By Planning Engineer Russ Schussler
“Renewable good, non-renewable bad” is far too simplistic and unfortunately influential
Previous posts have argued that renewable does not necessarily mean green, sustainable or environmentally sound. Non-renewable generation may meet green goals, be highly sustainable and environmentally sound. The dichotomy adds more confusion than value. Additionally, the grid impacts of resources lumped together as renewable are so diverse that it makes no sense to speak of them as a group in that context. This posting will, through a couple examples, challenge and highlight the dangerous idea that all “renewables” are basically “good” and all “nonrenewable” are basically bad.
Do We Want More Renewables and Less Nonrenewable?
Technology and our ability to tap various resources change over time. With key technological developments, very poor options can become very good options. With extensive adoptions, good options can become very bad. Attempting to implement any option before its time is usually counterproductive. Options that are beneficial on a small scale may have serious negative consequences when scaled up. Renewable-good, non-renewable-bad is far too simplistic.
Biomass projects may unduly benefit from being classified as a renewable generation resource. Various biomass projects are frequently criticized across the political spectrum for a variety of environmental ills. Nevertheless, biomass projects meet regulatory requirements for renewable energy and are selected over alternatives that may be better by most all other relevant criteria.
Nuclear power is another example of another resource that does not work well with the renewable/nonrenewable dichotomy. Nuclear minimizes many of the problems associated with fossil fuel generation. Certainly, objections can be raised against nuclear power, but sustainability is not a major concern at this time. Current efforts to increase nuclear power face additional challenges because nuclear resources are not considered renewable. Nuclear power should be competing with various “renewable” sources based on their specific merits for specific applications and criticized based on whatever concerns can be raised. But they should not be handicapped because of the rubric of renewables.
Our energy future likely will be impacted by many new alternatives that work even less well with the renewable/non-renewable framework. Simplistic thinking can help to sideline emerging beneficial technology and advance more suspect technology. We should have many goals for are future energy sources, but properly fitting into the renewable category should not take precedence.
Could a Non-Renewable Non- Sustainable Fossil Fuel Based Resource be a Great Option?
While not wanting to promote any technology before it’s time, I will argue that we may want to keep the door open for beneficial generation options that could emerge in the future that might not be renewable. For example, huge amounts of tires end up in landfills where their decomposition can result in leeching, leading to various consequential environmental problems. Eventually we may be able to transform waste tires into energy, with net benefits across a range of environmental measures. Consider that with improved technology, large amounts of waste tires could be seen as potential fossil fuel-based resources instead of toxic dumps.
Currently, considerable efforts center around recycling waste tires and their components. There are various technologies. Circulating fluidized bed technology makes use of a hot bed of ash at 850 to 900 C. This flameless combustion can produce tremendous energy while allowing pollutants to be captured in the ash bed. Pyrolysis, heat in the absence of oxygen, may prove to be a superior technology for extracting energy from tires while minimizing their waste impact. Imagine transforming and eventually eliminating toxic waste dumps while capturing valuable synchronous, dependable electrical energy. If such plants were successful, might we clear out all dumps and exceed capabilities of future waste tires? Yes, we could. But wouldn’t it be a great thing to drive such waste to extinction in a process that was known to be unsustainable?
Such approaches are outside of the renewable/nonrenewable dichotomy. But in many cases, that may be where we want to go. Renewable thinking argues our resources must last forever. That is a true statement for many things we depend on. But transitory resources have provided great benefits in the past. As noted above, who cares if we don’t have enough waste tire dumps to last forever. This is a fossil fuel-based resource that cries out to be depleted in the interest of environmental concerns.
Don’t get Suckered into Huge Waste Because the Energy Part is Renewable
Renewable energy has a scary power to push the adoption of many marginal technologies. To illustrate this, I will summarize the solar roadways story. Many were overly enthusiastic about the potential for solar roadways when this concept exploded in 2014. Solar Roadways is a specific company, but other named companies have promoted and have run various projects seeking to produce electricity using panels on roadways. The basic approaches involve high-tech interlocking solar panels with many other additional functionalities. There were big pushes to capitalize on “abundant”, “free”, “green” power through solar roadways. The potential benefits touted also included reduced highway maintenance, jobs, warning of obstructions through weight sensors, the ability to charge vehicles using the roads, roads which would melt the snow and enhanced road signaling through embedded LED technology.
Many people were naïve and seduced by the potential benefits. Money came from many sources to the Solar Roadways Incorporated Company. The Department of Transportation provided funding for various feasibility projects. A crowdfunding drive at Indiegogo, bolstered by Georgie Takei and this video, raised $2.2 Million for Solar Roadways. Like many videos, this one looks a bit dated after nearly a decade, but it was powerful then and captured the hearts and minds of many.
Responsible people would occasionally ask me my take on solar roadways. I would probe and respond carefully. “Do you have extra money you need to spend on something? Are you wanting to do something for positive PR? Do you want to be altruistic and support preliminary research?” These weren’t their prime drivers and when they let me know that, I’d tell them that I didn’t believe getting an early start on a technology with so much development ahead could possibly help their consumers or their bottom line.
What should rational individuals have been thinking about the potential for solar roadways back then?
“This is going to take a long while at best. Nothing has been demonstrated on even a small scale. It costs an awful lot to just cover roads with asphalt. How much will it cost to cover them with glass devices that are more complicated and have greater functionality than iPhones? Do you think we can leave them exposed to the elements with trucks and cars and who knows what driving over them? What could possibly go wrong? What about road traction? This can’t easily be hooked up and made to work with controls and connected to the grid or other power supply stations. How long might individual panels last? Maintenance of such a system on the roadway seems challenging to say the least. Aren’t solar panels angled for good reasons? Shouldn’t we see a whole bunch of successful implementations of solar roofs before you might reasonably expect solar roads to be doable? Aren’t there all sorts of potential problems not yet thought of that are likely to emerge? I’m going to have to hear a lot more before I become enchanted by this one.”
But such questions did not get much visibility. People were largely enchanted or distracted by the prospect of free renewable energy.
How have these programs performed? A $3.9 million prototype in Idaho found 83% of the panels broke the first week. Had it worked, it may have been able to power a drinking fountain and lighting for a restroom. France spent over $5 million to install 2,800 photovoltaic panels covering .62 miles of road. Despite the special silicone resin intended to protect the road from 19-wheeler traffic, the panels couldn’t hold. Initially the project generated half of the expected energy, but within a few years it was closer to 10% of original projections. The impacts of thunderstorms, leaf mold and tractors were not adequately anticipated. The resin coating that helped protect the panels, generated so much noise that the speed limit had to be lowered to 79 km/h (43 mph). China opened a .62-mile solar road in 2017. However, it closed within a week due to damage from traffic and panel theft.
Today there is one functioning solar roadway today in the US, located in Peachtree City, Georgia. Data for this small 50 square meter project is hard to come by, but the anticipated annual electric output of the project could be purchased for less than $200 using the average Georgia residential rate. Maybe this small application is the right size scale for such a project a decade after the initial great promise and hope and who knows how long before the technology may prove fruitful.
These are terrible results. Maybe worse than might have been expected by even some of the most extreme of skeptics. As questionable as the big concept was, there was a plethora of smaller sub problems that needed a lot of development. Despite some of the honest appraisals available, it was hard to dampen the enthusiasm for these projects. Accompanied by much acclaim, solar roadway projects got funding and proceeded with fairly large-scale testing, despite the supporting materials being only in the most primitive stages of development.
Conclusions
The terms renewable and nonrenewable command a lot of undeserved power and influence with the public and policy makers. Rather than educating and informing, they often serve to confuse and misdirect energy policy. More sophisticated understandings around what is clean, green, sustainable, environmentally sound and workable are needed. The renewable/nonrenewable dichotomy is hurting our ability to move forward with potentially valuable workable technologies and giving too big a boost to poorly thought-out boondoggles.
Correction/Clarification: In Part II of this series, and perhaps going further back, I refer to “run of the river” hydro as being rare and mostly insignificant. This series was picked up in another forum and a commenter there noted that the US has many large hydro facilities classified as run of river. I should have referred to run of river facilities without pondage. The Corps of Engineers refers to hydro dams with extensive storage facilities (seasonal and multi-year) as stored hydro. Those with more limited storage ability (days, weeks and possibly months) are credited with “pondage” capabilities as opposed to storage. Basically, pondage allows operators to hold back flows until they are needed and useful. It is a limited form of storage. Large facilities with considerable pondage (as opposed to long term storage) are classified as run of the river (or in some documents as “basically run of the river”) by Federal authorities. While pondage is not long-term storage, it provides capacity value and allows Planners to count on these facilities to meet peak demand. Pondage allows operators to dispatch these facilities to follow load and support the system when needed. Hydro facilities with pondage are not correctly called intermittent and would be similar to a wind or solar facility with extensive battery backup. My use of the term “run of river” came from modelling experience where it referred to resources that showed up intermittently and were uncontrollable. I should have been more precise here because of the differing definitions. Hydro without pondage or storage is usually small and not significant.
‘Seventeen years ago, Spain’s socialist government decided to inject subsidies into renewable energy. As a result, thousands of Spanish families massively invested in photovoltaic energy. But, as you’ll see in our report, the dream rapidly turned into a nightmare.’
“Since the modern nation-state was invented around the year 1500,” says Dyson (see, Ibid), “a succession of countries have taken turns at being top nation, first Spain, then France, Britain, America… I am telling the next generation of young students, who will still be alive in the second half of our century, that misfortunes are on the way. Their precious Ph.D., or whichever degree they went through long years of hard work to acquire, may be worth less than they think.” ~ Freeman Dyson
The ibid above refers to the source as follows…
‘It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.’ (Freeman Dyson, Many Colored Glass: Reflections on the Place of Life in the Universe)
So Dyson is just another human after all, and into generalized ad hominem attacks:
“‘It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.’”
Climate model experts believe their own models since there are other climatologists out there in the weather, or flying satellites, to get data that the models (hypotheses) can be tested against. I’m surprised Dyson doesn’t understand how (modern) science works. But no matter (RIP Freeman).
