Change-over to enewable energy

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:29:07 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power-for-the-world/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=092211

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46404

John

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 23, 4:49 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 03:35:27 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"









dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
On Sep 22, 5:21 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:24:12 -0700 (PDT), NT <meow2...@care2.com
wrote:

On Sep 22, 4:54 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:29:07 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

What does this idiot think we'll do at night, or on cloudy winter
days, when the wind decides to die down? He doesn't mention how
storage would be accomplished. And of course part of his formula for
making all this stuff work is "reducing demand", another way of saying
it's uneconomic. Of course, he throws in a plan for wasting energy to
produce hydrogen.

His math is silly. Why produce tiny amounts of energy from expensive
wave and tidal sources? Just because it could maybe be done? The major
output from wave-power sources is scrap metal.

He casually suggests that we'd need better weather forcasting!

Fact is, there is lots of natural gas underground, more than anybody
imagined a few years ago. It's cheap and clean. Nuclear works, too, if
governments let it.

IEEE Spectrum is junk.

Why don't you post on topic, about electronics? Even better, DO some
electronics and post about that. You are trolling to find reasons to
argue and insult people, and you only dare to do it around off-topic
trash that can't be proven one way or another.

John

The article is lunacy.

I'll admit I cba to look up exact figures, but the following costings
should at least give a ballpark idea on the level of costs involved.

One scenario that Stanford engineering professor Mark Jacobson and I
developed, projecting to 2030, includes:

   * 3.8 million wind turbines, 5 megawatts each, supplying 50 percent of the projected total global power demand

If we said vaguely 10p/peak W, thats about Ł1.9 trillion

   * 49 000 solar thermal power plants, 300 MW each, supplying 20 percent

If we said vaguely 2p per peak watt, that's Ł0.6 billion

   * 40 000 solar photovoltaic (PV) power plants supplying 14 percent

If we said vaguely 2p per peak watt, that's Ł0.4 billion

   * 1.7 billion rooftop PV systems, 3 kilowatts each, supplying 6 percent

If we said Ł3000 per system, that's Ł5.1 trillion

   * 5350 geothermal power plants, 100 MW each, supplying 4 percent

I've no idea on costs, but if theyre no cheaper than pv, 2p/peak watt
= Ł11 billion

   * 900 hydroelectric power plants, 1300 MW each, of which 70 percent are already in place, supplying 4 percent

If 0.8p per peak watt, that's Ł2.8 billion

   * 720 000 ocean-wave devices, 0.75 MW each, supplying 1 percent

again if 2p/pk watt, Ł10.8 billion

   * 490 000 tidal turbines, 1 MW each, supplying 1 percent.

If 2p/pk watt, 9.8 billion.

So total generation install cost = ballpark Ł2 trillion for all but
the domestic PVs, plus 5 trillion for those.
I dont know what the rest of the system plus administration costs are,
but typically they at least double final end user cost, so say 2+2+5> >> >Ł9 trillion total.

That should wipe out the NHS budget, resulting in wholesale death.

I'm not claiming the figs are accurate, but hopefully near enough to
give a rough idea of the kind of damage such an approach would do.

NT

Chinese solar panels are selling for something like $1.25 per peak
watt. Your 2p is a tad optimistic.

You still have to install them, invert to AC, connect to the grid,
store energy somehow for when the sun sets, and clean up after wind
storms blow all the panels away.

The thing that disturbs me about residential solar is that the panels
are bolted right to roofs, over the shingles or whatever. Envision
leaks. Roof maintanance will now involve removing and replacing the
panels.

Efficiency is better if panels are kept clean. Imagine how many
homeowners are going to die falling off roofs, trying to wash solar
panels with soapy water.
John

The asylum doors open and the exiting lame brains become politicians
for a
green utopia.
http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/pentictonwesternnews/...
The extra solar provision ONLY cost an extra $500, that's BS, I design
and
build houses.

I have an experimental building, with a flat roof (partly for solar),
but it doesn't make economic sense yet.
The bottle neck is in the energy storage, that's improving with
higher power density batteries.
Another is lifetime, how long will solar cells and batteries last.
Ken

Residential solar doesn't make sense to me. The economy of scale is
all wrong.

If you can make cheap solar cells with nano-structured titanium
dioxide or whatever, residential roofs are a nice place to deploy
them. That style of photo-voltaic cell doesn't seem to benefit from
light-concentrating set-ups

Solar water heating makes sense in some climates.

And seems to be fairly popular in Australia ... though none of my
relatives has bothered with it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[NT]

On Sep 24, 9:57 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 7:38 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:



On Sep 24, 5:12 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 2:05 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 23, 8:50 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 23, 6:40 am, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

   Theoretically, these sources are useful for local loads in
specialized situations.

