Brangelina thread

By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    If we hadn’t gone that route and done microgeneration, “baseload” would not exist, because there’d be no need to define it.

    You are a comedian.

    You cannot run an industrialised economy on microgeneration. This is what is technically known as ‘hippie bullshit’ in energy circles ;-) An industrialised economy is not a smallholding in the outback.

    It requires baseload. This requires dedicated baseload capacity, which will either be coal (old system term) or nuclear (new system term).

    As D.B.B says, ‘deal with it’. It won’t go away just because you don’t like facts and definitions. The world is.

  2. #2 Brad Keyes
    March 21, 2013

    petard:

    You mentioned Briffa. I remember being blindsided by the Yamal issue when it came up- the first I knew of this was when a denialist acquaintance

    A what acquaintance?

    Have you told this person to his or her face that you consider him or her a “denialist”?

    Why, is “denier” not offensive enough for your purposes?

    who was familiar with McI.’s site started to chortle and gloat and basically call Briffa a fraud.

    Ah, I see. They weren’t actually calling Briffa a fraud. But presumably they were thinking that, you reckon. I mean, that was basically the subtext, in your interpretation of things.

    Fair enough.

    It was some time before I could achieve any kind of acquaintance with the issues, and even after several visits to Deep Climate’s site, I am not really in command of the arguments and relevant disputes.

    Gosh, really? Even after several visits to Deep Climate? It must be a really really complex issue then.

    In any case, I commend your circumspection. You have the honesty to admit you don’t understand the issues and are not qualified to go round calling people—basically or otherwise—liars and frauds.

    Too many people in the climate debate don’t know all the facts, know they don’t know all the facts, but do they let that stop them basically calling people frauds left right and centre? Not for a second!

    But not you. I can see you’re a cut above the usual shoot-from-the-hip retard, petard.

    Good for you!

    These people, from McI. down into the cesspools, are committing intellectual fraud and getting away with it. Then they just move on to something else.

    Oh.

    :-(

  3. #3 Brad Keyes
    March 21, 2013

    Marco:

    As said pointedly several places: we don’t need the proxy data of the last 100-150 years. We’ve got the temperature record for that.

    Don’t you need to have proxy data overlapping with the instrumental data you have in order to know whether or not the “proxy” is a proxy for the “true” value? How else do propose we [in]validate proxy data?

  4. #4 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    # 82 Chameleon

    GFY. You were put in moderation by the blog owner, not by me. Whine to TL. With luck he will ban you outright.

  5. #5 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    # 87 Vince Whirlwind

    I was just reading some pro-nuke rant that pooh-poohed solar by claiming that to provide Germany with 100% solar power would require a solar farm the size of Bavaria.
    Now, I’ve driven across Bavaria. It didn’t take long. And I would say scores of such solar farms could fit here in Australia, with only a single one, a quarter the size of Bavaria required for our power needs. (OK, more, because we’re so retarded with energy efficiency).

    One thing the pro-nuke lobby is good at, is throwing out unrealistic scenarios (100% solar+crowded country) and disregarding the forward march of technology.
    Which is funny really, because whenever they try to convince us nuclear is an option, it’s always vapourware like “Gen IV” and “thorium” and some imaginary magic that will take care of nuclear waste.

    SPV. What happens at night? What happens during cloudy days? What happens during the Austral winter when TSI is reduced for months on end?

    You talk about vapourware yet blithely ignore the fact that SPV needs science-fiction batteries that don’t exist to fill in the intermittency. Every night, the capacity of the imaginary, sci-fi batteries that do not exist will be drained. Every day, in addition to meeting ongoing demand, they must be recharged. A run of cloudy winter days and you are in a spot of bother.

    Wind and SPV. Let’s take Europe (we include the UK; screw the political nuance). All you need is a persistent winter anticyclone stilling winds across the Continent for a couple of days or more when demand is extremely high and we will run out of energy. SPV cannot meet demand on its own because it is *winter* (it couldn’t do it on its own 24 hours a day in summer either, but never mind that now).

    We are going to use much more electricity for heating and transport, remember and it is *cold* during winter anticyclonic conditions. Unless there is sufficient baseload and load-following capacity in reserve to carry the grid – at full demand – until the wind starts to blow again.