‘My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models… The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.’ ~Dyson (ibid)
BA Bushaw
–
No, my scientific hypotheses are not delusional.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That is 17 years old, from a non-climatologist who admitted that he was not closely involved in the field. It does not describe the current state of the science. Seems a great example of appeal to false authority.
Spain’s experience with renewables is not an observation by Dyson. Nothing more than common knowledge. Just a matter of contemporaneous business Reportage…
Business- Spain Halts Renewable Subsidies to Curb $31 Billion of Debts (Bloomberg, Jan 27, ,2012)
Pollyism: “… understand how (modern) science works.”
Modern, the sculpted part; superior to observational, no doubt; driven by political parroting inclination, surely.
Trunks,
“Modern Science” is an easy search if you don’t understand what it means.
Modellers in cloud towers
Wiling away the tenured hours
Concerning weather ::
Opt for Clockwork Systems over Cloud,
All clocks are clouds, even the most cloudy clouds.
The and I gave her the same climate models can never be verified…
“First, the IPCC relies on climate models to distinguish natural from human caused climate change,” says Dr. John Christy, and “these same models on average fail by a significant amount to reproduce the climate of the past 35 years.” Even so, “the IPCC now has even more confidence that the models can distinguish natural from human change over a period the models clearly fail to simulate well,” concludes Christy. “It doesn’t make sense to me.”
Climate model experts believe their own models since there are other climatologists out there in the weather, or flying satellites, to get data that the models (hypotheses) can be tested against.
John Christy and many others have shown that data does not verify the models.
https://www.uah.edu/essc/essc-news/16458-paper-on-climate-model-s-warming-bias-co-authored-by-dr-christy-is-top-download
Change last line- as Newton.
*All clouds are clocks, even the most cloudy clouds.*
The climatists keep fiddling with their mathematical models but to what end? They are creating not resolving statistical problems. Continually fine tuning parameters based on real-world observations may result in a fine picture of a world gone by. That such models actually capture all the forces and relationships between the forces that comprise past climate and future weather and by extension future climate is an illusion. GCMs are not helping us know the future like crystal balls with built-in answers.
How many ppm of the population will never find meaningful employment as a result of spending millions of dollars to waste society’s attention on a phony problem that too many ppm of CO2 is causing global warming? The businesses that employ people need and use energy to provide goods and services.
“GCMs are not helping us know the future like crystal balls with built-in answers.”
People who place a lot of faith in computer technology are actually placing a lot of faith in programmers who, like any other gig, will range from exceptionally good to exceptionally bad as humans tend to be in most things. Since we will not know the good from the bad until a program is tested with a known question and answer problem, we can pontificate muddled and puzzling results of the kind COVID-19 brought to our attention. Of course the ambiguities of life will not matter as long as the climate prognosis is bad, bad, bad for human longevity with fossil fuel. Hence the elaborate need for regular record breaking because otherwise we would soon be saying we have seen this “trick” before and it isn’t that smart …
We put a lot of misplaced and undeserved trust in computer technology (and I am not including AI in that statement since, from years of experience, it doesn’t exist as an exception to the rule of everyday algorithm authoring). As ever (as Planning Engineer expresses above) it is the myths that kill us or generally reek havoc in life on Planet Earth.
Loving your analysis and logical arguments. The biggest problem however is how do you get people who have been fed a diet of fear for decades to distance themselves from their panic and look at things objectively. Fear tends to force people into dualistic thinking and a panicked search for instant ,simplistic solutions. People prefer to believe a fearmonger.
True that. People who are living in fear tend to do irrational things. Like try to use wind and solar instead of nuclear to reduce CO2 emissions. Of course, the evidence that the extra CO2 is a net negative is very sparse.
The term renewable has always bugged me. How do you renew energy? Take some old energy and make it new again? Energy can only be converted into another form such as electricity or work, heat or mass. Solar and wind energy is converted to electricity quite directly but it’s very dilute and inefficient. Hydro is gravitational energy being converted to electricity, also directly. All three depend on location to be effective. Fossil fuels are naturally occurring sources of energy that have been highly concentrated by natural processes over geological time and can be exploited anywhere as they are relatively abundant, relatively cheap to mine and transport around the world. All they need is to be ignited. Transporting renewable energy is very expensive over large distances. Storing it is also expensive whereas storing oil and coal is cheap, safe and easy. Generating renewables is also mining and space intensive not to mention offensive to the eye. I’ve tried to come up with a better term but I don’t think the English language has an appropriate one. It’s maybe inexhaustible or sustainable and freely available (the energy that is) and not requiring combustion for generating. So it doesn’t use up oxygen and doesn’t produce emissions. Essentially the difference is that it doesn’t require combustion to release it. It’s therefore available and not latent. I’m left with intermittent non-combustible energy INCE🤔
fossil fuels have a long list of downsides: they pollute, are finite, are NOT cheap at all during times times of political instability that are entirely outside of our control, they are not all that cheap to transport. also, they actually will run out, and long before they run out, they will get increasingly expensive as extraction rates drop and extraction methods get increasingly expensive. the word “renewable” on the other hand makes perfect sense for at least the next three billion years when it comes to solar. yes, we all know energy is finite. it’s the first law of thermodynamics. but the sun’s energy output is so vastly more than we need, and will last for so much longer that we will – billions of more years – that for the purposes of our needs, the supply is renewable and infinite.
Sustainable sources of usable energy; (with additional attributes, if they have them – clean, efficient, stable, reliable, safe, etc.)
Are you doing your own ad hominem?
?
Stick with Coal, oil and gas as the primary storable baseload energy sources. Augment with whatever suits the region, be it solar, wind, hydro, geothermal etc. Nuclear is an important source in certain regions. There is a big push to substitute nuclear an eliminate fossil. I personally have always rejected more nuclear when there are safer, less expensive options. Nuclear is being pushed very hard by billionaires who see profits rom uranium mining and from centralized control of technocratic energy solutions.
in terms of deaths per kw, isn’t nuclear the safest option? Especially considering that most solar/wind use hydro as energy storage. And I’m not convinced that solar/wind is much cheaper compared to nuclear if we would require the same constant reliable energy supply from them similar to nuclear, meaning we need to add a lot of batteries/hydro
I am not opposed to nuclear but deaths per kilowatt hour is not the only metric. and also, deaths from radiation exposure are very difficult to measure as you are looking for small increases in cancer and death rates over large populations, that can add up to a large number of deaths. a bigger concern though is the possible depopulation of a large area if there is a melt-down / contamination. this has happened at both fukushima and chernobyl.
DanB wrote of depopulation of large areas (because of nuclear radiation) as at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
In 1994, my wife and I stood at ground zero in Nagasaki, surrounded by a bustling, attractive city whose day to day life seemed unaffected by the atom bomb dropped 50 years before.
The field of nuclear radiation safety has been deliberately populated by a large group of unhappy, fearful people who are vocal in opposing peaceful uses of radioactivity. Most will never meet personal downsides; they typically ignore upsides.
Public policy should not be swayed by the sick minds of people who usually know very little about this subject, but believe propaganda. Geoff S
“Why do you think specular reflection is not being measured? It is detectable by the same satellite shortwave photometers that detect diffuse reflection?”
Let’s explain what is the discrepancy:
Moon and Mars are smooth surface spheres.
When Te is calculated with the measured Bond Albedo, the results are not realistic:
Moon’s calculated with Bond Albedo a =0,11 is Te =270,4K.
Mars’ calculated with Bond Albedo a =0,25 is Te =210K.
Because
Moon’s satellite measured Tmean =220K.
Mar’s satellite measured Tmean =210K.
And, the realistic is:
Moon’s calculated with Bond Albedo a =0,11 and Φ=0,47
is Te.correct =224K.
Mars’ calculated with Bond Albedo a =0,25 and Φ=0,47
is Te.correct =174K.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Americanism led the world from the 1900s into the 21st century. Very hard to understand why the Left wants to turn the US back to the 1800s with it’s embrace of socialism, the sower of millions of graves.
Time for a little economics lesson on subsidies, taxes and goverment spending, for my conservative posters.
When money goes to taxes, to pay for a subsidy, many here seem to assume this money disappears from circulation, reducing economic activity – bad for the economy. This is part of the overall view that higher taxes are bad from the economy, and lower taxes are good.
Of course, history does not bear out this simple formula. the economy performed atrociously in the late 1920s with extremely low taxes, performed extremely well in the 1950s and 1960s with very high tax rates, improved under Clinton despite a tax increase, perhaps worse under George W. Bush than under Clinton despite multiple Bush tax cuts, etc. etc.
Given this data, someone with a curious mind might start to wonder if the basic assumptions about taxes are mistaken. And in fact, when taxes are paid, money does not go out of circulation. Because the government immediately goes out and spends the money. In the case of subsidies, that money is circulated back out to corporations producing whatever is being subsidized – solar, wind, EVs, etc., those corporations meet their payrolls, and low-and-behold, the money is back in the hands of the consumer.
the highway system, we might remember, is actually a subsidy for those who drive cars. early roads were often toll roads built privately, where tolls when to the corporations. is the subsidy that constructed the highway system bad economics? of course not! it has paid for itself many times over.
Of course there are still economic impacts to taxes – but they are complex, depending on the type of tax, how the money is used, etc. which is why historically, there is simply no evidence that the economy does better in a low-tax environment.
‘I came to office with one deliberate intent: to change Britain from a dependent to a self-reliant society—from a give-it-to-me, to a do-it-yourself nation. A get-up-and-go, instead of a sit-back-and-wait-for-it Britain.’
https://fee.org/articles/margaret-thatcher-on-socialism-20-of-her-best-quotes/
‘Marxists get up early in the morning to further their cause. We must get up even earlier to defend our freedom.’ (ibid)
There are choices and socialism is the most gutless. No one can work in a free enterprise economy without being caring of others, being optimistic about life and giving totally of oneself: the capitalist must actually provide something of value to someone else or the capitalist does not eat.
That’s a straw man argument, DanB.
The problem with taxes is that it disincentivizes people from working hard. The better the reward, the more enthusiastically they work.
Second, the government spends money on things that aren’t needed in many cases. If the money is left with the people, they buy things that are useful to them. Or, they have some left over to invest and/or save for retirement. That is what money is for.
Also, low tax rates are good for the economy.
The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.
