bad work is thinking that IQ scores measure something remotely related to intelligence.

If I have a group of people with IQ 50 and a group with IQ 150, do you expect them to perform equally well on intelligence tests?

MikeN,

I thought about your question some more and I think you need to be more explicit with your comments. (Some people write too much, some too little.)

If you have a group of people who score low on IQ tests, it is very likely that they will score low on IQ tests. This is kind of a "duh".

The question which I think you started with is whether you can infer something about an individual based on statistical information.

I suggested that you carefully read the reference you gave...the "edge" debate. They, who are real professionals, start out being very clear about distributions and what they tell us. So, they tell us that there are more males who score in the high end with respect to "three dimensional spatial rotations" for example, but there are females who score equally high. But unfortunately, if I remember it correctly, at least one of them ended up using the more colloquial "males are better at TDSR". For people not in the field, it is easy to misinterpret this.

The question is, if you are hiring someone for a job requiring TDSR, and otherwise equal male and female candidates are sitting on the other side of your desk, should you hire the male candidate, based on that language? The answer is no.

This is why we have people like Dean, so you should listen to his explanations on this point... as I said, this is not my expertise; I know enough, but not enough to explain it with the precisely correct language.

Did you read this?
"All you can do when you compare performance on IQ tests across groups is to say that there is a slight tendency for one group to perform differently than another. "

Probability distributions describe populations - in your question, populations of scores on tests. If group A has mean 50 and group B has mean 150, then either

* the tests are measured on such widely diverse scales that it makes no sense at all to compare the raw score: there is simply no way to say a person who scores 155 on one is in any way "better" than a person who scored 52 on the other: in this case you'd need information on spread, and at the simplest would have to compare their relative positions.
or
* there is some massive error in measurement in one group, or the other, or both, and nothing at all can be said
(I know you tossed that out as a hypothetical question and nothing more: I'm just pointing out how to think about it).

As zebra points out, and I reference tangentially with my "population" comment: you cannot make any statement about an individual's potential (or lack of potential) based solely on their sex and score on an IQ test.

"If I have a group of people with IQ 50 and a group with IQ 150, do you expect them to perform equally well on intelligence tests?"

Touched on above in a slightly different approach. However, this could also be considered an ill-posed question. There are at least two ways to interpret this:

A: every person in 1 group has had his/her IQ measured, on some test, at 50, and every person in the other group has been measured at 150. Again, given the huge difference, either the two tests were designed to different scales or there is something else going on. Without more information, there is no way to tell how they would perform on a common test

B: Every person in one group comes from a population with mean 50, every person in the other comes from a population with mean 150. Here we still have the issue of not enough information - the same issues as above. There is no way to tell how members of the groups would do - even if you interpret "tell" in the sense of a probability - without much more information.

But even if we have that information: the mere fact that person X scores a few points lower on an IQ test than person Y does on that same test -- we have 0 information about what that might mean for their capabilities.

Zebra, I agree my statements are unclear. It is deliberate. The point I was making was not about a specific character trait, but the conclusion that different variances will overwhelm the high and low ends, even with different means. For which character trait it applies is irrelevant.

>If you have a group of people who score low on IQ tests, it is very likely that they will score low on IQ tests. This is kind of a “duh”.

Of course. Dean said IQ scores don't measure anything remotely related to intelligence. I don't agree with this, but I could be wrong.
Assuming we have a good definition of 'intelligence' and a test that can measure this, then it seems like we should expect Dean to answer yes to the question of whether a group of IQ 50 or IQ 150 would do equally well on this. Even if a good test does not exist, just a hypothetical test that does a good job of measuring intelligence, he should expect the two groups to do equally well. I do not, but I could be wrong about this. I suspect instead he means a weaker statement than 'thinking IQ scores measure something remotely related to intelligence. They don’t. '

Dean, I'm confused about why you think a group scoring 50 vs 150 is a problem. Suppose it is a single test taken by 1000000 people, with people scoring 48-52 and 148-152 each being a group of 300 people.