    And before you mention pumped hydro backup, do think about capacity and cost. In the UK, providing 2 days backup for an 80GW wind array delivering an average 32kWh/d/p would require the equivalent of 400 Dinorwigs. So around 100 of Britain’s major lakes and lochs would have to be *engineered* into pumped storage capacity. This would cost hundreds of billions of pounds sterling, none of which is *ever mentioned* in the ‘costing’ of wind power for the UK.

    Gen IV/thorium. Once again, you are waving this strawman around although both D.B.B and I have pointed out that we are talking about *proven* Gen III technology.

  6. #6 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “SPV. What happens at night?”

    Nuclear power station goes down (See N Sizewell B). What happens?

    Here’s a tip for you, kid, free of charge: Renewables is not synonymous with Solar PV. There is more than just the one renewable source.

    For a whiny little shit who says “you’re just saying stuff” and “Why don’t you read what I wrote in…” you really don’t read anything of anyone else’s, just spot read it for something to berate.

    During the night, winds are stronger.

    It’s been said before, it’s been in the links I’ve given.

    But you ignore it because you want to pretend that renewables don’t work because the sun isn’t visible at night.

  7. #7 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “You talk about vapourware yet blithely ignore the fact that SPV needs science-fiction batteries that don’t exist”

    Gosh. All those “Battery required” toys were LYING TO OUR CHILDREN!!!

  8. #8 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    Wow

    Your purest comedy gold yet!

    Gosh. All those “Battery required” toys were LYING TO OUR CHILDREN!!!

    You really are truly, madly, clueless.

    Sod off and do some reading.

    And do we still think that renewables (excluding hydro and CSP with thermal storage) are load following ? And that ‘load following’ is not synonymous with ‘dispatchable’?

    Dear oh dearie me. You need an intervention before you do any more damage to yourself.

  9. #9 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    Here’s a tip for you, kid, free of charge: Renewables is not synonymous with Solar PV. There is more than just the one renewable source.

    Try reading what I actually write for a change.

    Incidentally, how old are you?

  10. #10 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    Bradley

    Don’t you need to have proxy data overlapping with the instrumental data you have in order to know whether or not the “proxy” is a proxy for the “true” value? How else do propose we [in]validate proxy data?

    Not if the proxy can provide absolute temperature information. Shelly forams in sediment cores yield isotopic ratios that can be used to determine sea water temperature (specifically it’s the ratio of δ18O to δ16O). This was sorted out about half a century ago and the landmark paper on the basis of modern methodology is Imbrie and Kipp (1971).

    All the scepticoid morons at WTFUWT and CA are clueless about paleo proxies. The stupid munts all think its tree rings all the way down. How we laughed…

  11. #11 Brad Keyes
    March 21, 2013

    BBD:

    Not if the proxy can provide absolute temperature information. Shelly forams in sediment cores yield isotopic ratios that can be used to determine sea water temperature (specifically it’s the ratio of δ18O to δ16O).

    OK, that makes more sense. I forgot that not all proxies require an instrumental validation period. Thanks

    I haven’t even dipped my toes into the Marcott ruckus enough to know what the points of contention are, so I ask this without any prejudice: do you (BBD—I’m not asking Sou, chek or Wow and I’m not going to read any responses from said idiots) think McIntyre has a leg to stand on, or is this a scientific version of what LBF used to call a nontroversy?

  12. #12 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “Try reading what I actually write for a change.”

    ROFL!

    You ask Vince “So what happens at night, huh?”

    But that has ALREADY been answered by me. Evidence you didn’t read what I wrote.

    But you still think you can complain that I do it? Splinter vs plank going on here.

  13. #13 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    Your purest comedy gold yet!

    Gosh. All those “Battery required” toys were LYING TO OUR CHILDREN!!!”

    Uh, that was YOUR statement, dickhead.

    YOU claim that there are no batteries, they haven’t been invented yet.

    But, apparently pointing out how you are ridiculous is somehow risible and a source of humour for you?

    You’re a fucking nutcase, kid.

    Batteries exist.

    Storage for power exists too.

    You know, Dinworig? That’s power storage.

    Did you know that it will store power from Solar PV?

    No, you probably think that no such thing could happen. Because you’re a fucking nutcase.

  14. #14 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “You talk about vapourware yet blithely ignore the fact that SPV needs science-fiction batteries that don’t exist”

    THAT is your comedy gold.

    Apparently you don’t think it counts when it’s you.

    Just like Bray.