According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:
The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.
https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/the-historical-lessons-lower-tax-rates
Dan
You are conflating high marginal tax rates with high effective tax rates. The former doesn’t necessarily impact the latter, even though that might seem counterintuitive. In 1944 and 1945 the top marginal rate was 94%, the highest ever. The effective tax rates were ~14%. In 1948, with the top marginal tax rate at 91% the effective tax rate was 9%. During the 1950s and early 1960s , with top marginal tax rates at 91%, the effective rate varied from ~11 to 13%. In 1988, with the top marginal tax rate of 28%, the effective tax rate was 13.4%. There are several things that affect the effective tax rate, beyond the top rate.
After two top marginal tax rate increases from 28% to 39.4% from 1988 to 1993, the effective tax rate increased by only .1% from 13.4% to 13.5%.
There are many reasons that the economy was good and Clinton balanced the budget. The increase in top marginal tax rate was a very small part of it. The reason Clinton balanced the budget, among other reasons, was an increase in spending of only 30% vs 80% on both sides of his term and just as importantly a 53% growth in real taxable income including a fivefold increase in capital gains tax revenue. Bush 2 had negative real growth in taxable income. The tax base increased substantially under Clinton while it shrank under Bush 2. If Bush had an increase in real taxable income that Clinton had, and Clinton had a reduction of real taxable income that Bush had, then Clinton would have had a deficit and Bush would have balanced the budget.
What is never mentioned is that income inequality exploded under Clinton with those making $1M+ having total income increased from $177 billion in 1992 to $817 billion in 2000.
The internet bubble was surely a part of that after the capital gains tax was reduced.
You are repeating some of the myths about taxes that have become ingrained in our political narrative.
All of these statistics come from the IRS. Several years ago, just for fun I read all the IRS annual reports back to 1916. Mucho interesting things discovered.
Just like the climate, the economy, taxes and budget are a lot more complex than just a couple of factors.
Absolutely the economy is more complex than a couple of factors. actually, that’s basically my point. I am not trying to say that higher taxes are better for the economy. But neither, if one looks at the evidence and a good deal of economic theory – are lower taxes. this is a vastly oversimplistic model. what is the type of tax? who is being taxed? and how is the money going to be spent? and there are many influences on the economy that have nothing to do with taxes. i agree the clinton economy was based to a large extent on the foundational growth of the internet. bush II’s economy suffered from the collapse of the internet bubble. all true. but the mantra that i hear, over and over and over, that the economy grows when taxes are lowered and shrinks when taxes are raised, simply does not hold, nor does it follow logically.
Your comment indicates that you have little or no understanding of the concept of scarcity and the importance of the efficient application of capital in a market economy.
Yep, the poor (and the rest of us) be damned.
So taxing everyone at say 100% of their income is fine because the money goes back into circulation?
Your analysis is deeply flawed. Taxes reduce the average citizen’s discretion to spend money as they see fit, to be replaced by the government deciding what are worthwhile expenditures. That crushes innovation and leads directly to the communist state, where only those at the top of the government do well.
Then we have government spending money they do not have, borrowing it from those not yet even born. Paying interest on that money requires taxing those alive today. Taken to extremes, nothing gets done because the money is being paid out to cover interest on the debt. Printing money to cover the debt only leads to Germany of the 1920’s
Quite clearly, the politicians are ignoring fiscal reality to buy re-election, allowing the politicians to be well off financially. Everybody else ends up living paycheck-paycheck.
The excesses of the green energy movement typify irrational excess that only serves to line the pockets of special interest groups and politicians. The average citizen becomes poorer and the climate is unaffected.
Pingback: Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part 3 - Climate- Science.press
Climate Doomers own this:
In the most critical cases, climate anxiety disrupts the ability to function day to day. Children and young people in this category feel alienation from friends and family, distress when thinking about the future and intrusive thoughts about who will survive, according to Hickman’s research. Patients obsessively check for extreme weather, read climate change studies and pursue radical activism. Some, devastatingly, consider suicide as the only solution. And Hickman isn’t the only expert seeing this. In her book A Field Guide to Climate Anxiety, Sarah Ray describes a student who had such severe “self-loathing eco-guilt” that she stopped consuming much at all, including food.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-02-16/how-therapists-treat-anxiety-stress-over-climate-change
Interesting article, jim2. It also says:
‘Perhaps one of the most surprising aspects of anxiety over climate change: It can also be linked to climate denial. Experts said the two can be understood as different manifestations of the same feeling. “The conspiracy theorists are reassuring,” says Hickman. “If you can’t tolerate anxiety, you will then spin off into believing somebody who gives you false promises.”’
Sounds like bafflegab to me, fizzy.
On top of that, some conspiracy theories would end in violent confrontation if correct. How would this sooth anxiety? Bafflegab, fizzy.
Yeah. From the article you posted, jim2
Posted, but didn’t write it.
wagathon,
“No one can work in a free enterprise economy without being caring of others. the capitalist must actually provide something of value to someone else or the capitalist does not eat.”
Seriously? What planet are you living on? Yes, capitalists who provide no actually value eat perfectly fine all the time. As one example, i offer the tobacco industry. this not only depended on lies claiming that tobacco didn’t cause cancer, and upon an ingredient that was physically addictive, but on dramatically shortening the lifespans of its consumers. you can look at the phony health supplements industry as another example. it is preying on ignorant people who are ill and want to believe in magical cures. last i heard the drug companies that pushed opioids didn’t show a lot of caring about humanity. they cared about their own wealth and couldn’t care less about the lives they destroyed. and how about the advertising companies that pushed all of these malevolent products. Did they do it out of a love for humanity? It seems to me they ate just fine.
Consider the example of entrepreneur Steve who finds someone, we’ll call him Joe, starving in the desert and sells a quart of water for to Joe for all of Joe’s net worth. He takes every penny Joe has ever earned. Joe has no choice. He buys the water because he needs it to live. Now, Steve the entrepreneur indeed provided a service. Did he do it out a love for humanity? Or because he’s a greedy dirtbag, and most people would help someone in the desert for free?
Plenty of entrepreneurs don’t care in the slightest for humanity even if they are providing a service of value, because the reason they are providing that service is still to benefit themselves.
Dan B … I’m going to assume you never owned a company where you had employees. Meeting payroll each week is a high priority, as you might imagine. Employees aren’t objects to abuse. They’re extremely important to a business. If you don’t treat them properly and fairly, and that includes compensation, you won’t have them for long. And without them, you won’t have a business. They actually come first in the pecking order of payment. The owner comes last. Are there bad actors as owners? Of course. But there’s no guarantee that government doesn’t have bad actors, as well.
DanB, “…entrepreneur Steve who finds someone, we’ll call him Joe, starving in the desert and sells a quart of water to Joe for all of Joe’s net worth. He takes every penny Joe has ever earned. Joe has no choice. He buys the water because he needs it to live. Now, Steve the entrepreneur indeed provided a service. Did he do it out a love for humanity?”
DanB believes a person who borrows to invest in exploratory drilling to find water in the desert should not sell any found water to one in need to recoup their cost for drilling, or even earn a small profit to support their family. Much less the imvestor continuing to invest in a vital service, finding more water (and delivering it). The investor should instead give this product and service away for free. Therefore both parties who actually need water to survive in the desert should die, it’s only fair; because profit as a motive for survival is a humanistic sin. Labor and risk should have no value in such circumstances, though there would be no water otherwise in this scenario.
To pay off loans needed to exploratory drill for water is besides the point, nor earning a small profit to feed family too, all such reasoning is besides the point. Give till the ultimate hurt of death is the only point. Yet the person who spent their last dime for water has an unguaranteed opportunity to continue survival, as does the investor who risked and worked for their own survival. DanB would have one believe not giving away all ones capital is the greatest sin of all.
Communism/socialism doesn’t work because why should one invest capital, or labor, into anything that is expected for free? Such is the ultimate recipe for malaise, because it works against the natural human condition. When nobody works, there can be no progress, such is the nature of progressivism, an oxymoron if there ever was one considering its absolute regressive veiled promise; also referred to as “love of humanity” by DanB.
1) obviously, despite the health problems smokers perceive value in the product. If not, they wouldn’t buy the cigarettes. 2) So, Steve ends up wealthy but dies of thirst. You really don’t understand how a market economy works
To give a practical example of PEs differentiation of the difference between pondage and storage, one can look at Clyde power station and lake Dunstan. It also shows the problems of trying to use it as backup for the unreliables.
It is a 4 unit 440MW hydro. The units are most efficient at about 100MW and efficiency falls off rapidly with a large increase in maintenance costs much below about 90MW. Though the lake is 26 sq km, the working range is only 1m. This tight range is because there is a 5000 residents’ town on the lake shore. The town had to be moved when they created the lake – on which there is a lot of recreation. The units generate about 1MW for every 2 cumecs flow.
About 80% of the water coming into the lake are uncontrolled rivers – no upstream storage. The minimum flow through it is set by consents at about 100 cumecs. Less than this and the head of the next lake downstream (which has a bigger town on its shore) dewaters.
Most river based hydro schemes have a significant slope on them. When operating, the tailwater level is significantly higher than the downstream dam level height. This means the starting and stopping of each station has to be carefully controlled to stop spill.
The current operating regime is mainly two shifting. Running one unit 10pm to 6am, 3 or 4 units 6am to 9am and 4pm to 10pm with a bit of a back off in the middle of the day. When it is raining in headwaters, they typically run baseload. For heavy rain, they run flat out and spill water they can’t use.
So how could this station, and many others like it around the world, be integrated into a system as cover for wind and/or solar without doing a lot of spill – wasting the high quality renewable power storage?
Reality complicates Unicorn Green Schemes. Who knew?? (HINT: A lot of people knew)
Most people know it. Guess what; new, modern technologies and their management are generally complicated, whether they are green unicorns or not. Some people are up to the challenge, some are not.
BA
So your answer is effectively the same as Apples – young bright engineers will solve it if only the old fogies step aside. You are unable to reason past teeshirt slogans and mantras. And arrogant enough to think that with your childlike simple thinking, you know better. You have a bit of paper which you think says you are brighter than all the rest.
