Climate Skeptic - Latest Comments

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Ted Rado — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:48:21 -0000

Jai John Mitchell:
It is certainly true that the entire domestic need for electricity could be met by wind/solar and hydro storage. I pointed that out, with calcs, earlier. The problem is that ten times as much electical equipment and huge reservoirs would be required. If we are prepared to have many thousand dollars per month electric bill, no problem.
In the same way, if cost is no object, we can make gasoline out of CO2. Amost anything is possible theoretically. Very few are feasible economically or engineering-wise. Put numbers on your schemes and it becomes clear.
No matter how efficient solar panels become, they cannot generate more energy than reaches the earth's surface. Your comment about a "slight supplement" of gas power on cloudy days is intersting. The capacity of such standby would need to be 100% of demand. The cost would be astronomical per unit of power generated. Imagine all that equipment standing idle most of the time. Again, ANYTHING is possible at a cost.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Jai John Mitchell — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:53:53 -0000

The reality is that technology has advanced in alternative energy over the last 10 years. It is now feasible that a combination of wind, solar and hydro storage could supply the entire domestic need for electricity. In reality, a slight supplement of natural gas powered electricity on the days where the whole country is cloudy and still and there are no areas where the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, on and offshore will be necessary. New solar panels coming out will be 67% more efficient than the panels we currently use. The jobs and domestic infrastructure necessary to build this decarbonized system will produce an era of economic expansion unseen since the 1950s.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Ted Rado — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:31:34 -0000

Waldo:
ALL the engineers I know agree with my calcs. Only the profs getting USG grants to study nonsense believe in this renewable energy crap. Are you a prof on the take by any chance?

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Waldo — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:29:29 -0000

Good to see the same old Ted. Hey Ted, have you bothered to tell any of this to all those younger engineers currently working on green energy? I'm betting not!

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Waldo — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:26:43 -0000

"The speaker will assume those who disagree are persons of
goodwill. The speaker will not resort to ad hominem attacks or
discussion of funding sources and motivations."

So his public persona is radically different from his blogging persona? Cool.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Climate Realist — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:51:08 -0000

I take

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

dilbertwyoming — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 22:22:31 -0000

I think the real question in all of this should not be is the world getting warmer....it is. We are on the tail end of an ice age. It was not that long ago that most of N America was covered by very thick sheets of ice. Are humans contributing...probably yes, but we don't know how much.

Really, the more important question is "Should we be happy or sad about the earth getting warmer with or without that coupled by an increase in CO2?

If you look at the recent history of the earth, there was a warming period in the MIddle Ages. People all over Northern Europe were prosperous with great abundance and great progress. That period was followed by an extended period of cooling.....we call that the "Dark Ages". Food was scarce and people died.

Going back millions of years, there were many periods where the earth was warmer and in many instances the natural CO2 level much higher than today. During those periods, the now fairly dry portions of the US were lush forests and wetlands as evidenced by the many rich coal and oil fields in the Central US. Certainly the oceans may rise a bit....maybe. Of course, plate tectonics might result in the continents actually increasing in relative elevation.

We can't predict the short term weather patterns and the climate change models have been a dismal failure. But, frankly, I don't care if they are accurate or not. The benefits of a higher mean temperature and higher CO2 levels will likely result in increased farm yeild and be better in general for the worlds population.

The doom sayers are always eager to promote inaction as the error. We don't currently have the technology for renewable short of covering all of NM and AZ with solar cells....which would no doubt be fought tooth and nail by the environmental community. And, since the likely source of climate change, which has been happening for the last 10,000 years, is part of a natural cycle, we most certainly do not have the technology to turn down the sun's cycles.

Remember something is a theory until it can be proven by observation. So, all the global warming hype is only a theory at this point. I have a theory I will someday win the lottery. But, I would not change the world's economy based on that theory.

Good interview with Freeman Dyson.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mu...

Oh, ya, credentials.....Engineering, Professor, Mensa.....
BTW, you needn't post lots of replies to this inasmuch as I am an infrequent visitor to this site.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Lance — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 23:18:25 -0000

This is typical of the pie-in-the-sky "feel good" crap that underlies nearly all "alternative" energy schemes.

And if you dare take a pencil to the numbers,and point out the fact that these schemes don't work, you are immediately attacked as an evil "denialist" in the pay of Big Oil.