You've supplied a little more context, although I doubt its reality. The limits you're discussing now are most likely about 3 standard deviations above and below the mean (100 to 148, 100 to 52) as its safe to assume scores are scaled to have a sigma of around 16.

But now you aren't trying to predict future performance: if these two groups of 300 each have already scored as you described, asking about the chance one group will score higher than the other is not relevant. Will one group outperform the other? Almost certainly. By the same difference? Maybe, maybe not. What we can say if that you have two groups like that, who are separated in performance by essentially a six sigma difference, repeated measurements will consistently show differences. What is that a reflection of? Difficult to say: simple intellectual variability or a serious issue with one group.

Do IQ tests measure something that translates directly to what people consider "intelligence"? No.

MikeN

BBD, I get the impression you and zebra are almost entirely in agreement. What is the disagreement as you see it, and what do you think is zebra’s view of it?

See #346 (final para) and #353. (Also @ wow # 367). There was a previous thread but I can't find it at the moment.

MikeN,

Zebra, I agree my statements are unclear. It is deliberate. The point I was making was not about a specific character trait, but the conclusion that different variances will overwhelm the high and low ends, even with different means. For which character trait it applies is irrelevant.

If you are being deliberately evasive and equivocal, then it is a waste of time to answer you.

If the rest of the paragraph is serious, then no, there's no such thing as the variance "overwhelming" the high and low ends, if you have a "normal" normal distribution. You could have a bi-modal distribution, for example, but that is not what you seem to be talking about.

This is why you have to be clear in stating the question.

With respect to IQ and other such tests: They only measure performance on the test, as Dean says. This is a much-discussed topic. Again, I suggest you carefully read that reference you gave. If you haven't done even that, you can't really make a useful argument.

"But now you aren’t trying to predict future performance"

Even dafter they're begging the question. "If one person scores 50 and the other 300...?". But that's a "24" like godview. You know because you've set it up that way what the reality is, but it IS NOT reality, it's the hypothesis you set up specifically.

Moreover the entire thread of his "defence" is merely a sidestep of the arrant stupidity and bigotry of his claims he was making "supported by stats".

It's kinda irrelevant that he doesn't get the stats or IQ, it;s the claims he's made and then decided to "support" by stats and IQ, even if he's made up the connection or segued off into.

BBD, I can prove to you your claims of 90% efficiencies for nukes is flat out wrong.

They use the nuclear reaction to generate heat to generate steam, correct? And then that steam turns turbines that then generate electricity from the steam pressure, right?

But that steam to electricity conversion is limited by the efficiency of the carnot cycle.

What temperature must the steam be at to get 90%?

Do you know how much energy is emitted by a fuel rod, how long it lasts and therefore how much total calorific energy is in the fuel for a nuke station? Is that the same as it's "nameplate" for which you calculate that "capacity factor" to be 90%? If you do not know how much energy is released per ton of nuclear fuel and how long a ton of it lasts to get at the total energy possible to compare to the output rating, you better go find out.

>If you are being deliberately evasive and equivocal, then it is a waste of time to answer you.

To a certain extent yes. I wasn't arguing about intelligence, though that is the implication. I was joking about Wow's, "How do you know I'm male?" "Because you are way below average, and statistics show women are more likely to be average." It's a basic conclusion that if you have two bell curves and one has higher variance, then it will dominate the high and low ends.
If I wanted to argue about intelligence, then I would go into the details. I'm happy with your replies since I discovered the edge videos that I will explore later.

Wow, you don't understand what 'capacity factor' is.

And after yesterday's utter farce with you confusing figures I quoted for capacity factor with windspeed (reading comprehension, again), I'm no longer prepared to discuss this with you.

Dean, are you saying that the IQ test itself does not measure IQ very well, and retests will show substantially different numbers? I'm confused why you think the premise is flawed, of having a group scoring 50 and 150(which I though was 4 sigma away from mean, but in either case would be equal for both). If the range is too high, we can use 70 and 130, or 60 and 140.

>I’m no longer prepared to discuss this with you.
Now you realize it?

"Wow, you don’t understand what ‘capacity factor’ is. "

No dumdumb, you don't.