  15. #15 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    # 12

    Read the link at # instead of yapping like a teenager.

    Are you a teenager btw?

  16. #16 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    ‘Read the link at # 8′

  17. #17 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    # 13

    The kind of battery technology required for mass energy storage does not exist. Fact. Before you witter to me about VRB, let me remind you that this tech is still prototyping.

    Once again, you simply do not have a clue what you are talking about. Read the link at # 8 and inform yourself.

    Shouting at me does not change the facts.

  18. #18 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    You know, Dinworig? That’s power storage.

    Did you know that it will store power from Solar PV?

    No, you probably think that no such thing could happen. Because you’re a fucking nutcase.

    No, I’m better acquainted with the *facts* than you are. Since you obviously didn’t read my earlier comment, let me redirect you to # 5. Pay *special attention* to the penultimate paragraph.

  19. #19 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “No, I’m better acquainted with the *facts* than you are.”

    Incorrect. Unless you meant “facts”.

    You asserted that SPV required batteries.

    WRONG.

    You asserted that batteries did not exist.

    WRONG.

    You are not aware of any facts, only pointless and idiotic rhetoric.

  20. #20 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “The kind of battery technology required for mass energy storage does not exist”

    Yes it does.

  21. #21 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “Read the link at # instead of yapping like a teenager.”

    No need: you claimed no batteries existed.

    You can’t point to someone else to say that you’re right.

  22. #22 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “We are going to use much more electricity for heating and transport, remember ”

    Yes, that’s why the UK will need more than 10kwh/p/d.

    The average electrical power use for the UK is 10kwh/p/d.

    This is a fact you are as unaware of as all others to do with energy needs and production.

    ADDITIONALLY, we won’t need as much power for transport if we move to electrical.

    And do you know what those cars will have in them?

    Batteries.

    Batteries THAT ALREADY EXIST.

  23. #23 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    ” In the UK, providing 2 days backup for an 80GW wind array delivering an average 32kWh/d/p would ”

    be completely unwarranted, just as demanding backup for 80GW of nuclear power would be.

    You truly are the least capable individual on this thread.

    Given Bray is on it, that’s a fucking AMAZING achievement.

  24. #24 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    So backup for the UK wind fleet is ‘completely unwarranted’ is it?

    ;-)

    You get better by the comment. Winter anticyclones. It’s all in # 5, if you would just read what I write…

  25. #25 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    “The kind of battery technology required for mass energy storage does not exist”

    Yes it does.

    No it doesn’t!

    Can’t you use Google? Seriously?

  26. #26 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    ” “The kind of battery technology required for mass energy storage does not exist”

    Yes it does.

    No it doesn’t!”

    Yes it does.

    “Can’t you use Google?”

    Yes.

    ” Seriously?”

    Yes.

  27. #27 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “So backup for the UK wind fleet is ‘completely unwarranted’ is it?”

    As much as backup for the UK nuclear fleet is.

  28. #28 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    ” Winter anticyclones.”

    Yes. Winter and anticyclones.

    You don’t seem to know what you mean, though.

    Does the tide not run?
    Yes.
    Does the sun not shine?
    Yes.
    Does it cover the entire world with no wind anywhere?
    No.
    Is your asinine comment COMPLETE void of any utility?
    Yes.

  29. #29 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    The average electrical power use for the UK is 10kwh/p/d.

    This is a fact you are as unaware of as all others to do with energy needs and production.

    I think that’s just over half the actual value, which is ~18kWh/d/p (UK average). IIRC the average for Wales is higher: ~22kWh/d/p.

    Where did you get your figure from?

  30. #30 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “I think that’s just over half the actual value,”

    Nope, the total for electrical AND heating is about 18kwh/p/d.

    However, you have previously indicated how completely lacking knowledge you are, so your error is entirely expected.

    ” IIRC ”

    You don’t.

    “Where did you get your figure from?”

    DECC.

  31. #31 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    # 27

    So in your, erm, vision of a future UK energy mix, tide, wave and SPV can cover for a ~2 – 4 day hiatus in wind output caused by a winter anticyclone? Is that what you are trying to say? Because if it is, you have some *amazing* figures for projected UK wind, wave and SPV capacity.

    Please share them with me.

  32. #32 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    WRT DECC – Links, please Wow.

    You are too prone to assertion. I want some evidence.