That's the current situation with solar panels. Mark Z.Jacobson and
Mark A.Delucchi are envisaging a thousand-fold larger market with the
consequent economies of scale.

Sufficiently large thermal solar plants seem to be close enough to
break-even that if we built enough of them to supplyu 20% of our total
energy needs.simple economy of scale would put them ahead of burning
fossil carbon (and that isn't going to stay cheap as we burn up all
the most easily extracted stuff and have to compete with the chineses
and the Indians for what's left).

   Economically, they are disasters - the government involvement (read:
interference) is proof.

And burning fossil carbon like there's no tomorrow isn't already a
disaster? Not as big a disaster as we'll have to cope with if we keep
at it until we've raised the global average temperatures by another
degree Celcius or two. We've already raised the temperature of the
Artic by some 3 to 4 degrees Celcius over the past century, and the
Greenland ice sheet is already sliding off into the ocean at an
alarming rate. There's six metres of sea level rise in the Greenland
ice sheet, and rebuilding every port around the world could be rather
expensive.

yes, global warming will cost us all money one way or another. But
what it would take to avoid it, if thats even possible,  would cost us
enormously more. That is the massivest flaw of the whole green agenda

Think about the Younger Dryas, which was a hiccup in the thawing
process that ended the last Ice Age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Basically, the Gulf Stream turned off for 1300 years, probably due to
massive amounts of fresh water being dumped in the North Atlantic when
the Laurentian ice sheet slid off into the ocean. The Greenland ice
sheet isn't as big, and doesn't show any immediate signs of sliding
off into the ocean as a single lump, but it might be able to do as
well. Do you want to find out if it is big enough and unstable enough
by seeing it happen?

We don't know what could happen if we let global temperatures rise by
another degree Celcius or so, and we probably shouldn't indulge our
curiousity by waiting to see what does happen. If the final state of
the planet is incompatible with the advanced industrial civilisation
we've got at the moment, inaction will cost us everything we've got.
That the massive flaw in the denialist argument.

Suggesting that 'the final state of the planet is incompatible with
the advanced industrial civilisation' is a massively flawed claim.

Alright. It is a wrst case argument so,

"If the final state of the planet were incompatible with the advanced
industrial civilisation we've got at the moment, inaction would cost
us everything we've got. That the massive flaw in the denialist
argument."

I don't think you can argue with that. The denialists argue that we

Its bonkers.

can't predict the detailed effects of anthropogenic global warming
with enough precision to absolutely justify doing anything to stop it,
but the flip side of that argument is that we can't predict the kinds
of things that have happened during warming episode - like runaway
methane release as during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum - and
should be correspondingly cautious.

it makes more sense to look at both approaches, evalute, and pick the
one with better survival figures. That isnt the green option.

And fwiw 'denialist' is not the most honest of terms.

Denialism isn't the most honest of activities. Most of the denialist
propaganda is bought and paid for by Exxon-Mobil and similar
oraganisations with a substantial financial interest in continuing to
extract and sell fossil carbon. The book "The Merchants of Doubt"
gives chapter and verse on the history of the business of generating
doubt about scientific evidence, which was started up by the tobacco
companies - the book's title is a reference to a 1969 tobacco company
memo on the subject.

That there are bs artists on both sides is obvious and irrelvant to
valid debate. Calling those that dont agree with popular and dubious
green atgument denialists is dishonest.

Some of the right-wing nitwits here argue that the green agenda wants
us to move back to a medieval muscle-powered economy, which is total
nonsense. The rational green agenda does envisage roughly doubling the
price of energy in the short term - over a decade or so - and since
expenditure on energy currently represents 8% of our GNP this going to
knock off about two years of economic growth (assuming the the usual
4% per year beloved by actuaries and the like) which is no worse than
the US banking system did with the sub-prime mortgge crisis, and does
offer the US a chance to get the oil monkey off it's back.

Check out the 1973 oil crisis sometime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

The level of green initiatives that true greenies want (not the very
watered down mainstream politican's version) would absolutely cripple
the economy. The resulting hardships would prove lethal, literally,
and on a large scale.

"True greenies" are lunatics. I wouldn't be in the least surprised it
it turned out that they were another wing of the denialist propaganda
machine. If they didn't exist the denialists would certainly have
found it useful to invent them.

NT

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:09:55 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 9:53 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:29:07 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46404

and Republican cherry-picking of Democratic project that went sour
tells us what?

That billions of dollars are being wasted on illogical, political,
"green" projects. And that most Democrats are idiots; some of them are
nice people, some have their hearts in the right place, but most are
idiots who tend to make things worse.