And the FACT you haven't even attempted to say that you do know how much energy potential there is in solar or how nuclear can run the exact same design of steam turbine half as efficiently again as coal, gas or oil can, is yet more indication that you are in deep deep DEEP denial of your lack of comprehension.

"I’m no longer prepared to discuss this with you."

IOW you cannot answer because you don't want to know if you're wrong.

Which is why you remain completely clueless yet so very DK certain you alone have it right.

What wind velocity is a 1.5MW wind turbine rated at to produce 1.5MW?

Question about nameplate capacity that Wow brings up. Isn't the capacity specific to that plant, declared at construction time? So it is possible to achieve higher than that, at least some of the time, right? Wow is theorizing higher wind conditions than predicted, causing production to exceed so much that you can go over 100%. Why is this impossible? Ignore the siting he describes, since nameplate capacity should account for that, but that for some reason after construction, the windiness increases. Maybe some upwind construction produces a wind tunnel like Yankee Stadium.

The desing of nukes also do not include losses either, yet for solar and wind, "capacity" as dumdumb's sources want it, do not exclude losses for solar from accounting.

How often is a solar power plant not producing?

And that is the figure nuke power stations claim. How often are they not producing? And reducing from that expected outages means you can't include night time for solar.

The figures are not comparing the same assumptions.

MikeN

Now you realize it?

One has to try.

Question about nameplate capacity that Wow brings up. Isn’t the capacity specific to that plant, declared at construction time?

At the simples level, it works like this:

Capacity factor (CF) is limited by the maximum output that a turbine is capable of while operating within manufacturer's specifications and warranty (aka nameplate capacity). This is a hard limit, and this is why CF cannot exceed 100%.

It doesn't matter how many turbines you have in an array, this always holds true.

Capacity factor is the average power generated over any given operational period, divided by the nameplate capacity of the turbine (or array).

Wow is theorizing higher wind conditions than predicted, causing production to exceed so much that you can go over 100%. Why is this impossible?

It isn't but IRL you go from say 25% CF to 27% CF for a given year. But as I hope you can see, it is never, ever going to be possible to get even close to 100% and it would be technically impossible to exceed 100% CF.

The example I kept quoting to Wow was onshore wind vs *offshore* wind (a more optimal siting):

25% vs 40% for offshore.

Shite. Should be:

It isn’t [impossible for CF to increase] but IRL you go from say 25% CF to 27% CF

And what wind speed is a wind turbine rated at 1.5MW rated 1.5MW at?

Still waiting....

What is the availability factor for nuclear? How about Wind? What about SolarPV?

What is the load utilisation factor for nuclear, solarPV or wind?

(and still waiting on that call on the calorific value and rate of fuel burn in a nuke station!)

"you go from say 25% CF to 27% CF"

Or you have 60% by siting wind in a better place.

And what wind speed is a wind turbine rated at 1.5MW rated 1.5MW at?

Still waiting….

It depends on the turbine but all that matters is that whatever it is, the turbine cannot operate above its rated specs.

So in scenario where wind speed was constantly at or above the rated capacity of the turbine for a day, CF would be 100% but could never exceed 100% for that day.

But IRL, wind is highly variable and there will be many days when wind speed is much lower, and the turbine output will be well below 100% nameplate.

So over a month or a year or whatever, CF will always average below 100%. IRL, well-sited wind arrays on land in the UK average a CF of about 25% and offshore, 40% as it is windier.

What is declared net capacity? And how do they appear for all the sorts of power generation?

https://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/27/wind-turbine-net-capacity-factor-5…

Meanwhile, what is the LCOE?

And, to come back again to the original problem you have with reality,BBD, in what way have you shown that wind turbine power does not go up as the cube of wind speed?

Wow

You can answer those questions with a bit of research.

What matters to me is that you realise that I am not lying. Just trying - honestly - to explain the facts.

And, to come back again to the original problem you have with reality,BBD, in what way have you shown that wind turbine power does not go up as the cube of wind speed?

That's not in dispute! Never was.

The interaction between wind speed and the turbine is always limited by the turbine's maximum operating capability - aka 'nameplate'.