Poor Jeffery is a typical well intentioned "useful idiot" to the cause. He could be dismissed as a well intentioned dufus except that he is part of a massive effort to dismantle the energy source that has propelled modern civilization, fossil fuels, and replace it with fairy dust.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Ted Rado — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:05:18 -0000

Jeffery Green
I looked into the V2G scheme you seem to approve of. That idea is to hook up electric cars to the charger and put battery juice back into the grid as backup to wind or solar power. The figures work out as follows. Assuming 100 million cars with 15 KWH charges, and using Jan 2013 US electricity production figures, at 100% efficiency there would be 3.08 hours of backup. To accomplish this, every home must be equipped with the necessary facilties to convert DC to AC and transform the voltage to a high level to return it to the grid. What a magnificent idea! Who dreams up this sort of nonsense? Run some numbers, man! Let me know if I have made an error in my calcs.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Ted Rado — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 20:36:36 -0000

Jeffery Green
There is a difference between an enviromentalist and an enviroloonie. I was a backpacker for forty years and treasure the environment. If you are truly interested in the environment, you would be interested in finding real solutions to our problems rather than marching around with a "repent - the end is near - we must do something even if it is absurd" sign.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Ted Rado — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 16:47:52 -0000

joe_dallas
Your point about runaway warming has bothered me for years. If a slight warming (due to CO2 or anything else) occurs, then with positive feedback there would indeed be out of control warming. Since this does not happen, something must be out of whack with the theory. If the AGW proponents now came back and said that their theories need to be revised, I would have no problem. It seems however that the more experience there is that shows the theory to be faulty, the more strident their insistance that they are right. If I had behaved this way during my engineering career, that career would have been short indeed.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

joe_dallas — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:26:14 -0000

J Green - you are relying on the believe in the positive feedbacks amplifying the warming (as as many warmist believe - creating a nearly out of control warming spiral).
If the theory of the positive feedbacks is true - then explain
1) Why the positive feedbacks haven't already kicked in
2) what is to stop the positive feedbacks from a continued unstoppable warming spiral
3) why didnt the positive feedbacks kick in during prior warming periods
4) Since the positive feedbacks didnt kick in during the prior warming, is there some way for the positive feedbacks to differentiate from different causes of warming that tells them to remain dormant or to attack.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

joe_dallas — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:11:44 -0000

J Green - I just finished reading your exchange with Ted. Having an engineering background, i can attest that the fact that technological limitations are going to prevent the efficient conversion to renewable energy in the near term future.

A dead giveaway is your citation of skepticalscience. Skeptical science is an advocacy website, and as with any advocacy website, you should be leery of using such a site for unbiased data. That is true for any advocacy group regardless of which side of the fence you believe is correct. FWIW - if someone is unable to recognize some of the many pieces of misrepresented data (at skepticalscience for example) then they certainly lack the ability to understand the science.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Lancifer — Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:37:05 -0000

Ted,

I have also been studying the AGW, alternative energy issue for many years. I teach math and physics at IUPUI (Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis) and have worked as an engineer for an aerospace company.

Setting aside the claims of catastrophe from CO2 for the moment, you are correct that there currently exists no large scale alternative to fossil fuels for electricity generation or transportation. Nuclear (fission or perhaps fusion) is the obvious long term answer to the question of what humans are going to use for energy when the fossil fuels run out. Luckily that isn't going to happen for at least 50 years and more likely over 100 years from now.

I was initially excited about the idea of using hydrogen, from hydrolysis, generated from nuclear power as a transportation fuel, but, as you are no doubt aware, there are very intractable problems with transport and storage of hydrogen. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels could be synthesized but again this would be much more expensive than current fossil fuels.

If the current idiotic focus on "green" energy based on fear of CO2 could be set aside there could be reasonable and rational discussions of planning for the (eventual) transition away from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are going to be our main energy source for decades to come and once that is realized there can be policies and infrastructure in place to deliver these fuels efficiently and economically.

Unfortunately folks like Jeffery are quite plentiful and these people have the ear of government, at least the current US administration.

The best we can hope for is congressional gridlock. Also that the EPA will be reigned in from it's eco-activist mission to hobble the US energy economy in the name of "saving the planet".