One thing you learn very quickly in engineering workplaces is that those greyhairs are still around and near the top for a reason. They know stuff. They can make connections and draw on a working lifetime of experiences. They probably never have published anything in peer reviewed journals – your credentialism definition of expertise – but utilities want and need them there for that knowledge.
Chris M comment – “They probably never have published anything in peer reviewed journals – your credentialism definition of expertise – but utilities want and need them there for that knowledge.”
CM – thats a good point about the arrogance of the experts. Similar to the proponents of 100% renewables. paraphrasing their attitude – We should follow the renewable experts such as Jacobson and ignore the long time industry grid experts such as RS since they are not “renewable energy ” experts.
Even if you grant BABS his credentialism, that would leave him mute on grid issues, wind and solar as an electricity source, and the sociological aspects of Climate Doomer issues. And whether or not EVs are a good idea, plus a raft of other issues. He could comment on battery chemistry I guess.
Chris Morris – you don’t get to compose my answers. But I understand where the aggression comes from.
“You have a bit of paper which you think says you are brighter than all the rest.” – Better than not having the paper.
CM – thats a good point about the arrogance of the experts. Similar to the proponents of 100% renewables. paraphrasing their attitude – We should follow the renewable experts such as Jacobson and ignore the long time industry grid experts such as RS since they are not “renewable energy ” experts.
Chris – my bad – should have said we should follow the credentialed experts such as Ganon.
Jim2,
“Even if you grant BABS his credentialism, that would leave him mute on grid issues, wind and solar as an electricity source, and the sociological aspects of Climate Doomer issues.”
The idea that somebody needs to be credentialed to address a given issue is absurd – you are a good example.
BA
I should write you answers because what you do write is rubbish and shows you have no understanding of what you pontificate on.
Jim2,
Better than following an uncredentialed amateur, who doesn’t (can’t?) provide evidence for his claims.
If you think you can embarrass me about my experience in fundamental science (much of which is used in/related to climate science), you can’t. Perhaps it is you that should be embarrassed by a lack of credentials, publications, and scientific experience.
Chris – Oooo, kinda touchy there.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | February 24, 2024 at 2:29 pm |
Chris Morris – you don’t get to compose my answers. But I understand where the aggression comes from.
“You have a bit of paper which you think says you are brighter than all the rest.” – Better than not having the paper.
Chris – you remember the old saying
Those that can do
The others teach.
You, RS, JC , myself fall into the first category.
Ganon and DA fall into the second category
That’s right. Those that can’t do, teach. I did high-end physics research for 35 years. The only teaching I did was as required during school years. Those that can’t do science, do other things.
We can’t have it both ways. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to an obvious demonstration of the real cost of too much government regulation as if only the Left in this country understands the true cost of nuclear energy. Why is it that only in America when making electricity, nuclear energy is considered the world’s most dangerous fuel? Why is it only in America that it is evil to make a profit from providing energy to those who use it to provide the rest of us the goods and services we need, enjoy and demand?
‘Rather than pushing the boundaries of human knowledge, most universities now churn out dreary, predictable research that nobody reads.’ ~Allister Heath (‘A refusal to think freely is making universities increasingly irrelevant’)
What degree of insanity can we ascribe to the Left that opens the country’s borders north and south to the world’s downtrodden while at the same time staggering down the failed path of Eurocommunism when it comes to meeting the country’s ability to produce the energy needed to keep the lights on in academia’s Ivory towers?
Not as much as insanity as people that deny reality.
Because of science and academia, it takes about 1/8 the energy to keep the lights on the in ivory towers (LED lighting).
‘There’s A Climate Change Industry Set Up To Reward Alarmism.’ ~Judith Curry
Shining a light on the problem: ‘Getting published is crucial to researchers because that’s how they advance in academia.’ (ibid)
“Getting published is crucial to researchers because that’s how they advance in academia.”
The way to advance in science (and academia) is to do quality, intellectually honest and unique work that is of high interest. If one can do that, publishing (and funding) are not a problem.
The phony 97% consensus about the AGW hypothesis is proof Academia is corrupt. The null hypothesis that all global warming is natural has never been rejected.
“The phony 97% consensus about the AGW hypothesis is proof Academia is corrupt. The null hypothesis that all global warming is natural has never been rejected.”
These days, It’s more than 99% with specified conditions.
Under the false separation of “human” and “natural”. I REJECT the hypothesis that human activities don’t cause global warming (logically derived from “all global warming is natural [non-human]”.) There, that is taken care of, I am one of many that rejects the null hypothesis.
‘Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today.
‘None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true.
What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and science.’ ~Myron Ebell and Steven J. Milloy
Ganon – I fixed your statement, “The way to advance in science (and academia) is to do work…. that is of high interest. If one can do that, publishing (and funding) are not a problem.”, to better reflect the actual conditions of your political science.
J A,
Yeah, publishing is not a problem; any old crap can be published – just have to search for the right crap journal to accept it, often for a fee. Funding is a bit different, as so many here lament.
BAB writes “Not as much as insanity as people that deny reality.”
You and your liberal progressive friends are the ones who deny reality by advocating for expensive actions that have not been shown to improve the climate to any measurable amount.
How much did your LED lights change the CO2 growth curve. Answer–an unmeasurable amount.
Rob,
Everybody’s LEDs including mine, reduce CO2 emissions. Sorry, you don’t understand fractions and addition.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | February 24, 2024 at 5:37 pm |
Rob,
Everybody’s LEDs including mine, reduce CO2 emissions. Sorry, you don’t understand fractions and addition.
Ganon – you have pulled another one of you deceptive comments.
Virtually no one is objecting the LED lighting. However, at least on of your prior comments has implied that skeptics are objecting to LED lighting when the objection was the mandate to switch from incandesent lighting to mercury lighting.
If you want respect you have to display a better sense of honesty
e.g., as late as ’78, it was an unstoppable cooling trend for the next 30 years that was the impending catastrophe…
Rather, it’s a catastrophic gobsmacking like a meteor landing in Miami that could be worrisome. And even then, what could humanity realistically do in the event of a large and abrupt change in climate due to some natural catastrophe over which we humans have no control, such as has actually happened before in Earth’s history?
But, as it turns out, we’ve stopped it, and more.
Pingback: Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part 3 – Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Part 3 – Watts Up With That? - Lead Right News
Burl,
I ran across this paper – thought you might be interested:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18352-5
While it deals specifically with volcanic injections into the stratosphere, much of it is applicable to anthropogenic (and natural) SO2 emissions into the troposphere. In particular, figure 1 shows underlying chemical reactions and heterogeneous pathways that control concentrations and kinetics. Please note that impulse situations express lifetimes, while quasi-steady state situations express in chemical-kinetic (reaction rate) controlled concentrations.
…and, underwater-
‘Tonga volcano eruption was fueled by 2 merging chambers that are still brimming with magma’
https://www.space.com/tonga-volcano-still-burning-magma
BA Bushaw:
Thank you for the reference!
Their bottom line is basically that SO2 attaches to volcanic dust and as a result falls out faster because it is attached to a heavier particle.
They analyzed the dust from 1990 Feb 11 Kelut eruption and the 1991 Pinatubo eruption to reach their conclusions.
Before trying to understand what that all might mean, I examined the NASA/GMAO Chem Map DUST images for the Kelut and Pinatubo eruptions, and found NO DUST associated with them, or any other eruptions that I examined.
Their were huge bands of dust in the air, originating from the Gobi and African deserts, and SO2 might attach to them, which would be helpful, because it would decrease the amount of time volcanic aerosols cool our planet. However, it typically takes 18-30 months for them to fall out, so its effect, if it even exists, is
insignificant.
Unfortunately, another GARBAGE paper!
Burl, You’re welcome. Just trying to help. Perhaps you are not the one to be calling other publications garbage.
BA:
What did YOU think of the paper?
Burl,
I thought it was worth passing on to you, so that you might better understand the chemical and physical kinetics involved. BTW, I am still waiting for your estimate of the radiative forcing (W/m2) of anthropogenic SO2 – an expert like you should know that?
BA:
We have already discussed that issue;
As shown on the IPCC diagram of radiative forcings increasing levels of SO2, are correctly shown as a negative forcing. For decreasing levels of SO2 in the atmosphere, its forcing is that which is mistakenly identified as for CO2 on the diagram.
Burl,
Yes, we have already discussed that, and you failed to provide any numerical value (or estimate thereof) whatsoever. Instead, you claimed radiative forcing is corrupt (because it doesn’t come close to supporting your hypothesis). You should try to understand the difference between a trace reactive gas and a well-mixed inert gas. Keep in mind that annual anthropogenic SO2 emissions are on the order of 80 million tons (peaked around 150 in the 80’s, almost all stays in the troposphere) with a couple-weeks aerosol lifetime due to rain out and gravitational settling. Compare that to 40 BILLION tons/yr of anthropogenic CO2 (500X SO2) and an atmospheric lifetime of centuries.
I do not deny that sulfate aerosols cause cooling, I deny that loss of cooling due to their decrease is sufficient to explain the warming that has occurred over the last 50 years. I have repeatedly asked for numbers that support your claims – apparently you don’t have any – whereas as I have given numbers, references, and physical causality. I’ve is nothing left to discuss here.
Maybe you should talk to Christos and discuss your various hypotheses for what is causing global warming. After all, you both seem to believe the GHE is insignificant.
Umm, centuries? I should live so long… CO2 does not last in the atmosphere for centuries, Bushaw. Do your homework.
Fuller:
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-long-carbon-dioxide-remains-atmosphere
Pingback: Half 3 – Watts Up With That? - Finencial
There is not any emergencies to rush. The fossil fuels burning (the intensive CO2 emissions) do not whatsoever affect Global climate temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is scarily expensive making this movie, ‘The Attack of the Scientific Juveniles From Hell.’ The plot may seem drearily familiar: Western schoolteachers eating the brains of a generation of future union workers. The setting is close to home—i.e., it could be in any public school near you where the glazed-over sitters of the government-education complex are lethargically engaged in churning out nihilistic dropouts like noisy ditto machines stuck on overdrive.
That children fear receding glaciers can be attributed to the serious lack of quality education in the dropout factories of the failed governmental-education complex. Moreover, a powerful interest group has taken over public education: the secular, socialist agenda gives the Left a special interest in putting forward a distorted view of the world for ideologically motivated political purposes.