John

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 24, 9:53 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:29:07 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46404

and Republican cherry-picking of Democratic project that went sour
tells us what?

That even if you won't vote Republican, you'll recycle their electoral
propaganada?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 24, 8:14 pm, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 24, 9:57 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On Sep 24, 7:38 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 24, 5:12 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 2:05 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 23, 8:50 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 23, 6:40 am, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

   Theoretically, these sources are useful for local loads in
specialized situations.

That's the current situation with solar panels. Mark Z.Jacobson and
Mark A.Delucchi are envisaging a thousand-fold larger market with the
consequent economies of scale.

Sufficiently large thermal solar plants seem to be close enough to
break-even that if we built enough of them to supplyu 20% of our total
energy needs.simple economy of scale would put them ahead of burning
fossil carbon (and that isn't going to stay cheap as we burn up all
the most easily extracted stuff and have to compete with the chineses
and the Indians for what's left).

   Economically, they are disasters - the government involvement (read:
interference) is proof.

And burning fossil carbon like there's no tomorrow isn't already a
disaster? Not as big a disaster as we'll have to cope with if we keep
at it until we've raised the global average temperatures by another
degree Celcius or two. We've already raised the temperature of the
Artic by some 3 to 4 degrees Celcius over the past century, and the
Greenland ice sheet is already sliding off into the ocean at an
alarming rate. There's six metres of sea level rise in the Greenland
ice sheet, and rebuilding every port around the world could be rather
expensive.

yes, global warming will cost us all money one way or another. But
what it would take to avoid it, if thats even possible,  would cost us
enormously more. That is the massivest flaw of the whole green agenda

Think about the Younger Dryas, which was a hiccup in the thawing
process that ended the last Ice Age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Basically, the Gulf Stream turned off for 1300 years, probably due to
massive amounts of fresh water being dumped in the North Atlantic when
the Laurentian ice sheet slid off into the ocean. The Greenland ice
sheet isn't as big, and doesn't show any immediate signs of sliding
off into the ocean as a single lump, but it might be able to do as
well. Do you want to find out if it is big enough and unstable enough
by seeing it happen?

We don't know what could happen if we let global temperatures rise by
another degree Celcius or so, and we probably shouldn't indulge our
curiousity by waiting to see what does happen. If the final state of
the planet is incompatible with the advanced industrial civilisation
we've got at the moment, inaction will cost us everything we've got..
That the massive flaw in the denialist argument.

Suggesting that 'the final state of the planet is incompatible with
the advanced industrial civilisation' is a massively flawed claim.

Alright. It is a wrst case argument so,

"If the final state of the planet were incompatible with the advanced
industrial civilisation we've got at the moment, inaction would cost
us everything we've got. That the massive flaw in the denialist
argument."

I don't think you can argue with that.

It's bonkers.

That's not an argument.

can't predict the detailed effects of anthropogenic global warming
with enough precision to absolutely justify doing anything to stop it,
but the flip side of that argument is that we can't predict the kinds
of things that have happened during warming episode - like runaway
methane release as during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum - and
should be correspondingly cautious.

it makes more sense to look at both approaches, evalute, and pick the
one with better survival figures.

Evaluate? How in heavens name do we evaluate the sort of non-linear
process that turned off the Gulf-stream during the Younger Dryas? The
IPCC won't even consider that kind of risk, because they can't model
them, which strikes me as downright irresponsible.

We need to recognise that turning the global thermostat up a few
degrees may have unexpected consequences, and chicken out.

That isnt the green option.

Please specify what you think the "green" option actually is.

And fwiw 'denialist' is not the most honest of terms.

Denialism isn't the most honest of activities. Most of the denialist
propaganda is bought and paid for by Exxon-Mobil and similar
oraganisations with a substantial financial interest in continuing to
extract and sell fossil carbon. The book "The Merchants of Doubt"
gives chapter and verse on the history of the business of generating
doubt about scientific evidence, which was started up by the tobacco
companies - the book's title is a reference to a 1969 tobacco company
memo on the subject.

That there are bs artists on both sides is obvious and irrelvant to
valid debate. Calling those that don't agree with popular and dubious
green atgument denialists is dishonest.

The argument that anthropogenic global warming is going on isn't
"green", it is scientific. People who disagree with it are either
ignorant or paid-for members of the denialist propaganda machine.