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Ted Rado — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 21:55:24 -0000

Lucifer
Thanks for your comments. I got interested in the AGW thing many years ago. As you know, this is a subject of much controversy. In due course, it became clear to me that it doesn't matter whether AGW is true or not. There is no viable large scale alternative to fossil fuels other than nuclear for electricity. Thus, if AGW is true, our only alternative is to move north. Another requirement to make renewable energy effective is to get the Chinese and Indians on board. They have made it clear that they will not stop their fossil fuel powered industrialization programs. Thus, if we outlaw fossil fuels, industry will move overseas and CO2 generation will not be reduced.
When I first started looking at renewable energy, wind power with hydraulic storage looked good. The prairie where the wind blows is adjacent to the Rocky Mountais where we could build high reservoirs. No new technology is needed. We know how to pump water, build reservoirs, and hydroelectric plants. When I hung numbers on it, it fell apart (as I described earlier). In a similar manner, other schemes fell apart as well.
Standard practise in engineering is to take a technical proposal at face value (assume it will work as proposed) and do material and energy balances. Then capital and operating costs and economic analysis. In this manner, bad ideas are screened out before lots of money is wasted, and efforts can be concentrated on those schemes which have merit. For some unknown reason, the USG and others don't want to do this. The result is billions of wasted dollars and a diversion of R&D effort into uselless projects.
Unfortaunately, all of the studies I have done (wind, solar, energy storage schemes, batteries, biofuels, tidal power, electric and hydrogen cars, etc.) show everything that has been proposed to date is completely impractical. Until a scheme is worked out that appears to be workable, all major construction and R&D should stop. We should stay with engineering studies only until a scheme appears that looks good on paper. I surely do not wish to discourage people from proposing new ideas. I merely suggest they be evaluated in the time proven engineering way.
In the distant future (hundreds of years) fossil fuels will become scarce and expensive. At that time, cities, industry, and our way of life will have to change. Studies on how to live in a fossil-fuel-free environment will need to be done. Perhaps small cities with short range, low speed, electric cars and trolleys, rail for long distance travel, etc. will become the norm. All electricity will be nuclear based. I would love to see studies of this type rather than chasing pie in the sky schemes to perpetuate our current life style without fossil fuels. At the moment, these schemes appear to be all nonsense, for fundamental reasons that new inventions cannot circumvent (basic laws of physics). We can replace elctricity generation with nuclear, but what to do for transportation fuels (and other uses for fossil fuels) remains a mystery.
I would love to see more input to the discussion on a sound emotion-free basis. Others may have ideas different than mine, or perhaps I have made an error in my calcs. Most of what I get is zealotry and insults, or quotes from some pie-in-the-sky paper. Do you know that it has been proposed to mount windmills on huge kites that will be up where the wind is strong? The USG is reported to have set aside $100K to study this. I am serious! Isn't ot lovely to be a US taxpayer?

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Lancifer — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 21:00:45 -0000

"I don't read mother jones. I'm not sure where you get the idea..."

Oh, so wrote an article for them but you don't read Mother Jones?

Did they just pick your article out of the air?

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Lancifer — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:58:42 -0000

Ted Rado,

Jeffery has no intention of checking out the many sensible things you point to in your thoughtful reply. His mind is made up that 1) We face a climate catastrophe from CO2. 2) There are viable alternatives to fossil fuels. 3) All that stands in the way of replacing fossil fuels with "renewables" is for fossil fuel interests to stop subverting the political process.

All three of these are complete nonsense but he earnestly believes them all to be true. He isn't a technically or scientifically skilled person and relies on the information he gleans from places like "RealScience", Grist, Mother Jones etc.

To but it bluntly, he is a gullible, politically motivated "activist".

God save us from the good intentions of these ninnies. (And that's coming from an atheist!)

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Ted Rado — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 11:37:33 -0000