  33. #33 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “WRT DECC – Links, please Wow. ”

    https://www.gov.uk/…/department-of-energy-climate-change

    “You are too prone to assertion”

    Rather rich coming from “BATTERIES HAVEN’T BEEN INVENTED YET!!!” boy.

  34. #34 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    It’s easy. You do it like this:

    2010 Welsh figures here.

    The average electrical power consumption per person per day in Wales is approximately 22 kWh/d/p, (slightly higher than the UK average of 18 kWh/d/p,
    see figure 3).

  35. #35 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “# 27

    So in your, erm, vision of a future UK energy mix, tide, wave and SPV can cover for a ~2 – 4 day hiatus in wind output caused by a winter anticyclone?”

    Yup.

    It managed more than six months without Sizewell B.

  36. #36 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    Wow, don’t be a tit. I know where the DECC website is. What I would like you to do is link me to the bit of it that confirms your numbers.

    As for your # 34, the kindest thing I can thing of saying is that you have misunderstood my comment rather fundamentally. Perhaps you should read it again.

  37. #37 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    At least you’re improving, if barely.

    You now admit that there is more than one renewable at a time.

    (PS you REALLY DO NOT HAVE A CLUE what you’re talking about wrt winter cyclones)

  38. #38 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    You keep missing the essential part of the battery problem, which is that really super big massive mega batteries of the type needed to back up renewables against intermittency and slew don’t exist. It would help if you read the links. Really, it would.

  39. #39 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “Wow, don’t be a tit. ”

    I’d have said the same to you, but despite being warranted, you wouldn’t have done it.

    “As for your # 34, the kindest thing I can thing of saying is that you have misunderstood my comment rather fundamentally.”

    Perhaps you’d better say what you MEAN rather than demand I work out what the hell you meant when I’ve clearly understood what you SAID.

  40. #40 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    WRT winter *anti*cyclones, yes, I really do!

  41. #41 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    I’ve also missed the point that baterries made out of fairy dust and unicorn piss that are needed to back up wind power for making electrons green instead of blue like all the school textbooks have them don’t exist.

    And for the same reason.

    THEY ARE NOT NEEDED.

  42. #42 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “WRT winter *anti*cyclones, yes, I really do!”

    Nope.

    You know what you’ve been let do believe by other lying sacks of shit pushing nuclear because they’re fuckwits.

    However, you do not know about the actualities of winter cyclones.

  43. #43 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    Right, meant anticyclones, though.

    Typo.

  44. #44 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    And shit, man, what happened to that 195kwh/p/d that then dropped to 125kwh/p/d and now looks anaemic at 32wkh/p/d?

    Talk about shrinking…

  45. #45 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    And when it comes to wind power, TRY to get out of the 18th Century, will you? “Slew”??? They aren’t fucking direct drive turbines, you twat.

  46. #46 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    You know what you’ve been let do believe by other lying sacks of shit pushing nuclear because they’re fuckwits.

    However, you do not know about the actualities of winter cyclones.

    My God! The lying sacks of shit pushing nuclear are brainwashing our kids with *fake meteorology*!

  47. #47 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    In this context, ‘slew’ is synonymous with ‘variability of output’ which in the case of wind generation results from wind speed variability.

    Any luck backing up that 10kWh/d/p yet?

  48. #48 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    The UK has, at this very moment, around 125GWh of battery that could be used as electrical storage. And changes to an all-electric fleet would increase that to something over 250GWh.

    Though this level of backup is no more needed than it is for nuclear, coal or any other element of the electrical grid.

  49. #49 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “Any luck backing up that 10kWh/d/p yet?”

    Plenty. Oh, and it’s less than 10kwh/p/d.

    Any luck backing up this idea that batteries haven’t been invented yet?

  50. #50 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    # 40

    THEY [batteries] ARE NOT NEEDED.

    Well, others differ ;-)

    Here’s a taster from an article at The Conversation:

    Explainer: storing renewable energy

    Storage is one of the highest technological barriers to the spread of renewable energy. When the sun is shining, the tide turning or the wind howling, how do we collect that energy and keep it to use when generation is down?

    There are many different types of energy storage technology available or under development. But each technology has some inherent limitations or disadvantages that make it practical or economical for only a limited range of applications.

    More lies from the nuclear industry? Or perhaps you are a teeny bit wrong?