Russell … thanks for the great piece. I’ve always found it odd that trash hasn’t been utilized more to produce electricity. It is being done by waste management companies like Covanta, and others. Why wouldn’t people see the greater good in reducing landfills and ocean pollution? Answer: the lesser evil of CO2.
What 97% consensus about the AGW?
Why we do not see even a minor 10% supporting AGW?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Joe the non-scientist,
“However, at least one of your prior comments has implied that skeptics are objecting to LED lighting when the objection was the mandate to switch from incandesent lighting to mercury lighting.”
You must be thinking of someone else, or just making up things (again). All I said was that science and innovation are responsible for the 8x improvement in efficiency provided by LEDs, and hence energy savings. I’m quite sure I’ve never said anything at all about mercury (fluorescent) lighting.
As usual, no evidence and false accusations. Enjoy your fantasies.
The Left believes we should be more like nuclear-powered France; but, they stand in the way of developing nuclear energy in the US despite the fact Leftist icon Ted Kennedy killed more people than died at Three Mile Island. The Left only demonizes American-owned oil companies and is genius at making us more dependent on foreign oil, buddying up with fascists and dictators. It is still a key plank in the Democrat platform that American businesses are mainly responsible for global warming despite the fact only the US has decreased its CO2 output by substituting natural gas for coal, despite the fact the Keftist hinder the production and export of natural gas.
With the release of millions of migrants into the United States over the last three years, we need more not less natural gas.
“… Ted Kennedy killed more people…”
Thus creating more quizzical looks by liberals when forced to find and spell Chappaquiddick bridge.
A new universal equation for calculating a planet’s mean surface temperature is developed, to provide better estimates than the simple “blackbody” equation which was based on simplifying assumptions.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: Time to Retire the Term “Renewable Energy” from Serious Discussions and Policy Directives: Part 3 | ajmarciniak
Pingback: Es ist an der Zeit, den Begriff „erneuerbare Energien“ aus der ernsthaften Diskussion und den energiepolitischen Richtlinien zu streichen – Teil III | EIKE - Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
A lot of specious drivel about light bulbs and the changing fashion of meeting CO2 reduction (which it most certainly wasn’t about in the UK). Most of the changes were driven by cost and longevity of use as in the initial cost was originally too great but knowing the bulb would last longer and work out cheaper on running costs were persuasions that eventually penetrated the whole market but chiefly because incandescence just disappeared from suppliers and retailers.
As far as we know none of these changes will in the least tiny bit have an effect on CO2 emissions – not even one little billionth of a decimal place – and to claim otherwise shows the authors are not in touch with how CO2 works and why it can be safely ignored as a ‘warming agent’ on planet Earth. For starters let’s have an explanation as to CO2 levels in the Holocene when the Earth was considerably warmer than it is now.
There is still no evidence that CO2 is at all harmful to life of this planet. In fact all accepted science says the reverse is true. We don’t even have a clue as to what the optimum planetary level for CO2 is and surely that is where “the science” should be by now if it wants to be respected. But “the science” isn’t able to do that because CO2 has been politicised and not studied and thoroughly understood. We are currently ruled by scare mongers who are as bad as the historical inquisitors.
People who say “we don’t know” generally mean “I don’t know”.
Polly:
“Squawk, I know, I know; pick me!” Squawk, “Polly wanna, I know.”
principal angular magnetic
[Polly scratches seed] “Polly wanna”
“People who say “we don’t know” generally mean “I don’t know”.”
People like you say stuff like that because you cannot refute the truth of those who oppose you and your kind of deceits and their nature and roots. There is no study anywhere – historic or contemporary – that proves increased CO2 of the kind experienced since 1850 is a threat to anyone or any life form on Earth. The preaching is a religious belief from the consensus congregation who lie to each other all the time and tar the rest of us with the same brush.
The doubling of carbon dioxide was supposed to prove THE END for humanity and yet the planet has survived many higher and lower periods of naturally changing levels of the gas. Indeed it is the lows of carbon dioxide that would cause the maximum concern for most if not all life.
When the planet has greened humanity has generally thrived and that is what CO2 can do for you.
Lass,
Thanks for demonstrating my point … you don’t know.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi5177
BAB – I’m responding to the link you provided re tipping points. I enjoy word play from time to time, so don’t take the below as an insult to you. I believe citing papers is a good response. And I don’t believe you are an id ee ot . That said …
An id ee ot can cite a thousand papers in the time it takes the expert to verify only one.
I skimmed the paper and want to do a deeper dive later. The ability of a non-expert to evaluate a paper depends on level of intelligence, prior knowledge, and the ability to learn. It is a steeper hill to climb than if an expert were doing the job.
At this point, I did note that some of the tipping point analysis depends on climate models. In at least one case, some models resulted in a tipping point, while other models didn’t result in the same tipping point. What are we to believe? I’m not confident in the models in the first place and relying on models that come to different conclusions does not make me feel better about them.
Jim2,
You should believe that tipping points are possible, but nothing in the future is definite.
Even though the LEDs now come with multiple adjustments (the old fluorescent bulbs were either ‘warm’ or ‘cool’) they still have a hard time replicating the light quality of incandescents. I agree that we use them primarily because they last longer and use less power, which appeals to the consumer’s common sense … not because there’s a gun to their head. It’s a choice.
I also agree about the demonstrated affects of CO2. I haven’t seen any that are negative. Many that are positive.
If you don’t look …
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022EF003336
Jim2,
No, you don’t have a clue. You would have to be more specific as to which catastrophe. You can research it here:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn7950
All I see in that paper is a lot of jaw boning about what might happen, but no solid predictions. Pretty worthless info for policy decisions.
Jim2,
See table 2 with both time and temperature scales with uncertainty limits.
I did see Fig. 2. Likely, etc is NAN.
JIm2
they have probability ranges (numbers) associated with them:
virtually certain: 99–100% probability, very likely: 90–100%, likely: 66–100%, about as likely as not:
33–66%, unlikely: 0–33%, very unlikely: 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely: 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely: 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, and extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate. (IPCC AR6)
Hope that helps.
“virtually certain: 99–100% probability, very likely: 90–100%, likely: 66–100%, about as likely as not” and so on.
You do realise, BAB(etc), that probability relies upon infinity and therefore also complete randomness, concepts human beings are not and never have been very comfortable with. Even zero or one probability guarantee nothing since randomness trumps all and always will – probability a measure of likeliness.
Human groups have historically predicted nothing successfully in real terms and the COVID-19 saga reinforced the evidence of our inability to see further than our proverbial noses, even ones covered with a mask, at any moment in time. Our machines, programmed by human beings, are therefore also harnessed by the same flaws in our beliefs if not abilities. You need the right people for the right jobs and we stopped doing that three decades ago.
We were once a capable and independently minded group of individuals thinking through our own logic and coming up with many different takes to add to thought processes. Now we have a very seemingly large and noisy consenting blob with zero incentive to think anything through as long as it fits the mercenary Woke Bible Agenda. Gore, Gates, Mann and company know their comeuppance will eventually arrive and that the greater public will be a very different proposition when confronting them with the CAGW mitigation agenda failures. Google may think it rules the part of the internet they believe they own but there is a historical portion that is just waiting to reveal itself in spite of attempts to drown it with contemporary data and AI.
Now where is that On/Off switch and is that all it takes to change everything or is there something else just along our path to the future? … (rhetorical questions)
Lass,
Thanks for your interpretation of statistics and probability, as well as other ramblings.
ganon … Well, do you finally admit, with that citation on mass extinction, that you are in the camp of CAGW? You’ve been reticent to directly say so, mostly prevaricating. If you’re not, you should preface giving that citation with your true opinion.
No, I simply commented on your powers of observation.
BAB can’t admit the truth. He is a CAGW zealot and believes in forcing people to take CO2 mitigation actions even when those actions will have no impact on the climate.
bill,
My true opinion is there is some probability of catastrophic climate effects. That does not mean they will happen. However, It has happened in the past without our help. This time, we have some input into the climate trajectory, as evidenced by the last 100 years or so. It is also harder to predict because of the added human feedbacks, both positive and negative.
ganon … offering a paper on mass extinctions from the past is interesting, but what about something more current? Can you point to any event (observations) that would tip the balance of the effects of CO2 from the positive to the negative? We see the positive effects on vegetation. If CO2 is solely responsible for a warming climate, so far, that has been positive. But, that may not be the case, as other factors causing warming may be at play. So, what can you point to … as a fact(s) … that moves the needle from positive to negative to the unalterable descent to catastrophic?
Rob Starkey,
Don’t be silly. I’m not a zealot, and you don’t get to pronounce what I believe. I’ll help: I don’t believe in “forcing people”, I believe in science and education.
BAB – what is the value of that probability of catastrophe?
ganon … it seems our last comments passed each other. I understand your stance via probability. I can also understand if you warn of tipping points. But mass extinction events due to climate wouldn’t seem to happen overnight, such as a comet strike, etc. I would expect some milestones or markers along the way. Something concrete, if you will. So far, there don’t seem to be any that would indicate a decline to catastrophe.
CO2 is not the only thing that causes climate change. It’s just the predominant factor right now. As for pointing to “events”, they are actually non-linear processes, often referred to as “tipping points”.
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/climate-tipping-points-are-closer-once-thought
Bill,
Bill, the milestones that the number of species that go extinct. You would have to define what “decline to catastrophic” means to you, how anthropocentric is it? My thought is that extinction is pretty catastrophic for most living species.
Jim2,
Greater than zero, less than one.
Yep, thought so. You don’t have a clue. But want to spend trillions on it. K. Got it.
ganon … I read the NRDC piece. It seemed to be a one sided argument. One thing stood out, one of the related articles is titled, “We’ve Already Warmed the Planet to Catastrophic Effect, but the level of That Catastrophe Is Up to Us.” I didn’t read it, but the title is as symbolic as I would guess is the content. I’m open to argument/debate, but so far I’m just not convinced.
ganon
Primitive societies had their shamans who were soothsayers promoting their myths and rituals to keep the riff raff on edge and in line. They used entheogens and peyote hymns to give them legitimacy, just like the modern day scientists hide behind so called science for their bona fides.