With that in mind, try #401 and #407 again - they might make better sense now.

Complain too to this professor, Derek Abbot.

https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia. I know how you like to accept the blank word of a professor.

Derek Abbott is attacking a truly massive strawman. He posits nuclear producing *all* the global energy supply, not just electricity, total primary energy - 'at least 15TW'.

Nobody proposes this. Something like 20% global *electricity* generation by nuclear by mid-century is considered optimistic.

"You can answer those questions with a bit of research. "

And you haven't.

Kinda indicative, innit.

And yes you are lying dumbass. Still not deigning to look at wind power going up as velocity cubed.... part of what you proclaimed "all wrong".

Moreover your protestations sound more and more like dick's posts.

"Derek Abbott is attacking a truly massive strawman."

Bullshit.

Because even if you divide his numbers by 15 AS HE HIMSELF POINTS OUT, it's still impossible to manage 6.5% coverage. Not mechanically possible.

Meanwhile it's rather rich in a "dickA" way to whine and cry off about "massive strawman" with YOUR asinine rhetoric and complaints.

If renewables are such a shambles as you proclaim them, dumbass, then nuclear too is EVEN MOORE a complete trainwreck. For those same reasons, and you should be exhorting nuclear to be cut back.

Moreover, what the fuck is this strawman? France tried 75%. It doesn't work only at 100%, dumbass little shithead.

"That’s not in dispute! Never was."

Oh yes it was you lying little shit.

Go back to your post at 339, you little turdbrain.

er, Greg, can you deliver a sanity check to this thread?

BBD, if it is technically impossible to exceed 100% CF, even for a few minutes, then doesn't this mean the nameplate is being set too high, for a variable item like wind?

Hank: Amazing, isn't it? I get busy with doing the laundry and stuff, come back, and this flood of conversation!

>UK average a CF of about 25% and offshore, 40% as it is windier.

By windier, do you mean the wind is more frequent, or when there is wind the wind is stronger?

I think I see the answer to #420.
So if it were windy 100% of the time at a wind farm, it is likely that it would still be well below 100% nameplate, right?

Abbot's first two points are weak.
20.5 square km per plant, so 15,000 locations is impossible. Has he considered multiple plants per location?
Then he says lifetime of the plant, so with 15,000 plants you have to build one per day, while it takes 6-12 years to build and 20 years to decommission. Again, has he considered that this is operating over many locations around the world?
I'm confused by this:
At the current rate of uranium consumption, the world supply will last 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, supply will last for less than 5 years.

He suggests a 40 fold increase in energy and plants, but the supply only shrinks by a factor of 16? Where did the 2.5x difference come from? Current nuclear production is 2.5% of his target, but that doesn't explain it.

No.

Again you ignore the point. what wind speed is a 1.5Mw wind turbine rated at?

Why do you claim steam turbines work at 100% efficiency when generating from nuke power but nor coal?

What is load utilisaton. What is availaviliry factor.

What is proving in all your bollocks thhat wind tubine output does not vary with wind speed cubed?

And as to more lies from the nuke f;uffers, where do I claim 40 fold increase in energy and plants?

"20.5 square km per plant, so 15,000 locations is impossible. Has he considered multiple plants per location?"

Ah so one tailing the size of the spoil required to service uranium mining operations can contain the tailings of, what, 10 mining operations?

Do you see the dumbassery here?

Water supplied multiple times? How does the cooling work when you then run the water straight into another one?

Got any more dumbass claims?

"Again, has he considered that this is operating over many locations around the world?"

Yes, it's part of the impossible bit.

and how do you get multiple at the same location and all around the world at the same time? Small world...

"BBD, if it is technically impossible to exceed 100% CF, even for a few minutes, then doesn’t this mean the nameplate is being set too high, for a variable item like wind?"

And for hydro power it's set to sized for peak design, not sustained maintainable flow.

MikeN,

If the distribution on the test deviates from the standard normal distribution by so much that it allows you to discriminate between men and women subjects, then the test is biased and invalid for one or the other gender. By definition.