  51. #51 Jeff Harvey
    March 21, 2013

    “I want to know how many scientists believe in seriously net-dangerous AGW”

    The vast majority. I was just visiting a university in northern Michigan and the scientists I spoke with there had pretty choice comments in describing those who downplay the seriousness of AGW. In the last 10 years I can count on one hand the number of scientists I have met who do not take the repercussions of AGW very seriously indeed. Off the top of my head I can think of two.

    Thing is, Brad, you aren’t a scientist so you play the ‘head in the sand’ strategy. That is, if you cannot see the actual numbers stuck right in front of your face, then you will argue that there is no proof that most scientists are concerned with the potentially serious consequences of inaction over AGW.

    Please tell me this: why has every Academy of Science in every nation on Earth released statements in which they emphasize the serious threat posed by AGW? These esteemed organizations have huge scientific memberships. Or is this just some vast conspiracy? Jonas N couldn’t address this issue on his thread and its a recurring weak point fro those who deny or downplay AGW.

    To reiterate, the vast majority of scientists take AGW very seriously. So, now that this is out of the way, Brad, what it there left for you to argue?

    Nothing. I thought so. Glad that you now accept the nature of the problem.

  52. #52 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    Jeezus, I think I know where this bunch of retards get their asinine figures from.

    From David “WOO GO NUCLEAR!” MacKay:

    The chemical energy in the food we eat to stay alive amounts to about 3 kWh per day. Taking one hot bath uses about 5 kWh of heat. Driving an average car 50 kilometres uses 40 kWh of fuel.

    That’s right, this fuckwit thinks that the average daily travel in the uk is 50km per person.

    Yet even this doesn’t get him to 195kwh/p/d, only 125.

    But even he recognised that some of that “winter no wind, therefore renewables don’t work” was bullshit:

    In contrast, roof-mounted solar water heaters are a no-brainer. They really work: even where the sunniness is only about 30%, a modest 3-square-metre panel can supply half of a typical family’s hot water: about 3.8 kWh per day, on average.

  53. #53 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    # 47

    Really? Source?

  54. #54 Wow
    March 21, 2013
    THEY [batteries] ARE NOT NEEDED.

    Well, others differ

    OK.

    But you pretended that this was uncontestable. Lying by omission is still lying.

    Here’s a taster from an article at The Conversation:

    Fuck, why not go along to WUWT like Duffer exhorts us and see that there’s someone there saying that AGW is over and go “Oh well, lucky for us, eh? Nothing to worry about any more”.

  55. #55 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    re 51:

    Cars.

    Seems like you don’t know what makes cars go.

  56. #56 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “In this context, ‘slew’ is synonymous with ‘variability of output’ ”

    Ah, the humpty-dumpty defence.

    If you’re going to make up the meaning of words, DON’T.

  57. #57 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    COMEDY GOLD FROM DICKHEAD HERE!

    My God! The lying sacks of shit pushing nuclear are brainwashing our kids with *fake meteorology*!

    Actually, the amusing thing is that this is entirely made up. A strawman.

    I didn’t say they were teaching our kids the wrong thing.

    Only BabyBraD here, and it wasn’t from his teachers, either.

    It’s from fellow nuclear shills. Making up whatever is convenient for the moment to spur on the drive to get nuclear back in the black.

    Even if it screws up with the rest of the population bigtime.

  58. #58 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    Oh, and may I point out to you, BabyBraD, you’ve now shown yourself to be a true liar like brad.

    #46: In this context, ‘slew’ is synonymous with ‘variability of output’

    However, that was about your comment #37 which states:

    #37: intermittency and slew

    So slew and slew???

  59. #59 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    Intermittency means on/off.

    Slew means variability.

    The two terms are not synonymous.

  60. #60 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    For example, when wind speed falls below the operational threshold of the turbine, output ceases. When wind speed rises above this threshold, output resumes. This intermittence.

    When output varies with wind speed during continuous operation, this is variability or slew.

  61. #61 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “Intermittency means on/off.”

    And this doesn’t vary the output of a generator?

    Well, given SizewellB was off for six months, Nuclear is intermittent.

    And Coal.

    And Gas.

    And every other generator.

  62. #62 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    Well, unless you invent a perpetual motion machine.

    “For example, when wind speed falls below the operational threshold of the turbine, output ceases”

    And when there’s an electrical fault in the nuclear power reactor systems, output ceases.