But that doesn’t guarantee success, as exhibited by this proclamation of possible feet of SLR by 2000.
All the citations in the world don’t guarantee any more success in predicting the future than just plain old guessing.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-07-05101533-down.png
Billfabrizio – re: catastrophe
It might be helpful to think of ‘climate catastrophe’ as like a rising tide on the beach. We build our sand castles well above the low water line and watch as the waves, irregular in space and time, each advancing and then receding, creep up the beach. An occasional rogue wave does some damage here or there, but nothing unpatchable – no ‘catastrophe’. Natural variability. But at some ill-defined point in time, sand castles start getting wiped out more frequently, although rather unpredictably – exactly where or when. If your sand castle is lucky, no catastrophe – no problem – until the wave hits.
If you are persuaded, as I am, that wildfires, extreme storms, droughts, coastal erosion, ecological synchronicities, etc. are being affected by the current changing climate, then the climate catastrophe has already hit those who have lost homes to wildfire or coastal flooding, or those populations reliant on particular environments that are no longer dependable. If you are not persuaded, then no problem – until the wave hits.
Don’t push this analogy too hard. We can’t affect the tide, the tide will turn, we can move our sand castles higher up the beach, etc. The point is simply that catastrophe doesn’t come gradually; it comes in violent, irregular events, with a relentlessness that is not obvious until ’statistical significance’ is smacking us in the face.
Pat … I understand your analogy very well. Thanks for taking the time. I lived on the beach for about 18 years on a barrier island. When Sandy hit we were without power for 13 days. I help rebuild the dunes which were eviscerated, back to pre-storm heights. Of course there were lesser hurricanes/storms, as well. I now live in the Southwest where fires are very common in the high desert of my neighborhood.
I consider myself an environmentalist, in that I take great enjoyment in experiencing the wonders that nature reveals, if you give her a chance. And I give her every chance I can.
For me, there hasn’t been conclusive proof that CO2 can be tied to extreme weather events, nor that they have increased. There has been some speculation that major fires in the Southwest that may have been the result of poor forest management. No one likes to see massive fires. Although, it was considered a technique intentionally used by pre-Columbian cultures.
I guess my point is forests burn, tides rise and hurricanes come, as they have for millions of years. I don’t have a problem with projections, just with interpretations.
Pat Cassen | February 27, 2024 at 1:16 pm | – “If you are persuaded, as I am, that wildfires, extreme storms, droughts, coastal erosion, ecological synchronicities, etc. are being affected by the current changing climate, ”
Pat – I realize that there has a multitude of studies discussing the increase in wildfires, extreme droughts, extreme weather, etc., though those studies tend to be of low quality, weak data, cherry picked start dates with an overall weak statistical validity.
Pat
Judith just posted this on X.
“ A 100-member large ensemble from CESM2 reveals that an IPO transition from negative-to-positive phase contributes to ~45% (~40–49%) of the observed decadal drought of Amazon rainfall since 2010, much greater than the role of external forcing (~12%).”
I use 3 steps for these kinds of events when evaluating the extent to which CO2 plays a role. Does warming have an effect. If so how much. Once we have decided the extent to which warming plays a role then attribution can be estimated.
Many times the narrative is that AGW is responsible, while climate has little to do with the event. An example is the relative sea level in communities where subsidence has a much greater role. Or when looking at causal factors for flooding, we don’t want to ignore the increase of impervious surfaces that affect entire watersheds.
There is much research finding that a portion of the current warming is not CO2 related.
I’ve found little evidence that CO2 is the sole cause of many of these so called catastrophic events. Digging deep enough always turns up some other considerations.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-024-00587-4
Bill –
“…I take great enjoyment in experiencing the wonders that nature reveals, if you give her a chance. And I give her every chance I can.”
We are blessed with that opportunity.
“…there hasn’t been conclusive proof…”
Conclusive proof – hard to come by. But consilience of evidence and a coherent theory can be persuasive.
Hi cerescokid –
“I’ve found little evidence that CO2 is the sole cause of many of these so called catastrophic events.”
Indeed. If you weren’t paying particular attention you’d be hard pressed to blame the tide for the wave that wiped out your sand castle. After all, that wave was affected by it’s trajectory over the constantly changing beach below it, interactions with the retreating waves that preceded it, other waves refracted from the remains of nearby sand castles, etc. The tide wasn’t the whole story. But in the end, it mattered.
Mr./Ms. Bushaw, you might have a glance at Mike Hulme’s new book.
Fuller,
Why? You don’t even give a book title.
Hey Kid … thanks for the Judith reference on X. As to peyote … ;-).
Pat … Good point about near shore bathymetry and waves. You a surfer?
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #589 – Watts Up With That?
The people who control Biden are rushing to do as much damage to the country as possible before the end of Biden’s term.
Across the nation’s capital, federal regulators are in an all-out sprint, racing to finalize Biden administration climate initiatives touching everything from the cars Americans drive to the appliances they use.
…
The nexus of the administration’s climate rulemaking is the Environmental Protection Agency, which is now putting the final touches on a plan to limit carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light trucks. The EPA is also aiming for an April rollout of a measure stifling the pollution from currently operating power plants.
Wind turbines stand behind a power station in Mount Storm, West Virginia.Photographer: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
But the work spans the federal government, with the Department of Energy looking to implement new efficiency requirements for distribution transformers used in the power system, and the Interior Department close to rolling out mandates for limiting natural gas venting, flaring and leaks on federal land. At the Treasury Department, regulators are inking policies dictating what types of hydrogen, renewable power and aviation fuel qualify for tax credits under the Inflation Reduction Act, with hundreds of billions of dollars in investment hanging in the balance.
…
The planned regulations have expansive reach. For instance, the auto emissions rule will shape decisions about what cars roll off assembly lines through at least 2032. Mistakes in the power plant mandates could imperil the nation’s electric reliability. “These are massive, complicated rules, with hundreds of pages of analysis,” Goldbeck said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-26/biden-races-to-lock-in-energy-climate-rules-as-danger-zone-looms
Elections have consequences.
Bad consequences in this case.
Scary still is he might win again
I kind of get the idea that even the Dimowits don’t want to run him again, but you never know what those people are going to do. They seem to hate the US more even than Iran.
Democrats don’t have a better option than Biden to defeat Trump and he is evil personified in their view.
I kind of wish they would run Gavin “Pretty Boy” Newsom.
Jim
You wish that because you see Gavin as a weak candidate given the condition of CA currently. I agree he has the desire, but I think he would get less votes than a dumb Biden
You nailed it Rob. CA is a crash test dummy for the Democrats. Behold the brilliance!
I grew up in CA and lived there as an adult. Regardless of how much I had I wouldn’t live there again.
I’ve never been there, but it looks like an awesomely beautiful place.
BA Bushaw,
“Maybe you should talk to Christos and discuss your various hypotheses for what is causing global warming. After all, you both seem to believe the GHE is insignificant.”
–
“After all, you both seem to believe the GHE is insignificant.”
–
We do not “believe the GHE is insignificant”.
We know the GHE is insignificant!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
More janky climate “science”. Obviously chosen to scare people and on top of that it’s wrong.
With respect to normalized U.S. hurricane losses, both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) AR6 WG and the Sixth U.S. National Climate Assessment (USNCA) have chosen to highlight just one normalization study from this growing literature — Grinsted et al. 2018, which I’ll just call G18.1
Contrary to every other normalization study, of U.S. hurricanes or otherwise, G18 conclude that even after normalizing historical hurricane loss data for changes in population and wealth, there remains an underlying increasing trend in losses which can be attributed to human-caused climate change.
I can report today — in jaw-dropping fashion — that the increasing trend reported in G18 and promoted by IPCC and the USNCA is not the result of human-caused climate change, but rather, it is the result of a human-caused data error that is obvious and undeniable. I have contacted PNAS to request a retraction and reached out to Dr. Grinsted.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/apples-oranges-and-normalized-hurricane
In the meantime, consumers in Europe are getting fed up with “green” policy.
Heat pump sales in Europe fell last year for the first time in a decade, driven by falling natural gas prices, high interest rates and a political backlash against green policies.
Sales across 14 countries, representing 90% of the European market, fell by 5% in 2023 compared with 2022, the European Heat Pump Association said, putting jobs at risk and threatening the industry’s ability to invest.
“After 10 years of sales increase, a decrease of 5% is really remarkable” said Jozefien Vanbecelaere, head of EU affairs at the European Heat Pump Association. “This decrease of 5% is not just numbers, not just something theoretical, but it has actually concrete consequences for our markets and the manufacturers.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-27/heat-pump-sales-fall-in-europe-for-the-first-time-in-10-years
Vote for lefty Climate Doomers if you want to “Save the Planet”!! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Politicians are vowing to roll back green policies and downplaying climate change ahead of key elections on both sides of the Atlantic, casting doubt on whether countries can maintain momentum in the transition away from fossil fuels.
In the US, former President Donald Trump, who has a long record of climate denial, is the frontrunner to challenge President Joe Biden in November. On the campaign trail, Trump has minimized the effects of climate change, attacked electric vehicles and pledged to repeal Biden’s signature climate law.
Meanwhile, in Europe, polls show right-wing parties that oppose strong climate action are likely to increase their representation after the European Union’s parliamentary elections in June, while the climate-minded Greens are expected to lose seats.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-02-27/trump-s-green-bashing-europe-s-right-put-climate-goals-at-risk
Everything about Climate Doomer energy policy costs us all more of our hard-earned money. That does occasionally resonate with elected politicians.
Purging fossil fuels from the US grid is expensive, and pushback over rising customer utility bills risks slowing the transition toward renewable power, according to the head of one the largest US power companies.
“To clean the grid is going to cost money,” Exelon Corp. Chief Executive Officer Calvin Butler said in an interview Friday at Bloomberg’s headquarters in New York. “You’re going to have to build, strengthen and make the system more resilient because of climate change.”
Exelon ran into that conflict head-on in December when Illinois regulators rejected the company’s ambitious grid plans, saying the utility wasn’t doing enough to keep customer bills low. The unexpected setback sent the shares plunging 16% over a three-day period.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-26/green-goals-clash-with-higher-power-bills-exelon-ceo-says
Biden inexplicitly hobbles the LNG industry in the US, putting jobs at risk and sending that business to countries that hate us. So, so dumb.