If you'd identify what you consider to be "popular", "green" and
"dubious" arguments, we might have something to talk about.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 23, 7:54 pm, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 23, 10:10 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On Sep 23, 1:11 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 22, 10:48 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 22, 11:24 pm, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 22, 4:54 pm, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:29:07 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

What does this idiot think we'll do at night, or on cloudy winter
days, when the wind decides to die down? He doesn't mention how
storage would be accomplished. And of course part of his formula for
making all this stuff work is "reducing demand", another way of saying
it's uneconomic. Of course, he throws in a plan for wasting energy to
produce hydrogen.

His math is silly. Why produce tiny amounts of energy from expensive
wave and tidal sources? Just because it could maybe be done? The major
output from wave-power sources is scrap metal.

He casually suggests that we'd need better weather forcasting!

Fact is, there is lots of natural gas underground, more than anybody
imagined a few years ago. It's cheap and clean. Nuclear works, too, if
governments let it.

IEEE Spectrum is junk.

Why don't you post on topic, about electronics? Even better, DO some
electronics and post about that. You are trolling to find reasons to
argue and insult people, and you only dare to do it around off-topic
trash that can't be proven one way or another.

The article is lunacy.

Wrong.

I'll admit I cba to look up exact figures, but the following costings
should at least give a ballpark idea on the level of costs involved.

Why not argue with the authors' serious publication?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1..pdf

it gives the exact same figures
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2..pdf

And they were good enough to get published in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal. Are yours?

With respect that doesn't require an article to add up. Read some of
the psych articles published if you doubt that.

What has psychology got to do with this discussion? Peer-review isn't
a guarantee of quality, but having cleared that hurdle, their stuff is
more credible than yours.

Mine were intended to be tweaked where needed, so anyone can see what
the problem is

In other words you embedded your assumptions in the way you set up the
problem.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[josephkk]

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:01:58 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:38:57 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:28:24 GMT, nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:


I've got news for you: all of the fossil fuel will get burned. Storing
CO2 is a very bad idea. A CO2 storage facility is much more dangerous
than a storage for nuclear waste. CO2 is a very toxic gas which will
stay dangerous forever.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Horseshit! If all the CO2 were removed from the atmosphere your body
would forget to breath and you would die. Not to mention the >>devastation
of plant life.

Do you have any idea about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Let me give you some numbers: its about 0.04%. Dangerous concentration
is 5%. But you'll feel to start the effects at 1%.

If you lock someone up in a closed room that person will not be killed
due to the lack of oxygen but due to a toxic level of CO2.

Care to calculate how long that would take? Dehydration will take them
out first.

Besides, i was discussing complete removal of all CO2, down to less than >>1
ppm.

Over here they are planning to pump the exhaust gasses from power
plants into underground storages like empty oil and gas fields. Its
not about taking CO2 from the atmosphere.

On to your issue, politicians love discussing non-workable solutions to
non-problems as an excuse to get more control. They are also quite
oblivious to any potential or real problems with their championed
"solutions".
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sep 24, 6:10 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

The argument that anthropogenic global warming is going on isn't
"green", it is scientific. People who disagree with it are either
ignorant or paid-for members of the denialist propaganda machine.


Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

And we have a true believer. Anyone that does not agree with Bill
can expect to receive the full treatment.

Dan

 

[NT]

On Sep 24, 11:17 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 23, 7:54 pm, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:



On Sep 23, 10:10 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 23, 1:11 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 22, 10:48 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 22, 11:24 pm, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 22, 4:54 pm, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:29:07 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

What does this idiot think we'll do at night, or on cloudy winter
days, when the wind decides to die down? He doesn't mention how
storage would be accomplished. And of course part of his formula for
making all this stuff work is "reducing demand", another way of saying
it's uneconomic. Of course, he throws in a plan for wasting energy to
produce hydrogen.

His math is silly. Why produce tiny amounts of energy from expensive
wave and tidal sources? Just because it could maybe be done? The major
output from wave-power sources is scrap metal.

He casually suggests that we'd need better weather forcasting!

Fact is, there is lots of natural gas underground, more than anybody
imagined a few years ago. It's cheap and clean. Nuclear works, too, if
governments let it.

IEEE Spectrum is junk.

Why don't you post on topic, about electronics? Even better, DO some
electronics and post about that. You are trolling to find reasons to
argue and insult people, and you only dare to do it around off-topic
trash that can't be proven one way or another.

The article is lunacy.

Wrong.

I'll admit I cba to look up exact figures, but the following costings
should at least give a ballpark idea on the level of costs involved.

Why not argue with the authors' serious publication?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

it gives the exact same figures
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf

And they were good enough to get published in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal. Are yours?

With respect that doesn't require an article to add up. Read some of
the psych articles published if you doubt that.

What has psychology got to do with this discussion? Peer-review isn't
a guarantee of quality, but having cleared that hurdle, their stuff is
more credible than yours.