  63. #63 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    And how much is Fukushima or Chernobyl producing today?

    Now how much is the windfarm that was nearer the epicenter in Japan producing, and how long was it offline?

  64. #64 David B. Benson
    March 21, 2013

    chameleon — Thanks for the link. Yes, designing a reliable, on-demand grid requires considering all 24 hours of every day.

    Obviously some solar can be accommodated as the intermediate load picks up during the daytime. However some form of balancing agent is required due to clouds.

  65. #65 David B. Benson
    March 21, 2013

    Available means ready to generate or generating. WInd power is not available when there is no wind or it blows to hard. Solar is not available at night. Nuclear is not available during refurbishment and replenishment intervals.

  66. #66 BBD
    March 21, 2013

    # 11 Brad Keyes

    It’s a nontroversy as far as I can see. The important part of M13 is the Holocene reconstruction. See here for a sensible discussion. If you elect to read the comments, Bob Brand knows what he is talking about.

  67. #67 Vince Whirlwind
    March 22, 2013

    So around 100 of Britain’s major lakes and lochs would have to be *engineered* into pumped storage capacity. This would cost hundreds of billions of pounds sterling, none of which is *ever mentioned* in the ‘costing’ of wind power for the UK.

    A bit like the nuke-spruikers don’t like to mention the approaching-100billion pound cost of decommissioning old nuke sites currently being borne by the taxpayer?

    What’s the better investment? A technology that is becoming ever more erxpensive with every year that passes and carries an uninsurably high risk *and* based around a severely finite fuel supply? Or a clean technology based on an unlimited fuel supply that is getting cheaper with every year that passes?

  68. #68 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    # 67 Vince

    The cleanup argument is false equivalence. The radioactive mess from the 1950s onwards is the legacy of nascent technology, administrative naivety and cold war imperatives. It does not extrapolate to C21st nuclear electricity generation.

    The better investment question is a strawman. The objective is rapid decarbonisation. Removing enabling technologies from the table is counter-productive.

  69. #69 David B. Benson
    March 22, 2013

    “For utility scale battery systems, expect to pay between $1,000/kW and $4,000/kW, according to the Electricity Storage Association. The DOE’s optimistic assessment estimates those costs will drop to around $500/kW by 2012.”

    from
    http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/can-utility-scale-batteries-rescue-intermittent-renewables/

    And price is still around US$3000/kW for high quality units:

    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Utility_Scale_Batteries

  70. #70 Vince Whirlwind
    March 22, 2013

    There are many different types of energy storage technology available or under development. But each technology has some inherent limitations or disadvantages that make it practical or economical for only a limited range of applications.

    All that says is that storage of potential is a problem that needs more work done on it. Work on this problem will be far more fruitful than throwing any more money away on that nuclear crap that’s had 60 years to solve their problems and have abjectly failed..

  71. #71 David B. Benson
    March 22, 2013

    In the USA the NPP operator sets aside a certain sum (daily) which provides a fund for the decommissioning of the NPP at the end of its service life.

  72. #72 Vince Whirlwind
    March 22, 2013

    The objective is rapid decarbonisation.

    So nuclear’s off the table then, is it?

  73. #73 Vince Whirlwind
    March 22, 2013

    The radioactive mess from the 1950s onwards is the legacy of nascent technology, administrative naivety and cold war imperatives. It does not extrapolate to C21st nuclear electricity generation.

    Although this sounds a lot like the, “It’s all perfectly safe now, something like Chernobyl could never happen again”, and, “new nuclear technolgoies coming online consume existing waste and produce none of their own”, I don’t reject what you’ve just said, because it is very true that the current astronomical costs associated with developing a nuclear power plant are very much related to the fact the operators are no longer allowed to externalise quite so much of the costs of the pollution they used to assume no responsibility for.

    Use the free market to fully internalise the cost of uncapped and non-taxpayer-subsidised insurance and I’ll be happy with nuclear as a solution if it can prove economic viability.

  74. #74 David B. Benson
    March 22, 2013

    After perusing
    http://www.ambri.com/
    click of the link to the MIT Technology Review article about the startup. If they can actually achieve US$500.kW that should be a game changer.

  75. #76 David B. Benson
    March 22, 2013

    In December 2012, Germany’s upper house of parliament approved a law that willreduce the liability on transmission system operators in the event of delays or damage to offshore gridlinks. from
    http://www.marketresearch.com/Business-Monitor-International-v304/Germany-Power-Q1-7350769/
    in which the final paragraph makes an important point.