Woodside Energy Group Ltd., Australia’s top liquefied natural gas exporter, expects consumption of the fuel to rise 50% over the next decade, pushing the supplier to consider further expansions.
“We’re seeing signs of that demand growth in emerging Asia,” Chief Executive Officer Meg O’Neill said Tuesday in an interview. “There’ll be points in time where we’ll see a fair amount of new supply arriving, but the demand growth is really likely to absorb that over the course of the coming years.”
The outlook is one of the most bullish in the industry, as energy companies and environmentalists debate the role of gas in the world’s transition to cleaner fuels. Shell Plc, a major LNG supplier, earlier this month pared back its forecast for consumption to an increase of more than 50% by 2040.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-27/australia-s-top-lng-exporter-sees-demand-rising-50-through-2033
And yet, back in the real world, U.S. LNG exports are at an all-time high and up by 63% since Biden took office.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9133us2A.htm
Dan
Natural gas production in the USA is up in spite of your president, Joe Biden’s stated desires. LNG production because the last president allowed for the expansion of exploration and production on federal lands. Biden opposed this effort.
Trumps efforts are the single reason the US economy is doing as well as it is today.
Wow, even people in CA are getting mad about Climate Doomer policies.
“Californians are fed up,” said Democratic state Assemblymember Marc Berman at a recent news conference on the utility bills. “My constituents are pissed off. I know because they told me over and over again at every community coffee that I had in the fall and in the winter.”
California is not alone. Other Democratic states like New York and Massachusetts are grappling with how to transition from fossil fuels without adding financial burdens for ratepayers.
Two climate proposals are now up in the air in California. One would restructure utility bills so that the wealthy pay the most; at least 20 Democratic state lawmakers now want to repeal it after voting for it two years ago. (Though the bill passed, a state agency has yet to put it into a regulation.)
The other is a proposed overhaul of the state’s low-carbon fuel standard. The California Air Resources Board says a rewrite of the standard would push more Californians to switch to electric vehicles and help the state meet its goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2045.
But a CARB analysis found that the update — which would require deeper cuts in fuels’ allowable planet-warming emissions — could increase prices at the pump by as much as 47 cents per gallon next year and by 52 cents by 2026. Opponents argue the price hikes would hurt California motorists who can’t easily buy or charge an EV, including those in low-income communities and communities of color.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2024/02/26/going-green-gets-more-costly-in-california-00143274
Dinosaures extinction events happened because of the CO2 levels lowering in the Earth’s atmosphere. The less CO2 in atmosphere, the less food for plants – photosynthesis, the less food for gigantic animals – dinosaures.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There is no place on Earth’s surface in our era for dinosaures to live in the wild, because there is not the necessary abundance of plants for dinosaures to eat.
There should be enough CO2 in atmosphere for plants to flourish.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
In our era Earth experiences one of the smallest CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere in the entire Earth’s history.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The scarser food availability on land made the larger mammals to get adapted in the sea and oceanic waters.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Stratospheric intrusion with heavy frost in the US Midwest. Very heavy snowfall will soon begin in the Sierra Nevada.
https://i.ibb.co/0sh4Cd1/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f012.png
https://i.ibb.co/SrGBM01/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f060.png
Large amounts of rain and snow will fall in northern California until March 7.
https://i.ibb.co/tQJZsYt/ventusky-rain-ac-20240307t0600-43n125w.jpg
Having to build a parallel energy supply just to accommodate wind and solar seems kinda dum b.
NRG Energy Inc. plans to apply for as much as $900 million in loans from Texas to build power projects that would run on natural gas, according to its top executive.
The loans would cover about 60% of the financing needed to build two plants that would be available on standby in 2026 and a gas plant in 2028, Interim Chief Executive Officer Larry Coben said Wednesday. The money, which would be doled out through the $5 billion Texas Energy Fund that voters approved in November, is expected to carry a 3% interest rate, he said.
Texas has spent years attempting to strengthen a power grid that’s been stressed during periods of extreme heat and cold. Governor Greg Abbott and other state leaders are keen to see new gas plants added to a system that increasingly depends on wind and solar power.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-28/nrg-targeting-900-million-from-texas-for-new-gas-plants
This legislation was sponsored by crypto miners and AI server farms & backed by Governor Greg Abbott. Consumers are paying for this and it is happening everywhere, not just in Texas.
This headline caught my eye this morning. It said Spanish power is almost free due to wind and solar.
Spanish Power Is Almost Free with Renewables Set for Record
But looking at the price charts per year, it’s about 50% higher than 2019. I guess we’ll see when the February number comes in.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1267552/spain-monthly-wholesale-electricity-price/
We tend to get these headlines any time there is a spike in wind and solar output anywhere, but these events do not reflect the overall performance of “green” energy systems.
Hawking wind and solar when there is a spike like this is just another way to lie to people about “green” energy.
“The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that about 45 GW of solar projects above 1 MW (AC) in size will be installed in 2024, while Wood Mackenzie estimates 8 GW of small-scale solar.”
Even with a realistic capacity factor of 25%, that’s equal to a dozen 1 GW (full scale) nuclear reactors. I’m glad the utility companies know how to use that energy, even if some people don’t believe it.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/01/11/more-than-50-gw-of-new-solar-projected-in-u-s-in-2024
That seems impressive – unless you look at the footprint
Solar farm is about 1mwh per 5-8 acres (about 25% is capacity factor)
where as commanche peak is 19k Gwh on 10,000 acres
about 1900 mwh per acre (with about an 85-90% capacity factor)
That seems impressive – unless you look at the footprint if there is a serious accident. The current exclusion for zone for Fukushima will last for many more decades and covers an area of approximately 337 square kilometers. I’m not trying to downplay nuclear, heck I live 20 miles NE from Comanche Peak and rarely worry about it unless the fracking injection wells start causing earthquakes.
Texas earthquakes starting to rival California, experts say
https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/earthquake-in-texas-18685050.php
Feb 25, 2024
“an M4.7 earthquake on February 17 could set a national record as being the strongest human-induced earthquake in the United States.”
Joe,
Your units don’t make sense for what you are talking about.
The land requirements for a solar farm to generate 1mw is about 5-8 acres
The commache peak power plant produces approx 19kGws on 10,000 acres.
The land area for a solar farm to produce the same amount of electricity as commanche peak is approx 95,000,000 acres to 152,000,000 acres
1,000mw = 1gw
the acreage difference is huge
As for footprint: 2/3 of nuclear energy released is thermal, 1/3 makes electricity. How are you going to get rid of the excess heat?
Ganon – as usual – you present a non relevant fact to distort the analysis. The 2/3 – 1/3 factors you toss into the discussion doesnt change the fact that solar requires 10,000x to 15,000x more land to produce the same amount of electricity as does nuclear.
Joe,
As usual, you don’t answer my question, and it is relevant. Where are you going to put all that extra heat? And why are there not massive plans to build nuclear?
I see a lot of ideas for use of waste heat on the internet.
Of course, it’s easy to put 4 nuclear reactors in one installation. So the footprint per capacity is very small.
Joe,
So what. I’ll grant you that solar takes more acreage than nuclear. And, I’ll accept that it is the strongest objection you can come up with. There is plenty of land and sun available. Perhaps you are not familiar with the great basin and its solar potential.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg/675px-Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg
https://www.nrel.gov/gis/assets/images/solar-april-ghi-2018-usa-scale-01.jpg
I have nothing against nuclear, but until I see a bunch of nuclear sites under construction, I’m going to assume it’s a diversion.
The history of mankind and technological development is to build stronger and more efficient machines in smaller workspace. Smaller, yet more powerful and more efficient and reliable.
the move to solar and wind is just the opposite, bigger, less efficient, less reliable. Far more ecological damage than acknowledged.
“The history of mankind … ” LOL – Hopefully, the future of mankind is cleaner, sustainable energy. I also hope that the doubts of the doubters are addressed by technological developments.
The only thing the doubters are doubting is why the desire to shift to bigger facilities, more expensive, less efficient, source of electricity generation.
Because the other sources seem to be dirty, non-sustainable, or not available. I look forward to seeing how horizontal drilling geothermal works out.
Joe: “The history of mankind and technological development is to build stronger and more efficient machines in smaller workspace. Smaller, yet more powerful and more efficient and reliable.”
Agreed, the smart money invests in what is demonstrable, the exponential advancement of technology since the dawn of the 20th century. While Lockheed Martin may not succeed in its fussion efforts, regardless, many innovators are thinking way beyond rudementary wind and solar to replace fossil fuels.
Going all in with stepping stones alts brings us the shortsighted; mostly the dumb “using others money” whom can’t think beyond ideological cage rationalizations.
Polly: “The history of mankind … ” LOL – Hopefully, the future of mankind is cleaner, sustainable energy.”
Polly has no insights beyond the near-term, nobody on the Left does, it’s the nature of “collectivism”. The realm of the intellectually inbred land on wind and solar, and other near-sighred ideological tropes, all presented under the guise of salvation for humankind.
Innovation in the next 75 years will blow past those advances seen during the 20th century. Not only in terms of advancement of technology, but also the continuing advancement of environmetal stewardship. While the latter is difficult to appreciate on yr/yr metrics, it too is demonstrable since the passage of 1970s Earth Day. Earth has gotten ever cleaner since; not only will this trajectory continue, but “clean” will get ever easier as technology advances.
Smart money seeks a paradigm shift beyond fossil; it’s not going to be wind, or solar; think bigger. Niche markets are one thing, but holistically wind and solar are costly regressive technologies that don’t move the needle enough for the massive required investment they’ll need, including the weighted cost on cultures–these technologies are a misappropriation of resources that could otherwise be put together use for something better, something astounding is possible sans weight of proposed oppressive policies.
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | February 29, 2024 at 12:57 pm |
Because the other sources seem to be dirty, non-sustainable, or not available. I look forward to seeing how horizontal drilling geothermal works out.
Another non relevant diversion from Ganon. Did he pick a non – viable technology to make his favored renewable solution look better than it really is?
Joe: “Did he [Ganon] pick a non – viable technology to make his favored renewable solution look better than it really is?”