The point is that publishing doesnt make a paper valid. The bar is too
low to be of any use. Thus this line is a red herring.

Mine were intended to be tweaked where needed, so anyone can see what
the problem is

In other words you embedded your assumptions in the way you set up the
problem.

Youre welcome to provide your own figures if you prefer, then suggest
what services could be cut back by how much to meet the cost, and give
some idea what the death toll would be. Perhaps that way we might find
some common ground.


NT

 

[NT]

On Sep 24, 11:10 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 8:14 pm, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:



On Sep 24, 9:57 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 7:38 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 24, 5:12 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 2:05 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 23, 8:50 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 23, 6:40 am, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

   Theoretically, these sources are useful for local loads in
specialized situations.

That's the current situation with solar panels. Mark Z.Jacobson and
Mark A.Delucchi are envisaging a thousand-fold larger market with the
consequent economies of scale.

Sufficiently large thermal solar plants seem to be close enough to
break-even that if we built enough of them to supplyu 20% of our total
energy needs.simple economy of scale would put them ahead of burning
fossil carbon (and that isn't going to stay cheap as we burn up all
the most easily extracted stuff and have to compete with the chineses
and the Indians for what's left).

   Economically, they are disasters - the government involvement (read:
interference) is proof.

And burning fossil carbon like there's no tomorrow isn't already a
disaster? Not as big a disaster as we'll have to cope with if we keep
at it until we've raised the global average temperatures by another
degree Celcius or two. We've already raised the temperature of the
Artic by some 3 to 4 degrees Celcius over the past century, and the
Greenland ice sheet is already sliding off into the ocean at an
alarming rate. There's six metres of sea level rise in the Greenland
ice sheet, and rebuilding every port around the world could be rather
expensive.

yes, global warming will cost us all money one way or another. But
what it would take to avoid it, if thats even possible,  would cost us
enormously more. That is the massivest flaw of the whole green agenda

Think about the Younger Dryas, which was a hiccup in the thawing
process that ended the last Ice Age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Basically, the Gulf Stream turned off for 1300 years, probably due to
massive amounts of fresh water being dumped in the North Atlantic when
the Laurentian ice sheet slid off into the ocean. The Greenland ice
sheet isn't as big, and doesn't show any immediate signs of sliding
off into the ocean as a single lump, but it might be able to do as
well. Do you want to find out if it is big enough and unstable enough
by seeing it happen?

We don't know what could happen if we let global temperatures rise by
another degree Celcius or so, and we probably shouldn't indulge our
curiousity by waiting to see what does happen. If the final state of
the planet is incompatible with the advanced industrial civilisation
we've got at the moment, inaction will cost us everything we've got.
That the massive flaw in the denialist argument.

Suggesting that 'the final state of the planet is incompatible with
the advanced industrial civilisation' is a massively flawed claim.

Alright. It is a wrst case argument so,

"If the final state of the planet were incompatible with the advanced
industrial civilisation we've got at the moment, inaction would cost
us everything we've got. That the massive flaw in the denialist
argument."

I don't think you can argue with that.

It's bonkers.

That's not an argument.

no. none was needed.

can't predict the detailed effects of anthropogenic global warming
with enough precision to absolutely justify doing anything to stop it,
but the flip side of that argument is that we can't predict the kinds
of things that have happened during warming episode - like runaway
methane release as during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum - and
should be correspondingly cautious.

it makes more sense to look at both approaches, evalute, and pick the
one with better survival figures.

Evaluate? How in heavens name do we evaluate the sort of non-linear
process that turned off the Gulf-stream during the Younger Dryas? The

Then lets start with what we can model, at least approximately. If you
slot your figures into my other post, we'll see where we stand.

IPCC won't even consider that kind of risk, because they can't model
them, which strikes me as downright irresponsible.

We need to recognise that turning the global thermostat up a few
degrees may have unexpected consequences, and chicken out.

That isnt the green option.

Please specify what you think the "green" option actually is.

A sizeable price hike on energy, due mainly to reduction in use of
fossil fuels, and an assortment of fiddling legislation that only
serves to make most areas of life take longer and cost more.

And fwiw 'denialist' is not the most honest of terms.

Denialism isn't the most honest of activities. Most of the denialist
propaganda is bought and paid for by Exxon-Mobil and similar
oraganisations with a substantial financial interest in continuing to
extract and sell fossil carbon. The book "The Merchants of Doubt"
gives chapter and verse on the history of the business of generating
doubt about scientific evidence, which was started up by the tobacco
companies - the book's title is a reference to a 1969 tobacco company
memo on the subject.