    Anyway, Vince, are you now opposed to offshore wind generation when the liabilty is capped?

  76. #77 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Anyway, Vince, are you now opposed to offshore wind generation when the liabilty is capped?

    Oh FFS, DBB, YET ANOTHER FUCKING STRAWMAN.

    No, Vince never said that he was opposed to nuclear because liability was capped.

    He said that the capping of liability (which you have still avoided acknowledging) is a subsidy, and for nuclear a HUGE one.

  77. #78 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    In the USA the NPP operator sets aside a certain sum (daily) which provides a fund for the decommissioning of the NPP at the end of its service life.

    Well in the UK the decommissioning of our reactors are getting more and more expensive. Cleanup is expected to be north of £60Bn.

    I can fund a new house. £20 a week. It won’t cover the cost of a new house, but I can build a fund for it from that amount no problems.

  78. #79 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    All that says is that storage of potential is a problem that needs more work done on it.

    And all that storage is needed for any other generator.

    If SizewellB goes offline for 6+months again, the shortfall has to be made somewhere. If the HVDC link goes down, shortfall again. If France have to take their nuclear power stations offline for a few months because of a heatwave again, then there will be a shortfall.

    Each of those requires storage technology or backup generation.

  79. #80 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Available means ready to generate or generating.

    And wind does that.

    So does solar, tide, hydro, pumped storage.

    In any way that these ones don’t, nuclear doesn’t either.

    N SizewellB is not available to generate. Therefore it is not available, therefore nuclear is not dispatchable, it is intermittent. It therefore needs as much backup as Wind does, has problems of “slew” (indeed a greater degree of variation over time by far than any wind or solar power) and therefore needs the same sort of magical batteries that Wind does.

  80. #81 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    The cleanup argument is false equivalence

    Yes, cleaning up nuclear power is a far more dangerous and long-term tragedy to clear up.

    Whereas you don’t get lots of wind leaking out of the farm and spoiling the ground making the food grown from it too windy to feed to even animals.

    No leaking of sunlight into the waters to kill the fish.

    There is no equivalence, you’re right.

  81. #82 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    However some form of balancing agent is required due to clouds.

    Oh for fucking jesus lords sake, what the hell are you blithering on about now????

    Clouds don’t make a large difference to the power available from solar. It’s still very very much lighter even on the cloudiest of days than it is at twilight.

    And clouds form mostly when there is a front moving through.

    Fronts mean winds.

  82. #83 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    The radioactive mess from the 1950s onwards is the legacy of nascent technology, administrative naivety and cold war imperatives. It does not extrapolate to C21st nuclear electricity generation.

    Proof required.

    Oh, look, the contamination at Fukushima proves you wrong. Sizewell? Proving you wrong again.

    So looks like proof you’re talking complete shit again, DBB.

  83. #84 chameleon
    March 22, 2013

    Wow!
    I know this will set of another ‘gattling gun’ set of comments but you seriously haven’t got a clue!
    You need to read and UNDERSTAND the links that BDD & DDB have very patiently supplied you!
    Your concept of energy requirements and REALITY as in THE REAL WORLD do not match!
    The industrialised/urban society MUST HAVE reliable and dispatchable grid power.

  84. #85 chameleon
    March 22, 2013

    BBD @#4???
    Did you miss the word PARTLY in that comment????????
    Don’t overly flatter youself BBD.
    It’s not all about you :-)

  85. #86 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Gas is intermittent:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/mar/21/gas-price-warning-short-supplies

    No gas? No gas electrical generator available.

  86. #87 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Recent news in the UK:

    “a site incident has been declared and the plants on the site have been moved to a controlled, safe, shut down state.”

    Intermittent.
    Slewed.
    Not Available.
    Not dispatchable.

    So do we need 80GW of backup for Nukes?

  87. #88 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    No. Just necessary over-capacity to cope with a couple of reactors going offline at a time. Oddly enough, this is exactly how the grid is set up now, except that the over-capacity is used to cover for coal-fired plant going offline.

    It works very well and has done for many decades.

    The problem with the UK wind fleet is that it goes offline in its entirety during winter anticyclones, sometimes for several days at time. That’s why it needs substantial backup. The bigger it is, the more backup will be required.