Jeffery
I read the Delaware thing. There are no engineering numbers. They consider H2 storage, for example. How much electrolysis equipment is needed to make the H2? How do you store the H2, which for practical purposes cannot be liquified? How do you convert the H2 back to electricity? What is the efficiency of all these steps, and what are the production plant requirements? What is the overall (as well as step-by-step) efficiency of these operations? Clue: I have long ago done all these calcs, in a manner similar to the hydro storage case I presented earlier, and the result is that it is nonsense. Any scheme that is put forward must be accompanied by such calcs.
As to the Southwest having 100% wind/solar availability, I presume the sun never sets in Arizona? Electricity production figures for wind are 30% of nameplate max in the Great Plains, and 20% for solar in AZ. Corresponding figures for Germany are 18% and 8%. Thus, the facilities must be several times as large as the grid power requirements and the excess energy stored (I presented figures earlier). A larger geographical area is better, as the wind might be blowing in one part when the other dies down. No question. The problem is that there will be times when the wind dies down all over, so that the same power rate from storage is required, hence the same size facilities. The sun sets all over the US within a few hours. Also, transmitting power over long distances is inefficient due to inductance losses. This is why power plants are near the consumer rather than all in one place some distance away.
Some of the Delaware stuff is hilarious. The idea that all the electric cars hook up to the charger and put juice back into the grid as a means of srorage is surely a joke?
If you are really serious in your interest in renewable energy, I suggest you study it in more detail and do some of the calcs I have done for the various schemes. Much of what is in print is zealotry and propoganda (on both sides of the debate). I have studied all the proposed schemes in detail and they are all totally impractical, both engineering wise and economically, or result in even more fossil fuel consumption rather than less. Much of this work, particularly at universities, appears to be a ploy to get USG grants. This is intellectual dishonesty on a massive scale. I personally know someone who was making $200K/yr studying compressed air storage of energy with government money, which anyone knowledgable in thermodynamics can show to be nonsense. He laughed all the way to the bank. This sort of thing is going on all over the country. Do a few calcs, and only then spend big bucks.
Long distance transmission of power can be done much more efficiently as DC. This has been tried on a commercial scale many years ago, and never put into large scale use.. It is proposed to transport wind energy from Western OK to Tennessee in this way. The capital costs to do the conversion from AC to DC and back again would be substantial.
Again, everything is POSSIBLE. No question. What is FEASIBLE is something else. Do the numbers rather than merely quote a paper which is a bunch of pie in the sky nonsense. Thinking "outside the box" is fine, but it must be followed by engineering calcs to determine its feasibility. It seems that very few proponents of the various schemes are willing or able to do that. They simply hope that somehow a way to implement the idea in a practical way will appear out of the blue.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Jeffery Green — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:25:00 -0000

I don't read mother jones. I'm not sure where you get the idea I talked about suppression of renewables. Looks like you have a real hard on for environmentalists. Good luck with that.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Jeffery Green — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 22:21:39 -0000

Its called thinking outside the box. Interconnected utilities. We have isolated fiefdoms all over the Unted States. ONce we can transport the energy easier to fill in the holes. If you read the article they do have storage in the calculations.
Of course you can't see it. because you can't see therefore it can't be real? Not so.
There are multilple studies showing the larger the geographic area the more reliable the power becomes across the area served. Different seasons have different intensities of wind and sunlight. Some areas may easily go 100% such as the southwest United States and others may have to rely longer on fossil fuels.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

JP — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:45:12 -0000

Concerning the costs of "renewable" energy. Germany has led the way in reducing its fossil fuel burning power plants as well as its nuclear power plants. The resultant cost of energy in Germany has gone up so quickly and in such a short time that many German residents have purchased wood burning stoves, and illegally harvest trees to fuel their stoves. You won't find the stories in the MSM, but for the last 2 winters over 800,000 German homes have had their power shut off for non-payment (ie utility costs have soared to such a level that the customers cannot any longer afford to pay them).

Concerning renewable energy - Europe is the future. And the future knows how to cross an ocean.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Ted Rado — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:54:40 -0000