Horizontal drilling isn’t a new technological advancement anyway, this tech has been in use 40+ years. It’s part of the intellectually inbred “cage” I previously referenced. Polly heard such in a blog somewhere, that makes it so.
Jungle – As most everyone has notice, ganon frequently changes the subject especially when he lack of knowledge understanding is exposed. The diversion to horizontal geothermal is one of the many examples.
I am reasonably familiar with horizontal drilling in the oil and gas industry which became somewhat common place in the early to mid 1980’s. Ganon reference to horizontal geothermal was I presume for grid scale electric generation. Several commentators who are very knowledgable on the topic have pointed out why its a non-viable technology
It is was my opening comment about solar growth – you are the ones deflecting.
All I said was “I look forward to seeing how horizontal drilling geothermal works out.”
Y’all are acting very threatened and defensive, resorting to person attacks and name-calling – I wonder why? Thanks, just lets us know who you are and how much you know.
Precipitation in California will continue. This is the forecast for March 11.
https://i.ibb.co/HChwsy3/ventusky-rain-3h-20240311t0300-39n122w.jpg
Do you really believe in a 12-day weather forecast?
Interesting article on fracking and geothermal possibilities …
https://www.wsj.com/business/energy-oil/frackers-are-now-drilling-for-clean-power-fb613dbf?st=7gc667mpwzs5krc&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
I dont see that as viable nor very environmentally friendly. Far too much saltwater is going to be present in the formations.
Ideally , it would be a looped system, two well bores or one well bore with two pipe strings with fluid running one direction on the inside string and the other direction on the outside string.
Like all the salt it the groundwater reservoirs that we currently use?
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | February 29, 2024 at 3:56 pm |
Like all the salt it the groundwater reservoirs that we currently use?
No – but I didnt expect you to have any knowledge of the subject.
Hey Joe … thanks for the reply. I thought the graphic in the article shows two well bores. Is that what you were saying might work?
Bill – I think two well bores is very problematic. How are the ends of the two well bores going to be tied together to form a closed loop at a depth of 8k-15k feet deep? Much easier to run two strings of casing in the single well bore (inner string and outer string). Cold Fluid running down the inner string and hot fluid running back up the outer string.
Bill – Lets correct my statement, The diagram does reflect two well bores. I see a multitude of problems with that design. Its an open loop system. One well operates similar to a swd well, the other well operates as an extraction well ( similar to an oil and gas well). The energy used to inject the water into the injection well will likely be only marginally less than the energy created / converted into electricity. There is simply a lot more efficient ways to generate electricity. Even if the perf’d zone is not hitting a sw pocket, you are creating sw with the process. Not really a great idea to create an environmental problem where non existed especially where the net energy produced is likely to be very small (think in terms of pumped storage as a comparison – ie energy consumed to convert into energy)
fwiw, the contamination of the groundwater is typically rarely a problem since the surface casing extends below the subsurface groundwater and aquifers. Its the bringing of the sw from the deep formations an spillage of the sw above the surface that creates the environmental problem.
Joe … thanks for your replies. It’s an interesting process. I took the graphic as ‘for illustration purposes only’, kind of thing. Rightfully, you’re wanting more detail, and have some good questions. I agree that geothermal has had questionable profitability, but I thought the combination of fracking for oil and NG coupled with the geothermal possibilities might be the right recipe for profit.
joethenonclimatescientist: “Large pools of the oceans got trapped as those land masses formed into continents. That is the salt water that those geothermal wells will often drill into.”
I don’t think you got that quite right, Joe.
Pat – care to explain how the salt water got into the geological formations 4k-20k feet below the earth surface. Do you have a better scientific explanation?
Hey Joe,
Maybe you can get some funding to solve the salt water problem (what problem?), or maybe you can prove that geothermal electricity generation won’t work, as you claim without giving evidence or source.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/geothermal/funding-notice-enhanced-geothermal-systems-egs-pilot-demonstrations
Now up to 8-10 comments from Ganon and he is still not aware of the abundant saltwater in geological formations 3k-20k feet below the earth surface.
All due to Ganon’s confusing salt in ground water with salt water in subsurface geological formations.
another hint google swd & saltwater
No, Joe,
You are confusing drinking water with the toxic product of oil extraction that is put into saltwater disposal wells. Offer some evidence that the process somehow interferes with geothermal energy extraction.
“Toxic product” That’s a laugh. Anything other than the safe ingredients used in fracking fluid came from the Earth. Putting it back into the Earth isn’t a problem. Alarmist.
Joe,
I know you have a hard time with repeated questions, but what is the relevance to geothermal energy extraction?
Yeah, it’s OK – it came from the earth. Maybe go drink a cup of PAH’s and then tell how it’s not toxic.
At least it is clear where your “thinking” comes from.
Bye, non-scientist.
Hot dry rock attempts have been around for decades. It comes back at regular intervals being promoted by the same grifter scientists but under a different banner. “Green” energy and EGS seems to be the current one.s To best of my knowledge, there have been attempts in Canada, about 3 in USA, Australia, UK and Germany. They have also tried on the edges of some oilfield saltdomes. None have worked in a production test, run hot for week or so then go cold.
The wells are drilled close together, typically open hole section less than 200m apart. Often a lot closer.
All failed for same reason, no controllable permeability. The holes invariably need fracking – Meager Creek used 40MPa overpressure without success. If they do get connected fraccs, the return path is too quick and the fluid doesn’t heat up.
Almost all geothermal wells discharge a saline fluid, with high TDS typically 1-40k ppm. Steam flash fraction depend on enthalpy. Quite different composition to sea water Generally high silica content – related to feed temperature. Also other minerals in there at high enough concentrations to be of concern. Arsenic, boron, antimony. In the gases that come with it, mercury, radon, hydrogen sulphide. All of this is dissolved out of rock through which it has passed.
Note Geysers in northern California and to a lesser extend Lardarello discharge near dry steam with little mineralisation but a lot of gases. The process here is a bit different. Geysers is almost hot dry rock but that is an unusual shallow geothermal system in shattered greywacke where the deep water table is below the steam takeoff zone. And the resource is very limited – actually overexploited.
Thanks, Chris. Great detail! As I said to Joe above, I thought maybe the combination of fracking for oil/NG and geothermal might make it profitable enough to pursue.
Chris – thanks for a more detailed explanation. Of course our resident scientist was busy insulting a few commentators all the while displaying his complete ignorance of the subject.
I should add that Ormat run a lot of low temperature geothermal resources (<180°C) power stations in the US – mainly outside California though. They use binary plants where the geothermal fluid from wells (often pumped) is used to boil pentane to go through the turbines and aircooled condensers in a closed loop.
The plants aren't HDR no permeability enhancement. They generally take fluid from the hot centre of the permeable rock and reinjection is done on the field margins.
The plants are economic because of all the subsidies – Californian electricity consumers pay for them. They are baseload, and actually produce more power at night than daytime (air temperature) so partially balance solar.
EVs are ready to carry the load into the next century.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GHg6UPfW8AAqyBf?format=jpg&name=large
LOL!!!
OFF TOPIC BUT VERY NEWSWORTHY Climate-Porn from the Daily Mail and Nature today. “Terrifying” Heat predicted by June in a new Chinese paper in “Scientific Reposts Nature” via London Daily Mail.
Not Blaming man-made “global warming, but merely natural ENSO! The last year of record warming is now predicted to get worse!
THIS CLIMATE-SCARE PORN with a “Terrifying” prediction for the globe until June this year uses the oldest trick in the book to get it: use the Cold Decades of the Global Cooling as the base for comparison. Let’s compare the recent and forthcoming few months to make predictions based on decades of cooling temperatures. THAT sounds sound — NOT!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13140713/maps-record-breaking-temperatures-El-Ni-o.html
“Terrifying maps reveal the three areas of the globe that will experience record-breaking temperatures this year thanks to El Niño
* As ocean temperatures rise, El Niño is predicted to make this year the hottest yet
* The Bay of Bengal, the Philippines, and the Caribbean Sea will all hit record heats”
By WILIAM HUNTER
PUBLISHED: 11:00 EST, 29 February 2024 | UPDATED: 11:00 EST, 29 February 2024
_ _ _
This model revealed the difference between average regional temperatures between July 2023 and June 2024 and the 1951-1980 baseline.
[Note: IN SHORT, IN ORDER TO GET “Terrifying” Predictions, LET’S USE THE DECADES OF THE GLOBAL COOLING SCARE TO GET IT!]
_ _ _
[This and other Links in Daily Nail story, above]
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-52846-2
NATURE SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
29Feb24
“Enhanced risk of record-breaking regional temperatures during the 2023–24 El Niño”
I think GMST rose during 1951 – 1980.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the theoretically calculated one and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Even if all electricity were generated by nuclear energy, the entire amount of energy from nuclear would be 0.0014% of that of the Sun. So nuclear wouldn’t produce a large amount of heat, relatively.
As far as where the heat goes, there was a gas power plant on a lake where I lived. The fishing was great at the cooling water discharge. Looks like the bugs and fish there just loved the higher temperature.
That’s not based on the entire output of the Sun, just that which hits Earth.
And the amount “of the Sun” is just the amount that hits Earth, not the total energy emitted by the Sun.
“The biggest storm of winter has begun blasting the Sierra Nevada and will continue into the weekend, with some areas expected to see 10 feet of snow.”
Subsurface temperature decline of the tropical central Pacific.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202402.gif
As a European who lives in Germany I can only agree.
Our goverment(s)have been investing fit years into green, renewable energy sources and as a result energy prices are raising as well as taxes. In the same time, logicly, living standard is declining.
No one profited from it beside certain companies.
> Despite the special silicone resin intended to protect the road from 19-wheeler traffic
19 Wheels ?
On the topic of using finite resources while we have them, what is the best authority on frackable reserves worldwide ?
The “authorities” have been predicting the end of petroleum since the 1950s. I wouldn’t listen to them if I were you.
JIm2,
And they still are. There is less all the time.
As if we needed another reason to not own a TESLA. Limited range, charging anxiety, motion sickness, high price and this.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJXq-LtWkAAsbSH?format=png&name=medium
Hype vs reality on EVs. Consumers decisions still rule the day.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKKE6UQX0AEF-j8?format=jpg&name=small