    It’s conceptually very simple, really.

  88. #89 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    “Just necessary over-capacity to cope with a couple of reactors going offline at a time”

    Don’t you mean backup generation?

    And, no, we aren’t turning on more nuclear power plants to make up the shortfall. We’re

    a) using other countries generation
    b) using gas generator backup

    you know, just like you decry needing for renewables.

    But apparently, if it’s nuclear backup generation, that’s fine, it only gets bad if it’s not nuclear power backup.

    And you wonder why we accurately label you as pro-nuke.

  89. #90 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    “It works very well and has done for many decades.”

    And it’s how renewables will work too and have done for many years.

  90. #91 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    Sigh. Yet more terminology confusion.

    Backup generation or ‘reserve’ *is* over-capacity.

    Did you know that Dinorwig was originally intended as reserve/backup capacity for nuclear?

  91. #92 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    The problem with the UK wind fleet is that it goes offline in its entirety during winter anticyclones, sometimes for several days at time. That’s why it needs substantial backup. The bigger it is, the more backup will be required.

    Please respond to this, as it is something you need to address coherently. Please try and calm down. I am rather tired of your histrionics.

  92. #93 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    Clouds don’t make a large difference to the power available from solar.

    Another completely incorrect claim. SPV output is directly proportional to insolation and falls by about a factor of 10 under cloudy conditions. This is why alternating cloud/sun causes substantial and abrupt output fluctuation in SPV arrays which makes grid integration complex and problematic.

  93. #94 Wow
    March 22, 2013
    Clouds don’t make a large difference to the power available from solar.

    Another completely incorrect claim.

    So you claim.

    But total cloud cover is not what you were talking about when using your pen-name david. You talked about clouds in the sky.

    And the illumination of the earth is still very high under most cloudy conditions.

    And cloudier conditions are accompanied by windy conditions.

    This is why alternating cloud/sun causes substantial and abrupt output fluctuation in SPV arrays which makes grid integration complex and problematic.

    No more so than nuclear power stations going offline.

    There is no problem with renewables for the grid that haven’t had to be solved when we put the grid together for coal or nuclear power generation.

  94. #95 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    The problem with the UK wind fleet is that it goes offline in its entirety during winter anticyclones.

    No it doesn’t.

  95. #96 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Backup generation or ‘reserve’ *is* over-capacity.

    Then all you’re talking about with renewables is over-capacity.

    NOTHING you blather on about being acceptable for nuclear power is not acceptable for renewables.

    NOTHING you blather on about being unacceptable for renewables is acceptable for nuclear.

    If renewables are intermittent, Nuclear is intermittent.

    If renewables are not dispatchable, Nuclear is not dispatchable

    If renewables need backup generation, Nuclear needs backup generation.

    If nuclear is load following, renewables are load following.

  96. #97 Wow
    March 22, 2013

    Please respond to this, as it is something you need to address coherently.

  97. #98 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    Wow

    No it doesn’t.

    I’m getting fed up with this sort of nonsense from you.

    Fact – winter anticyclones produce national-scale calms

    Fact – wind turbines do not produce electricity when the wind is not blowing

    Fact – the UK wind fleet produces very little output during winter anticyclones.

    Fact – once again, when cornered by reality, Wow goes into shut-eyed denial mode and starts lying

    Sort your head out.

  98. #99 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    So you claim.

    But total cloud cover is not what you were talking about when using your pen-name david. You talked about clouds in the sky.

    I am not David B. Benson. And I do more than ‘claim’. I will prove it.

    It is easy to demonstrate that cloud has a strongly negative effect on SPV output. We will use real data from Germany, accessible here.

    The first day of this month (01/03/2013) was a cloudy day over most of Germany. Pick the calendar from the far right side of the toolbar and click on Friday 01 March. Watch. Peak output for the day was 5.1GW out of a potential 33GW – about 15% peak capacity.

  99. #100 BBD
    March 22, 2013

    Then all you’re talking about with renewables is over-capacity.

    NO! Wind and solar are not dispatchable. They are not under the direct control of grid engineers. The wind blows when it does. The sun goes in at night and there are days of national cloud cover.

    So – obviously – we cannot use wind and SPV as back-up for conventional baseload plant. Obviously.

    Then you just go off on another Gish Gallop of nonsense.

Current ye@r *