Jeffrey Green
You state that power needs can be met 99.9% of the time with wind and solar. That is indeed true if you generate excess power when the wind blows and store it for later use. Those are exactly the calcs I presented earlier. The problem is in the huge amount of equipment needed for standby and storage. How can you have 99.9% without lots of storage? Please list all the facilities needed to accomplish this.
The idea that one can minimize the effects of the intermittent nature of wind by including a large area is certainly true and has been considered for a long time. The problem is that transmitting power over long distances is ineffiecient. A DC transmidssion scheme to get power from western Oklahoma to Tennessee more efficiently is under study. That is also expensive to do. Even with a wide era, there will sttill be days when there is a calm.
I am totally unimpressed by the "billions" of computer runs. I was in the business of developing rigorous simulation models for complex, extensive chemical operations. One can write a model that says anything you want. GI - GO.
It should be a simple matter to list ALL the facilities needed for the proposed scheme. Then we could evaluate it.
As I pointed out earlier, it would indeed be possible to design a totally wind (or solar) powered system with storage. That's not the issue. The total amount of facilities required becomes absurd.
I don't understand how, with wind facor at 30% or less, and solar at ubder 20%, you can satisfy the power requirement without storage. Please explain. Do you know of a place where the wind never stops?
The total cost must include the maximum size required in each category, regardless of how long it is used. If you need 1000 MW backup 2% of the time, you still need a 1000 KW backup system. If backup was required 70% of the time, you would need the same thing.
I liked your statement that backup power turbines sitting idle is a good thing. Where does the money come from to pay for this, including standby labor, maintenance, taxes, depreciation, and amortization. If you know how to build expensive equipment, let it sit idle, and make money at it, you are a genius.
Many years ago, a chemictry prof wrote a paper to the effect that there was no hydrocarbon shortage. The world is full of carbonceous rock. This can ne heated to drive off CO2, which is reacted with H2 to make CO, which together with more H2 can be converted into gasoline. While theoretically possible, the energy need is astronomical. More recently, it has been proposed to make gasoline from CO2 and H2 in a sililar way. Again theoretically possible but absolutely absurd. Perhaps your economics prof is related to the above-mentioned chemist?
Without numbers, in a manner similar to my prevoius post, these discussions are meaningless nonsense.
Thanks for letting me know that a child can do what I do. It will save his father the cost of going to engineering school.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Lance — Sun, 17 Mar 2013 00:26:08 -0000

Jeffery,

So, in your mind, the numbers are obvious and it is only the evil fossil fuel interests "suppressing" the rational move to renewables?

Are you that naive and gullible?

Do you suppose that the boards of public utilities, that are responsible for making decisions to supply our nations energy needs, are so corrupt or stupid that they don't see the "obvious"?

The sad thing is that you are not alone in your delusions. Luckily the climate scare is running its course and the big scary "climate crisis" won't be available as an emotional bludgeon to force the hand of regulators for very much longer.

Good riddance. You and the rest of the delusional, politically motivated "Mother Jones" brigade will have to come up with a different scheme to dupe the populace into going along with your, Malthusian left wing eco-fantasies.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Jeffery Green — Sat, 16 Mar 2013 03:01:44 -0000

This person I am quoting has quite a few more toys to play with than you do. And much better at it than you are. YOu throw a mere 4 or 5 numbers at me and that is suppose to discredit a a computer system trying 28 billion possiblities.

Run the calcs as I did? Children can do what you do. A gas turbine sitting idle is a perfectly good thing. This article is about the cost, not about the engineering. If you choose to read, you can see the cost comes in below today's prices of electricity.

You have really not presented a single detail. If you read through some of the material, it does provide a cost per kwh of construction of the different technologies.

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0378775...

6. Conclusions

Here we simulated ﬂuctuating power input to a large regional electric system, seeking the least-cost combinations of renewable generation and storage to provide sufﬁcient power for load. Unlike many prior studies, we do not employ storage in order to balance generation capacity more closely to loaddwe only care about reliably making load at the least cost.

We ﬁnd that 90% of hours are covered most cost-effectively by a system that generates from renewables 180% the electrical energy needed by load, and 99.9% of hours are covered by generating almost 290% of need. Only 9 to72 h of storage were required to cover
99.9% of hours of load over four years. So much excess generation of renewables is a new idea, but it is not problematic
or inefﬁcient, any more than it is problematic to build a thermal power plant requiring fuel input at 250% of the electrical
output, as we do today.

Re: Amherst, MA Presentation, March 7

Ted Rado — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:36:56 -0000

I read the piece. He does not show the details of all the facilities required. For example, when the wind dies down and the sun sets, you need 100% backup. If you use hydro for storage and/or backup, you need to do the same sorts of calcs that I showed you. By the time you have 100% backup, and all sorts of costs for the peripheral schemes the author presents, equipment requirements are through the roof. Do the numbers for his scheme and present them as did.
As I expected, the author that you quote is NOT an engineer. He is an economist. You need to list ALL the facilities needed. Fore example, he shows gas turbines running only a tiny percent of the time. Meanwhile, those turbines sit idle. List the max capacity of each energy source and then run the calcs as I did. Broasd brush conceptual stuff without the sort of details I presented are hogwash.
There is no doubt that one can create a model that optimizes the combination of power sources. The question is, what are the total equipment requirements?
P.S. I love non-engineers playing engineer. Very entertaining. That's where all sorts of kooky schemes come from.