That there are bs artists on both sides is obvious and irrelvant to
valid debate. Calling those that don't agree with popular and dubious
green atgument denialists is dishonest.

The argument that anthropogenic global warming is going on isn't
"green", it is scientific. People who disagree with it are either
ignorant or paid-for members of the denialist propaganda machine.

If you'd identify what you consider to be "popular", "green" and
"dubious" arguments, we might have something to talk about.

Slot your figures in, then at least we can potentially agree on the
sort of damage one option would cost.


NT

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 25, 6:48 am, josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 11:01:58 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:38:57 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

josephkk <joseph_barr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:28:24 GMT, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

I've got news for you: all of the fossil fuel will get burned. Storing
CO2 is a very bad idea. A CO2 storage facility is much more dangerous
than a storage for nuclear waste. CO2 is a very toxic gas which will
stay dangerous forever.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Horseshit!  If all the CO2 were removed from the atmosphere your body
would forget to breath and you would die.  Not to mention the > >>devastation
of plant life.

Do you have any idea about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Let me give you some numbers: its about 0.04%. Dangerous concentration
is 5%. But you'll feel to start the effects at 1%.

If you lock someone up in a closed room that person will not be killed
due to the lack of oxygen but due to a toxic level of CO2.

Care to calculate how long that would take?  Dehydration will take them
out first.

Besides, i was discussing complete removal of all CO2, down to less than > >>1
ppm.

Over here they are planning to pump the exhaust gasses from power
plants into underground storages like empty oil and gas fields. Its
not about taking CO2 from the atmosphere.

On to your issue, politicians love discussing non-workable solutions to
non-problems as an excuse to get more control.  They are also quite
oblivious to any potential or real problems with their championed
"solutions".  
See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

Seeing Lake Nyos as a "potential problem" in a scheme to bury CO2 in
an empty natural gas field several kilometres underground represents a
degree of obliviousness to physical reality which would be remarkable
even in a politician.

The CO2 dissolved deep in Lake Nyos stayed dissolved for a long time,
but when the CO2 finally started coming out of solution and started
rising towards the surface it dragged a lot of super-saturated water
with it, producing a mechanical instability that delivered a great
deal of CO2 to the surface remarkably quickly. It's hard to achieve
that kind of effect under a couple of miles of geology.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 25, 9:13 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 24, 11:17 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On Sep 23, 7:54 pm, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 23, 10:10 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 23, 1:11 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 22, 10:48 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 22, 11:24 pm, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 22, 4:54 pm, John Larkin

jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:29:07 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

What does this idiot think we'll do at night, or on cloudy winter
days, when the wind decides to die down? He doesn't mention how
storage would be accomplished. And of course part of his formula for
making all this stuff work is "reducing demand", another way of saying
it's uneconomic. Of course, he throws in a plan for wasting energy to
produce hydrogen.

His math is silly. Why produce tiny amounts of energy from expensive
wave and tidal sources? Just because it could maybe be done? The major
output from wave-power sources is scrap metal.

He casually suggests that we'd need better weather forcasting!

Fact is, there is lots of natural gas underground, more than anybody
imagined a few years ago. It's cheap and clean. Nuclear works, too, if
governments let it.

IEEE Spectrum is junk.

Why don't you post on topic, about electronics? Even better, DO some
electronics and post about that. You are trolling to find reasons to
argue and insult people, and you only dare to do it around off-topic
trash that can't be proven one way or another.

The article is lunacy.

Wrong.

I'll admit I cba to look up exact figures, but the following costings
should at least give a ballpark idea on the level of costs involved.

Why not argue with the authors' serious publication?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

it gives the exact same figures
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/DJEnPolicyPt2.pdf

And they were good enough to get published in a peer-reviewed
scientific journal. Are yours?

With respect that doesn't require an article to add up. Read some of
the psych articles published if you doubt that.

What has psychology got to do with this discussion? Peer-review isn't
a guarantee of quality, but having cleared that hurdle, their stuff is
more credible than yours.

The point is that publishing doesnt make a paper valid. The bar is too
low to be of any use. Thus this line is a red herring.

Mine were intended to be tweaked where needed, so anyone can see what
the problem is

In other words you embedded your assumptions in the way you set up the
problem.

Youre welcome to provide your own figures if you prefer, then suggest
what services could be cut back by how much to meet the cost,

In the US situation, the obvious service to cut would be the corporate
welfare in the defence budget. At the moment you spend some $700
billion on defence, when you two closest rivals - France and China -
spend, in combination, some $175 billion, which - historically
speaking, is all that you need to spend.

This leaves some $525 billion a year that you could spend on making
your energy generation more renewable.

and give
some idea what the death toll would be. Perhaps that way we might find
some common ground.

Granting that the Defence Budget is being spent - in part - on
building and developing stuff to kill people, this diversion of
resources might be seen as a potential life-saver.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 25, 9:25 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 24, 11:10 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On Sep 24, 8:14 pm, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 24, 9:57 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 7:38 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 24, 5:12 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 2:05 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 23, 8:50 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 23, 6:40 am, Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:

BillSlomanwrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

   Theoretically, these sources are useful for local loads in
specialized situations.

That's the current situation with solar panels. Mark Z.Jacobson and
Mark A.Delucchi are envisaging a thousand-fold larger market with the
consequent economies of scale.

Sufficiently large thermal solar plants seem to be close enough to
break-even that if we built enough of them to supplyu 20% of our total
energy needs.simple economy of scale would put them ahead of burning
fossil carbon (and that isn't going to stay cheap as we burn up all
the most easily extracted stuff and have to compete with the chineses
and the Indians for what's left).

   Economically, they are disasters - the government involvement (read:
interference) is proof.

And burning fossil carbon like there's no tomorrow isn't already a
disaster? Not as big a disaster as we'll have to cope with if we keep
at it until we've raised the global average temperatures by another
degree Celcius or two. We've already raised the temperature of the
Artic by some 3 to 4 degrees Celcius over the past century, and the
Greenland ice sheet is already sliding off into the ocean at an
alarming rate. There's six metres of sea level rise in the Greenland
ice sheet, and rebuilding every port around the world could be rather
expensive.

yes, global warming will cost us all money one way or another.. But
what it would take to avoid it, if thats even possible,  would cost us
enormously more. That is the massivest flaw of the whole green agenda

Think about the Younger Dryas, which was a hiccup in the thawing
process that ended the last Ice Age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

Basically, the Gulf Stream turned off for 1300 years, probably due to
massive amounts of fresh water being dumped in the North Atlantic when
the Laurentian ice sheet slid off into the ocean. The Greenland ice
sheet isn't as big, and doesn't show any immediate signs of sliding
off into the ocean as a single lump, but it might be able to do as
well. Do you want to find out if it is big enough and unstable enough
by seeing it happen?

We don't know what could happen if we let global temperatures rise by
another degree Celcius or so, and we probably shouldn't indulge our
curiousity by waiting to see what does happen. If the final state of
the planet is incompatible with the advanced industrial civilisation
we've got at the moment, inaction will cost us everything we've got.
That the massive flaw in the denialist argument.

Suggesting that 'the final state of the planet is incompatible with
the advanced industrial civilisation' is a massively flawed claim..

Alright. It is a wrst case argument so,

"If the final state of the planet were incompatible with the advanced
industrial civilisation we've got at the moment, inaction would cost
us everything we've got. That the massive flaw in the denialist
argument."

I don't think you can argue with that.

It's bonkers.

That's not an argument.

no. none was needed.

can't predict the detailed effects of anthropogenic global warming
with enough precision to absolutely justify doing anything to stop it,
but the flip side of that argument is that we can't predict the kinds
of things that have happened during warming episode - like runaway
methane release as during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum - and
should be correspondingly cautious.

it makes more sense to look at both approaches, evalute, and pick the
one with better survival figures.

Evaluate? How in heavens name do we evaluate the sort of non-linear
process that turned off the Gulf-stream during the Younger Dryas? The

Then lets start with what we can model, at least approximately. If you
slot your figures into my other post, we'll see where we stand.

IPCC won't even consider that kind of risk, because they can't model
them, which strikes me as downright irresponsible.

We need to recognise that turning the global thermostat up a few
degrees may have unexpected consequences, and chicken out.

That isnt the green option.

Please specify what you think the "green" option actually is.

A sizeable price hike on energy, due mainly to reduction in use of
fossil fuels, and an assortment of fiddling legislation that only
serves to make most areas of life take longer and cost more.

You've missed the bit about a substantial investment in renewable
energy generation, and the observation that economies of scale will
probably undo most - if not all - of the "sizeable price hike".

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 25, 5:17 am, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 24, 6:10 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

The argument that anthropogenic global warming is going on isn't
"green", it is scientific. People who disagree with it are either
ignorant or paid-for members of the denialist propaganda machine.

And we  have a true believer.  Anyone that does not agree withBill
can expect to receive the full treatment.

The suggestion that they might read s the American Institute of
Physics web-pages on anthropogenic global warming?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

It is a brutal assault, suggesting that the reader can't manage to
read popular physics, but John Larkin - amongst others - has managed
to shrug it off.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 25, 12:15 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 15:09:55 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman









bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 24, 9:53 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:29:07 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power....

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46404

and Republican cherry-picking of Democratic project that went sour
tells us what?

That billions of dollars are being wasted on illogical, political,
"green" projects.

The projects listed don't added up to billions of dollars, or anything
like it. If the Republicans hadn't been able to find failures to froth
at the mouth about, we can be pretty confident that there wouldn't
have been any successes for them to ignore, and an unbiassed observer
would write off the losses as the normal cost of encouraging a range
of initiatives.

And that most Democrats are idiots; some of them are
nice people, some have their hearts in the right place, but most are
idiots who tend to make things worse.

Whereas Republicans - such as Sarah Palin and Dubbya - are a bunch of
intellectual giants who never put a foot wrong?

Even if you won't vote Republican, you seem happy to recycle their
electoral propaganada and now seem to be trying to claim that it isn't
even propaganda? As evidence that "most Democrats are idiots" fell a
long way short of being convincing - so far short that it could be
said that the Republicans must think that most voters are idiots.

You - of course - aren't an idiot, but merely so politically partisan
that you don't realise that the propaganda you are recycling isn't
remotely plausible.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 23/09/2011 12:29 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power-for-the-world/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=092211

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Where is the supply and load modelling?

Or is it, as I suspect, just a lot of hand waving?

Sylvia.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 22:31:53 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.here.invalid>
wrote:

On 23/09/2011 12:29 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power-for-the-world/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=092211

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Where is the supply and load modelling?

Or is it, as I suspect, just a lot of hand waving?

Sylvia.

That seems to be Slowman's latest buzz phrase, "rather better placed". What?
With their heads up their asses ?

Slowman seems to be trying out for President of the NIP's... Narcissistic
Ignorant Pansies.

...Jim Thompson
--
[On the Road, in New York]

| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 06:44:02 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

This particular pricing structure doesn't specifically encourage the
installation of photo-voltaic solar generating capacity - energy
demand peaks in the mornings and the late afternoon

http://www.mpoweruk.com/electricity_demand.htm

while sunlight peaks at midday.

The sunlight falling on a _horizontal_ surface peaks at midday.

At higher latitudes, the panels are always erected. If the peak demand
is in the afternoon, aim the panel to SW instead of S.

At high latitudes in the summer, the SW facing panel will produce
nearly as much as the south facing, but of course, in the winter, the
sun sets before reaching SW.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 23, 4:33 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 02:07:42 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman









bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 23, 10:48 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:35:56 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 22, 5:23 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:29:07 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

Super grids and energy security are incompatible.

The Russkies shut off gas to parts of Europe every winter. Why would
anyone want to rely even more on power from unstable areas of the
world?

And without super grids ithe idea is a bust. Most of Northern Europe
was without wind last December. So 50% of energy gone in mid winter..
Lots of fun.

If you were paying more attention, you might have noted that the
Desertec project envisages a super-grid coupling solar thermal plants
in the Sahara to Germany. A shortage of wind over northern Europe
could presumably be made up with electricity generated further south.

So we should rely on power distribution through Libya, Tunisia,
Algeria?

We haven't got a lot of choice. Since the Arab Spring there does seem
to be some prospect of stable demoncratic government in these areas -
oil companies do seem to like military dictatorships, despite their
unfortunate habit of coming apart when the dictator gets past it, or
just greedy, as happened with Saddam Hussein.

Which bit of energy security don't you understand?

The bit that says our current arrangements are "secure".

Well the UK was fine until the AGW nuts came along.  Plenty of coal to
keep things running and plenty of shale.

Of course those stupid enough to rely on foreign supplies of gas have
regular problems.



Anyway there is plenty of shale gas out there who needs renewables?

Anybody with enough sense to understand the scientific case for not
burning much more fossil carbon. Not you, obviously.

Trolling again I see.

Simple statement of fact. You've made it perfectly obvious that you
don't understand the scientific case. You do have enough sense to
follow the denialist trolls that are published from time to time, but
not enough sense to work out that that their arguments aren't remotely
persuasive.

John said it quite well: " You are trolling to find reasons to
argue and insult people".

If that's the way you want to see it. Admittedly, it is insulting to
point out that people are posting nonsense, but I'm not doing it
because I want to insult them. I'm certainly not doing it to pick an
argument - the kinds of arguments that get advanced in support of
denialist nonsense aren't worthy of the name.

Arguments about electronics here - where many of the posters do know
what they are talking about - are well worth provoking, since they can
be very informative and have freed me of a couple of long-held
misconceptions, and - no doubt - have performed similar services for
other posters.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen