If most of the electricity used to charge your electric car is made by burning coal, is it still worth it, in terms of CO2 release, to buy an electric car?
Yes. And you will also save money on fuel.
Don't believe me? Want me to show you? What, are you from Missouri or something? Fine. I'll show you.
A few years ago, when there were no affordable electric cars that were real cars, we decided to look into buying the next best thing, a hybrid. We wanted to get the Toyota Prius because it looked like a good car, had long proven technology, and all the people we knew who had one were happy with theirs.
I mentioned this to an acquaintance, also noting that I expected that we would save money on fuel. His response was that we would never save as much money on reduced fuel use to justify the extra cost of this expensive car. Just look in any car magazine, he said. They all make this comparison in one issue or another, he said. You are crazy to do this, he said.
I disagreed with him about the crazy part. Failing to do something that you can afford to do that would decrease fossil CO2 emissions was the crazy decision. You know, given the end of civilization because of climate change, and all. But, I was concerned that we would simply not be able to afford to do it, so I resolved to look more closely into the costs and benefits.
Sure enough, it was easy to find an article in a car magazine that analyzed the difference between buying a new internal combustion engine car vs. a Prius, and that analysis clearly showed that there wouldn't be much of a savings, and that we could lose as much as $500 a year. Yes, each year, the Prius would save gas money, but over a period of several years, the number would never add up to the thousands of dollars extra one had to spend to get the more expensive car. Buy the internal combustion care, they said.
But the article said something else about "green energy" cars that set off an alarm. It said that cars like electric cars would never catch on because they were quiet. Everybody likes the sound of the engine, especially when accelerating past some jerk on the highway, even in a relatively quiet and sedate car like a Camry.
Aha, I thought. This article is not about making rational decisions, or decisions that might be good for the environment. It is about something else entirely.
Then I thought about my acquaintance who had suggested that the Prius was a bad idea. And the hippie punching theory fell neatly into place.
So, I continued my quest for information and wisdom. I learned years ago that when you want to buy something expensive, contact a seller that you are unlikely to buy from to ask a few questions. Don't take up too much of their time, but start your inquiry with a business that sells the product you want, but that you will walk away from in a few minutes. That lets you discover what the patter in that industry is like, what the game is, how they talk to you and what you don't necessarily know, without it costing you dumb-points along the way. This way, when you talk to the more likely seller (in this case, the Toyota dealership on my side of town, instead of the other side of town) you are one up on the other noobs making a similar inquiry.
So I made the call, and said, "I'm really just interested in trying to decide if the Prius is worth it, given the extra cost, in terms of money saved on fuel."
"OK, well, it often isn't, to be honest. And I won't lie to you. I sell the Prius and I sell non-hybrids, and I'll be happy to sell you either one."
Good point, I thought. He doesn't care. Or, maybe, he just tricked me into thinking he doesn't care! No matter, though, because I've already out smarted this car dealer with my "call across town first" strategy.
As these thoughts were percolating in my head, he said, "So, it really depends on the numbers. So let's make a comparison. What car would you be buying if you didn't get the Prius?"
"Um... actually, it would definitely be a Subaru Forester. That's the car we are replacing, and we love the Forester. No offense to Toyota, of course..."
"Well," he interrupted. "Everybody loves the Forester. But, it does cost several thousand dollars more than the Prius. So, I'd say, you'd save money with the Prius."
We bought the Prius. From him.
And now the Prius is getting older. It is still like totally new, and it will be Car # 1 for a couple of more years, I'm sure. But as the driver of Car #2 (an aging Forester) I am looking forward to my wife getting a new car at some point so we can further reduce CO2 emissions, and I don't have to have a car, for my rare jaunt, that is likely to need a towing.
And, when I look around me, and ask around, and predict the future a little, I realize that by the time we are in the market for a new car, there will be electric cars in the same price range of that Prius, if not cheaper. So, suddenly, buying an electric car is a possibility.
And, of course, the hippie-punching argument that we will have to deal with is this: Coal is worse than gasoline, and all your electricity for your hippie-car is made by burning coal, so you are actually destroying the environment, not saving it, you dirty dumb hippie!
There are several reasons that this argument is wrong. They are listed below, and do read them all, but the last one is the one I want you to pay attention to because it is the coolest, and I've got a link to where you can go to find the details that prove it.
1) Even if we live in a state that uses a lot of coal to make electricity, eventually that will change. Of course, my car might be old and in the junk yard by then, so maybe it is still better to wait to by the electric car. But in a state like Minnesota, we are quickly transitioning away from coal, and in fact, the big coal plant up Route 10 a ways, that makes the electricity for my car (if I had an electric car), is being shut down as we speak.
2) Even if the electric car is a break even, or a small net negative on carbon release, it is still good, all else being nearly equal, to support the energy transition by buying an electric car and supporting that segment of the industry.
3) It is more efficient, measured in terms of fossil CO2 release, to burn a little coal to transmit electricity to an electric car than it is to ship the gasoline to the car and burn the gasoline in the car. This sound opposite from reality, and many make the argument that making the burning happen in your car is more efficient than in a distant plant, but that is not ture. While this will depend on various factors, and burning gas may be better sometimes, it often is not because the basic technology of using electricity driven magnetic energy is so vastly more efficient than the technology of using countless small controlled explosions to mechanically drive the wheels. Electric motors are so much more efficient than exploding liquid motors that trains, which are super efficient, actually use their diesel fuel to generate electricity to run their electric motors, rather than to run the wheels of the train.
4) Reason 3 assumes an efficiency difference between internal combustion and magnetics that overwhelms all the other factors, but it is hard to believe this would work in a mostly coal-to-electricity setting. But there is empirical evidence, which probably reveals the logic of reason number 3, but that I list as reason number 4 because it is based on observation rather than assumption. If you measure the difference between an internal combustion engine and an electric engine in a coal-heavy state, you a) save money and b) release less CO2.
And to get that argument, the details, the proof, GO HERE to see How Green is My EV?, a tour de force of logic and math, and empirical measurement, by David Kirtley, in which David measures the cost and CO2 savings of his Nissan Leaf, in the coal-happy state of Missouri.
I'll put this another way. The best way to be convinced that an electric car is a good idea in a state where most electricity is generated by burning coal is if someone shows you the evidence. Where better to examine this evidence than in the Shoe Me State of Missouri???
- Log in to post comments
I thought of another factor, but it may not apply - Any load you add to a given location will tend to be partly taken up by adjacent greener states, because, grid. Especially if the local vendor can get green cheaper than coal.
David, that is true and over time may become increasingly important, for a while. In MN, our green energy plan is partly fueled (as it were) by expectations that redder states, hippie punching states, like Wisconsin, Iowa, and the Dakotas (i.e, all our neighbors) are going to have to buy this green energy from us to meet their national requirements.
Of course, we have to get rid of Trump for that plan to keep working, but that will likely happen soon enough.
In a previous job we were measuring and accounting for energy and greenhouse gas usage for HVAC applications. One of the important things we had to keep in mind when dealing with electricity usage is the difference between site and source energy -- how much electricity is measured at the site of use (the building) and how much is measured at the source of generation (the plant).
Some calculations show that generation, distribution, and transmission losses can be huge (in the 70% range), meaning that for a coal plant every MJ of energy released by burning coal only 300kJ makes it to your charger, well before getting into the car. Unless these huge losses are accounted for (and they didn't seem to be in David Kirtley's article, that I noticed), it could make your estimates of greenhouse gas emmission from your EV off by up to a factor of 3.
Of course, the solution is to stop using coal or other fossil fuels for electricity. That will take a lot of time in building up increased renewable capacity as well as increased grid storage technology, but both prongs are gaining steam.
I'm looking forward for the day when fossil fuels aren't burned for heat, but are mainly used for plastics feedstocks.
It's still a good idea to go full electric. An ICE would be 25% ish efficient and a coal station 40%, or 60% near enough if it were CHP. And the actual propulsion is offset by regenerative braking, meaning that slow stop/start traffic would increase the mileage rather than reduce it as happens with a petrol engine. You can figure that you get 50% better efficiency for urban and suburban driving, but only a few percent for motorway driving.
And the reduction of local pollution is another positive factor.
How much petrol is burned getting it to the station? How much burned to get it out of the ground? How much burned to refine it? And how much lost in leaks?
I seriously doubt your 70% figure, unless your system was all low voltage (100V) AC, which is dumb.
We aren't contradicting each other (or not by much). The 40% efficiency you cite for the coal plant equates to 60% losses source-to-site, with the other 5-10% coming from distribution and transmission losses.
With PV or wind, you don't have the 60% in generation losses. Well, with PV, you may have 75-90% "generation" losses due to the efficiencies of the PV, but those losses don't dump CO2 into the air.
Right now, my only objections to EV cars are (a) I have no place to plug one in, as I have on-street parking, and (b) I can't afford one.
Yeah, well, if that were your source of "70% losses", then you need to sue your fingers for lying about you:
The source energy is not "what calorific value is contained in the coal we unloaded". So I still call bullshit on your claim there.
The Chevvy Volt is fairly cheap, it's definitely in the mid-to-low price range, but it's not old enough to be a common car in the second hand market. The Prius is a luxury sedan size and priced and specced accordingly,and the Tesla is a high end car with better range but also priced according to its' Beemer-class equivalents.
No off-street parking may currently be a bugger, but there are many cities where you can find charging stations very close by and this is no worse than the fact that you do not have your own pumping station on the verge of your property.
That, however, depends highly on what you do and what facilities you have. Much like the similarly early days of the petrol car (or, indeed, the early days of the catalytic converter car where you had to check especially for the right sort of fuel before pumping to make sure that the stuff was clean enough to use).
70% losses in transmission is crazy high. Hydro-Quebec sees about 5-10% losses (they claim a bit less), and a lot of the generation is 1000 km from the demand. The longest line runs from the James Bay to Boston! This is why, by the way, superconducting transmission lines haven't taken off: there isn't enough to save to bother.
I'm going to have to say that Buddha Buck here has a point. Transmission loss isn't the only loss. I have a copy of "Energy", a book from the "Life Science Library" (Life being the magazine), in front of me. In addition to transmission loss, there's Generator Friction, Badly Made Lines, Heat loss from the Transformers and inefficiencies in the end product (e.g. incandescent light bulbs). In fact, I've seen quotes of 25% efficiency when all these factors are taken into account.
Having said that, I agree with Greg. The "Long Tailpipe" has been investigated and discredited.
40% transmission losses sounds way to high, India is often cited as the worse case with 25% loss (or there about).
5% for the USA is given in this link
and seems much lower in the UK e.g.
And none of those are missing from the value at the generator, Julian.
I wouldn't take this crap from someone insisting that Solar PV won't work, so why would I take it from someone who at least accepts that decarbonising is a good idea?
A 1GW station is 10GW what comes out at max rated operation. The calorific value of the coal when burned in a calorimiter may be 1.4GW when burned at the same rate, but that doesn't mean the power station is given a 1.4GW rating.
A coal power station is about 40% efficient. Not 30%. And it's not 30% efficient for hydro or wind or solar or nuclear. All three have values different, and most of that efficiency "loss" (for solar that would be the loss compared to insolation rate) is in the process itself, not transmission, and it's only the transmission loss that would be the difference between station and consumer.
For HVDC it's of the order of a couple of % per 1000km. For HVAC, I can't remember off the top of my head, but for most grid level HV, the loss is probably something like an order of magnitude higher.
He has a point, but since it's currently hiding behind a 70% line loss claim, those who want to put the kybosh on electric cars will see it and laugh their asses off and see it as "proof" that this eco hippy stuff is bullshit and anyone talking about it positively is a bullshit artist.
While not intentional, electric cars are tax evasion mechanisms. Roads etc. are paid for via motor fuel taxes. When you don't buy motor fuel, you're still adding to wear/tear on roads but not paying for them. There is no mechanism to recovery the lost revenue. Perhaps a per mile fee assessed through vehicle registration/licensing would work but there would be a lot of whining about it.
Reading back over this, I don't see me making the "70% line loss claim" you attribute to me. Please quote where I said that.
What do I care about the power rating of the power plant? Why should that be more important than the amount of coal I have to burn to get that energy to my wheels?
So let's say we have a 1GW coal plant which is 40% efficient. In 1 hour, at peak output, it'll put 1GWh of energy into the grid. That will take 2.5GWh of coal to do.
The transmission and distribution lines are not perfect, and they will suffer 5% losses delivering the energy to the site (the home). So that 2.5GWh of coal is delivered as 950MWh of energy to the home.
At this point, this is 65% losses source-to-site.
I am not saying -- and never did say, never intended to say -- that the transmission losses alone were 65%, but that the over-all losses from generation to delivery were 65-70%.
Yes, different mixes of "fuels" yields different overall losses. I'm willing to say that the source-to-site losses for renewables (wind, hydro, PV) is solely transmission losses in the 5% range. But in a way, as long as those sources can deliver enough power when it is needed, it doesn't matter what the losses were. They aren't throwing CO2 into the air.
But coal plants are. What's your point in only looking at the output of the coal plant, and not it's input? The 40% efficiency (or 60% losses) account for a lot of the CO2 generated at a power plant.
"Reading back over this, I don’t see me making the “70% line loss claim”"
It's right here:
in the context of this:
now you may not have meant anything other than what Julian interpreted you to mean, rather than what I and nuberobs interpreted it to mean, but your wording was so obscure and wandering that it is open to, and requires, interpretation. You can't let yourself slack off like that. Because someone who has the idea that electric cars are BS will use your words as you said them and conclude that EVERYONE talking about electric cars is similarly BSing.
There was no goddamned reason to wave that 70% loss out either. Doubly so when you open with an "I am totally an expert in this, trust me". Because in that case your claim there is negated by your inaccuracy and your insistence of being taken at face value is not merely valueless but actually negatively impacting your words in the future.
What happens next time you want people to take your word for something? Your error here will be remembered and even if you're 100% right, it will only be investigated if there's no alternative available AND it's considered important enough to spend the effort. Because your opener was such a bust.
Kinda kills your ability to help, doesn't it.
"Reading back over this, I don’t see me making the “70% line loss claim”"
It's right here:
in the context of this:
now you may not have meant anything other than what Julian interpreted you to mean, rather than what I and nuberobs interpreted it to mean, but your wording was so obscure and wandering that it is open to, and requires, interpretation. You can't let yourself slack off like that. Because someone who has the idea that electric cars are BS will use your words as you said them and conclude that EVERYONE talking about electric cars is similarly BSing.
There was no goddamned reason to wave that 70% loss out either. Doubly so when you open with an "I am totally an expert in this, trust me". Because in that case your claim there is negated by your inaccuracy and your insistence of being taken at face value is not merely valueless but actually negatively impacting your words in the future.
What happens next time you want people to take your word for something? Your error here will be remembered and even if you're 100% right, it will only be investigated if there's no alternative available AND it's considered important enough to spend the effort. Because your opener was such a bust.
You then need to start re-building capital by providing external evidence before you can rely on reputation to make it no longer an a priori requirement
Kinda kills your ability to help, doesn't it.
"Roads etc. are paid for via motor fuel taxes. "
Taxable losses by businesses are, even if unintentional, ways to avoid taxes.
Meanwhile the cars are more expensive and sales taxes higher, and the ability to collect road tax for such a small section of the drivers would totally remove the benefit of tax collection at the moment.
Your point is a bit like saying the tax free income is a tax dodge: all you have to do is earn so little you don't have to pay tax, yet you'll still get the defence of the military and justice system.
Kinda "so what".
So, in the quote you made of what I said, you seem to be interpreting "generation, distribution, and transmission losses" to mean "transmission losses, but not generation losses". I don't see how your reading makes any sense.
So please try again to say where I said 70% transmission losses.
But it is in the construct of the second quote, which was preceding and couched the context of the claim.
If you don't like being read, don't write. If you don't like all of you being read, then stop when you've said what you want read and don't write any more.
I didn't write what you posted, I only read it. You seem to have a problem with that. So my suggestions will help you avoid your problems reoccurring.
When you burn coal at a large fixed power plant, about 40% of the chemical energy becomes electricity. About 80-90% of that electricity gets to the EV drivetrain after transmission losses and battery storage losses. Using the low numbers, 32% of chemical energy in goes to the drivetrain. Coal generates 215 lbs of CO2 per BTU (crazy US units, but that's what EIA gives at the link below), so you get about 670 lbs CO2 per BTU at the drivetrain.
When you burn gasoline in an ICE-based car, about 20% of the chemical energy gets to the drivetrain. So 20% of chemical energy in goes to the drivetrain. Gasoline is about 157 crazy units, so you get 785 lbs CO2 per BTU at the drivetrain.
None of this counts exploration, extraction, refining, transporting the fuel, distributing it. It also doesn't take account of how much energy you need for one car versus another, driving style, etc. And it ignores the construction cost of the car. And it assumes a 100% coal grid.
One thing I haven't really seen analyzed is the marginal carbon cost of a kWh. When you plug in the car, you are sucking out electricity, so the grid is going to get more supply. What is that supply coming from? Even in a grid with 95% coal, the marginal kWh might be coming from renewables. Or on the flip side, a grid with 95% renewables, the marginal kWh might be the kWh that keeps the coal plant from shutting down yet.
Given the coal to the power station is driven to a single source, whereas the petrol to the engine needs the car to go there and get filled, there's a bit of an imbalance there too.
And as I said earlier, CHP can get 60% ish efficiencies because they use the waste heat to, well, be heat rather than try and wastefully capture it for electrical generation.
in 2009 I compared a Honda Fit and a Prius. The Prius could not compete on price plus cost of ownership, and the emissions of the Fit were barely more than the Prius.
Electric does not yet make sense in CO.
The Union of Concerned Scientists says the breakeven is about 35mpg - any gas car that gets better mileage than that produces less emissions than an electric car that needs coal-fired electricity. I average 35-6 in the Fit. If the solar shingles promised by Elon Musk actually materialize, that would change my mind.
California Committee Explores Road Usage Charge In Place Of Gas Tax
In the long run, I'd guess something like this will have to happen.
Yeah, I don't think that's true in any sense. The production energy is little if any higher, and the most you could have said is that the return on the savings is untenable because of oil being so cheap in the USA and electric cars so much more expensive.
I don't see any place appropriate to post this, but Spencer, Christy, and Braswell have finally published: UAH Version 6 Global Satellite Temperature Products: Methodology and Results in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.
When asked why published in such an obscure journal Dr Spencer responded in full paranoid, tinfoil hat, black helicopter mode:
"Our first choice would be an AMS or AGU journal, but they have one or more gatekeepers who inevitably get involved in the review of papers with “Spencer” or “Christy” as authors.
I might remind you of the Climategate email passage “Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Trenberth also managed to get an editor to resign because Remote Sensing published one of my papers (which was never retracted though)…Trenberth apparently had some influence over that editor in the research realm.
Many of these journals are now tightly controlled to prop up the IPCC narrative.
APJAS is a high-quality journal."
Nothing to do with the fact he had already self-published on his website 2 years ago.
See, if that email were even remotely true, then they'd be able to gain political capital by TRYING to get it in review and shitcanned. But by avoiding that test, they're admitting that their claim is a load of bullshit.
did the car mags say Prius was worse than cars like Forester? I always thought they did comparisons with high mileage cars like the Jetta or compacts. Usually a 10k price drop for a high mileage car which is hard to make up.
India's high power loss may really be people just tapping the power lines.
Regarding all the discussions above about loss, please keep in mind that the study at hand here, as in formal as it is, naturally includes all of that.
Also consider that a shift to a green energy system reduces transmission costs significantly. No one is calculating that in. In an economy that favors electricity over exploding liquids, more electricity will be produced, and if that is all clean energy, it will have a lower annual transmission rate.
Also, increasing the total amount of battery out there is helpful. I just heard about a study showing that if Minnesota switches all the school buses over to electric, that would provide a large amount of battery storage during the summer when a lot of the busses normally sit unused. The buses can be used to store surplus sun and wind. The movement of sun and wind power across short to medium time scales by using the bus would have the net effect of building a carbon-free 300 megawatt power plant.
Re. Fuel Taxes. David Roberts had a post about this recently: http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/2/24/14707528/electric-vehic…
Here in Missouri I pay $75/yr for a "Special Fuel Decal" which is supposed to compensate for the fuel taxes I'm avoiding by not buying gas. In my comparison between my EV and my ICE car I was able to determine how many gallons of gas I avoided using each month. With those numbers, and the avg. cost of gas/month, I could calculate how much fuel tax I would have paid if I had used my ICE car rather than my EV. It turns out that Missouri is getting more money from my "Special Fuel Decal" than they would have if I had bought gas...about $26 more. The Feds are getting screwed though...losing out on $52 of road-building money.
I have no problem with paying my "fair share" but I wish the Feds were getting some of my "decal" money.
I have a handy-dandy chart of all this here: https://skepticalscience.com/How-Green-is-My-EV.html#120970
Greg Laden, why would transmission losses be lower with renewable energy? Aren't they using the same lines?
They wouldn't if they're from the same place.
But you can stick a solar panel on your roof and they're better at scaling down than the fossil fuel producers with similar efficiencies.
Tell me, do you not bother to engage your brain and even TRY to answer your question before you ask it? Try not being so lazy.
There's also the fact that renewables load follow, meaning less off-peak loss and less standby running storage.
Now you've given two reasons. I asked about why Greg Laden says it. I'm not claiming it's wrong, but am looking to see his reason which may be a third thing altogether, and I am certain is not a guess just to win points in an argument.
Oh, Boo hoo. You asked for a reason and I gave you two! How will you EVER cope?!?!?!?
What you seem to have missed is that a pure electric vehicle has far lower maintenance costs and the drivetrain will last a very very long time.
If you go to an antique shop and find an electric motor from the beginning of the 20th century, it will work just fine.
(There are lots of silly arguments here on the matter of efficiencies; I know it is hopeless to try to correct them, but you guys should do some more research.)
Zebra, good point. Question, how are repair costs on a Prius? What I have read is that IF you have to do repairs on a Tesla, you are paying a lot.
Only because it's a premium car and electric, therefore the naysayers will say any old shit to diss it.
Electric cars are simpler, more robust, and cheaper to fix.
Garages will demand what the market will bear, which means the actual cost is merely a floor for the pricing.
I don't know if anyone here has ever worked on cars, or maybe even lifted the hood on one, so it is understandable if this isn't obvious. But electrifiying the passenger car sector would have an enormous economic impact, and that's very bad news for a lot of people.
Make a list:
No Jiffy Lube.
No Midas Muffler
No Brake Shops
No Transmission Shops
No pollution control sensors for the dealer to replace.
No hoses and air filter housings and all the stuff that keeps the supply chains in business.
And on and on. There's a reason dealers are desperately trying to block Tesla from selling, state by state, and do their best to slow their own sales of even hybrids. They will join the buggy whip-boys in obsolescence if we go all electric.
And then, it's not just Exxon-Mobil, but all the gas station operators.
The people who will benefit the most, strangely enough, are poor people. They will be able to buy reliable very-used cars, because what I said about the lifetime of the drivetrains is (barring intentional failure rate designs) not an exaggeration. Electric motors have one moving part. As long as the chassis holds up, they will keep on going, perhaps with a simple battery swap.
Not quite that bad; there are some misconceptions in that list:
More than just the engine needs lubrication (though much less frequently),
Electric cars still have brakes (though they last longer),
They still have gearing between the motor & wheels that replaces a traditional transmission,
They still have things like cabin filters that need periodic service/replacement...
It's more a matter of degree & frequency. It's not as though electric cars free the owner from all maintenance and will put the entire automobile service industry out of business.
It will have the effect of reducing demand and will cause a retraction of service outlets. And that won't happen all at once either.
Nevertheless, the key point is valid: the gradual replacement of ICE-powered cars for all-electrics will be disruptive, and will require changes across the industry.
But consider these current businesses to be a drain on human productivity that ties up talent and labor that can be/needs to be applied to other pressing needs in society.
So it's disruptive, but not necessarily a bad thing, overall.
Of course it will not happen all at once, particularly because it will be fought tooth and nail, just like renewables. I'm the last person to say it is a "bad thing".
But there isn't a "misconception" in what I said about the magnitude of the change.
There is an enormous difference between a single-ratio gear connecting motor and wheel and a modern automatic transmission.
Remember, it isn't just servicing but manufacturing that will shrink radically.
The ultimate design is one motor for each wheel. The whole assembly, including what you think of as a "transmission", will easily be swapped out if repair is necessary. Really, look under the hood of a car-- all that incredible kluge you see will be gone.
And again-- if you build them well, there will be less need for replacement vehicles, because if you maintain the chassis and suspension, they will just keep running.
Well, I just wasn't aware that the majority of labor, majority of cost, and majority of servicing needs for automobiles was all in the internal combustion engine and transmission.
Glad to know that nothing else on cars needs design, or manufacturing, or servicing. Who knew?
This will be a bona fide disaster! Luddites unite!
Dude, calm down.
From an engineering viewpoint, yes, we can build cars that will last a very long time, with very little servicing, if you eliminate the ICE.
Have you ever pulled an engine and rebuilt it? I have; it is absurdly labor and equipment intensive.
Do what I said-- look in the engine compartment, and tell me what will still be there if we develop modular, commodity, motors for each wheel.
Air conditioning. There will be some kind of cooling system to harvest heat in the winter. Steering, although maybe even that will be distributed and automated.
Mechanical brakes will be emergency-only. They will have to be programmed to operate once in a while so they don't freeze up from rust.
You don't understand how much "design" is driven by the need to fit things around the ICE, and deal with heat and fluids and gases.
You don't understand that even the suspension is way more complicated than it needs to be because of uneven weight distribution. Even with a hybrid, which I drive, the weight of the battery strategically located improves handling.
What are you worried about-- cupholder design and maintenance?
"Glad to know that nothing else on cars needs design, or manufacturing, or servicing. Who knew?"
Only one thing has to rotate at thousands of RPM for hours at a time. Unless you buy cars with REALLY overclocked windscreen wipers.... And even then, the wipers won't have to deal with nearby explosions, high heat and carbon deposits in the motor bearings.
Perhaps we can reduce the amount of servicing that cars require. But if we could, then we could do much of that now.. yet one might argue that we don't - intentionally. Perhaps. With electric cars, one might then conclude that there will be more pressure to factor in such "planned obsolescence", rather than eliminating the amount that exists now. Certainly if the industry gets upset by losing the (large) amount of labor for ICE servicing, they'll be all the more upset if we take away most of what remains with electric cars. Do we want to create greater enmity or encourage adoption?
I have pulled engines and rebuilt them. Yes, it's a lot of work. And expensive.
Look again: I'm not at all disagreeing with you about the disruption and the reduction of that industrial segment. I'm saying it won't be quite as severe as you're making it out to be. If it were, Tesla would be on Easy Street and be making money hand-over-fist due to high sales prices and next-to-no expenses. It still requires a design team, engineering, production staff, and service departments and staff to make the whole electric car thing a reality. And it will be disruptive. Jobs will change, jobs will go away, jobs will shift. And new jobs will come into being.
And don't begin to tell me what l know and don't know. You don't know my background or expertise. Time for you to chill, bubba.
"Perhaps we can reduce the amount of servicing that cars require."
WTF? "Perhaps"???? No ICE, big reduction in what needs servicing.
"yet one might argue that we don’t – intentionally"
Yeah, but we could be forced by gunpoint to buy ICE engined cars too. We could be forced to agree to an EULA that says our house electricity can't be used for our electric cars. Or the garage will hire hit men to kill you on sight if you drive about in an electric car.
The states could pass legislation specifically to ensure that you can't buy electric cars (hang on, they're really doing that one!).
None of it will actually make the electric car equally as labour intensive as the ICE car or need as much maintenance.
"Do we want to create greater enmity or encourage adoption?"
Hey, they're pissed off that you're even letting the electric car exist, so why not save some more enmity and just scrap the entire idea and just go with dirty coal and allow fracking. Then without all that enmity from them, they'll just demand you give them everything else they want. What? You thought that by avoiding something they hate that they'll somehow reciprocate? You got a lot of learning to do, son....
" If it were, Tesla would be on Easy Street"
They are, but they still have to labour under a republican government so insistent on getting out of the way of big business that they're deliberately screwing them over to ensure that they don't have to get in the way of the car dealerships.
" and be making money hand-over-fist"
They are, pretty much. Quite profitable. See their last report.
" due to high sales prices and next-to-no expenses."
Well, they've not been running this line long enough to have been expected to "save" in maintenance, they're still investing heavily in new product lines and new production facilities, all of which won't have gone cost-positive yet, but they're spending a lot of money because they're making money hand-over-fist. And re-investing it to grow the company.
Rhetorical questions are.. wait for it.. rhetorical.
We're all still, fundamentally, in agreement. The industry, the government, the utilities providers will all adapt. Over time. But not happily.
Hardly the first time in history something like this has happened...
And stupid rhetoric is stupid, in a non-rhetorical sense. Weird that, innit.
"But not happily."
They weren't happy when seatbelts were mandated. They weren't happy when VHS was a common home sale. They weren't happy when there was digital music online.
For all the bullshit they give about being "the entrepreneurs", and how they, taking all the risk, deserve bigger profits, do not in any sense, shape or form, take kindly to there being ANY risk, for ANY change. Even if it works out better (e.g. the tide rises, lifting their boat and everyone else, though a lot of capitalist "thinking" is that if someone else gets an "undeserved" boat-lift, then this is a calumny and stealing, and should therefore be scrapped for the lower tide level remaining), they will be unhappy.
And if we avoid making them unhappy because it would be making them angry, they would do nothing different. And STILL demand we do something else.
"Hardly the first time in history something like this has happened" Indeed not. And that's why “Do we want to create greater enmity or encourage adoption?” is a proven load of codswallop for policy. Because when given in to, they've just demanded more and been angry, and when not given in to, and forced to comply, it's worked out that their alarmism and doom mongering was a load of bollocks, and even ended well for them.
Why do brakes require less servicing for an electric car?
Because they don't use friction brakes, except at low speed, they use regenerative braking, which siphons off power back into the battery, rather than dissipating it in heat in asbestos brake pads.
You really aren't smart enough to think of ANY answer for your questions before you ask them, aren't you, "mike".
As you probably figured out, Wow and Brainstorms like to argue even if there isn't anything to argue about.
Anyway, you can make an electric motor stop and reverse itself with electronic controls, so if the system is reliable, you wouldn't need mechanical brakes at all. The bonus, as wow said, is that the kinetic energy of the car can be turned back into electricity to recharge the battery. That's how hybrids improve gas mileage.
Wow, really, I think what I said earlier is true: Lots of people these days have never even driven a car, never even opened the hood if they have, and only care about good "signal" so they can text while driving.
Most people have never driven a manual transmission, and certainly haven't had to double-clutch downshift when the brakes fail, or just used the engine to slow down in regular driving. So, converting the kinetic energy is not intuitively obvious.
Just sayin', give the guy a break. Asking questions to learn something is not the same as being a Denialist troll trying to cause trouble.
zebra, I don't see how "Lots of people these days have never even driven a car," is even relevant. I spent 20+ years not driving after passing my test. But even before I thought of taking driving lessons, I knew about engine braking (which is a way to reduce the loss of power in an ICE when stopping), and I knew about electric brakes because electric diesel locomotives use it. Because ordinary brakes cannot handle the load of stopping a modern fast commuter train.
I really don't see how your point, true or not, is relevant.
"Mike" has twice asked presumably rhetorical questions of others here because he "thinks" that he;'s found a "gotcha" and a single thought about it before he opens his dumbass browser and starts typing would
a) leave him looking less of a moron
b) let the discussion progress without useless-ass questions pretending there's an issue without going to the effort of putting any effort into making a case
But without having a new arsehole ripped for him in public, there's no chance he will consider for even a second checking if his "gotcha" was fucking stupid and refrain.
"Asking questions to learn something is not the same as being a Denialist troll trying to cause trouble."
It doesn't take much reading of mikeN's comments to realize he's never asked anything resembling an honest question in his life.
You Brits are a tough crowd.
I think MikeN's questions and opinions are just fine and have no reason to question his honesty from what he has posted.
There is opinion.
There is being wrong.
And then there is lying.
Here is a test.
I think ECS is 1.6C.
Am I giving an opinion?
Am I wrong?
Am I lying?
If you tell me I am wrong and I refuse to change my mind - can you then say I am lying?
Not unless you can read my mind.
You guys mix up opinion, being wrong and lying pretty regularly.
I find it amusing.
"Science" is not like law or politics.
It is not amenable to "opinions". They're meaningless.
Science is like mathematics. You must demonstrate/prove your position.
Pushing self-serving "opinions" regarding scientific results, especially when all this has been pointed out to you, reveals DISHONESTY.
Nature does not care about your petroleum stock investments, nor will it change to suit them. You can't change reality just because it's financially inconvenient for you.
Manipulating other people as an alternative is DISHONEST.
Yes because you've had enough explanations to convince anyone who isn't being willfully dishonest.
And now you are just trolling. Piss off.
mikeN, the question is no longer whether you do or do not lie, the question is how you can lie so brazenly and expect people to believe it is simply a mistaken opinion and not a lie made simply to get a response.
and of course, #57 goes to rickA, not mikeN.
RickA has told us multiple times why he lies (beyond being trained at it in lawyer school):
He makes a large financial return on investments in fossil fuels and he wants to manipulate the public and policy makers so that his rate of return will remain high.
He does not care who gets hurt. He does not care what the truth is. He does not care about science. He's not interested in learning (beyond learning enough to put out semi-convincing bullshit).
He only cares about himself and will step on anyone and anything to make money.
You're wasting your time trying to educate him or correct him or convert him.
BBD is correct (it is an opinion).
We don't know if it is right or wrong yet - so I have to mark you wrong on your second answer.
I am not lying. This is what I actually believe. It doesn't matter how many times you have told me your opinion, that doesn't make my honestly held opinion a lie. So I have to mark you wrong on your third answer.
When science pronounces what ECS is, I could turn out to be wrong. Even then - my opinion of today is not a lie.
Still - one out of three isn't bad.
What I find interesting is that my opinion falls within the official range of 1.5C to 4.5C of the IPCC.
So I find good company for my opinion - since the entire IPCC edifice agrees that 1.6C is one possible value of ECS.
Why doesn't the IPCC update its range to eliminate 1.6C, if it is impossible for ECS to be that low?
Oh yeah - they did, but had to lower AR4 ECS lower limit from 2.0 back down to 1.5C in AR5.
The truth is we don't know what ECS is yet - but we are all entitled to our own opinion of what we think it is.
Why - I personally would even allow for an opinion lower or higher than the official range (say 1.4 or 4.6C).
Brainstorms - I never told you I lie - the rest you made up.
Ok, so RickA can say the things he says about "opinion" because he's basically a post truth kind of guy.
I tend to cut him a little slack and simply say that he is not being honest with himself in the largest possibe sense: that he's not very introspective. That can apply to whether or not he's self-aware enough to recognize that he's being dishonest.
It's easy enough to fool yourself, and that's exactly why we have science in the first place. It doesn't help that nature is not a social construct in the way that the law is, nor is it a nice tidy little box of knickknack production like engineering. It's messy, which intimidates and scares some people. Others are simply burdened by the false notion that humans and nature are distinct, and Nature's sole purpose is to be used by Mankind... que sera sera.
The thing is, RickA is smart enough to know better which, given his delight in rhetorical word games that don't go anywhere, is what indicates a lack of 'intellectual integrity'.
I'm not saying that he doesn't consciously lie, just that a lot of it is so much politely arranged bullstite and should probably be identified as such.
You've had it explained dozens of times: the IPCC AR5 range is a bork. It got distorted by a few late-breaking EBM papers that would not now be given the weight they had to be given at the time. The range is going back up to (at least ) 2- 4.5C next time around for sure.
1.6C is incompatible with palaeoclimate and with observations. It is obviously wrong. Insisting on it in the face of what you have been shown here dozens of times doesn't just make you dishonest, it also makes you an arsehole.
Then piss off.
" What I find interesting is that my opinion falls within the official range of 1.5C to 4.5C of the IPCC."
What I find interesting is that you still complain that the IPCC is wrong.
"We don’t know if it is right or wrong yet "
Yes we do, dick. We definitely know already if it's right or wrong today, right now, in this real world.
"When science pronounces what ECS is"
"science" has, dick.
" I could turn out to be wrong. "
You are, dick.
Thank you for your prediction of the future.
Let us check back when AR6 is published and we will see if your prediction is correct (or not).
Could you remind me of when I complained that the IPCC was wrong. Thanks.
What a relief!
Pray tell - what is ECS then?
You must know that to know whether it is 1.6C or not.
And please give me the cite - so I can go read the wonderful news from its original source.
"Thank you for your prediction of the future."
It isn't, it's a measurement of the present, dick.
"Pray tell – what is ECS then?"
Well over 2.2C, because TCR is 2.2+C and we're still out of equilibrium, therefore not at ECS yet.
"You must know that to know whether it is 1.6C or not."
Yes, it is not 1.6C.
"And please give me the cite"
You have been told this at lest six times so far this past year, dick.
"Could you remind me of when I complained that the IPCC was wrong."
Could you sealion someone else, retard?
You don't know what ECS is.
You merely have an opinion on what you think it will turn out to be (same as me).
Wow - I have bad news for you.
TCR is not presently 2.2C or higher.
I know this because we are only 1C (or so) higher than pre-industrial.
1 is not 2.2 or higher.
(see I can do math).
I think you are actually saying that you project a TCR of 2.2C or higher based on your linear projection of what you think TCR is as of today.
Unfortunately, past performance is no guarantee of future results.
You will also need to wait for the future to unfold before you know what TCR is, once we hit 560 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Why, it is even possible that we will never hit 560 ppm and CO2 could actually start dropping before it ever hits 560 ppm.
Anything is possible.
Oh well. Until then I will simply have to curl up with AR5 and be comforted with the range of 1.5C to 4.5C for ECS - which is the same range as it was in 1991.
Possibly. It's also the case that he claims to have a background in engineering, which means his math/stat background is most likely equivalent to the sophomore level of a math/stat major - not very strong, and all plug/chug "for this problem use this formula" classes. That puts anything complicated outside his grasp and, as is the case with the right wing today, if something can't be understood quickly it has to be wrong.
You don’t know what ECS is."
You asked whether it was 1.6C, dick. We know you are wrong.
"TCR is not presently 2.2C or higher."
Yes it is, dick.
"I know this because we are only 1C (or so) higher than pre-industrial."
We know it is because it's a little higher than 1C with half a doubling.
This is simple maths. Divide one number by one half.
"(see I can do math)."
You do not, dick.
"based on your linear projection of what you think TCR is as of today."
No, we have what we have TCR is today, dick.
Remember your avoiding the claim about needing one whole square inch of valve opening to determine the pressure of your car tyres measured in pounds per square inch.
"You will also need to wait for the future to unfold before you know what TCR is"
No we do not, dick.
"Why, it is even possible that we will never hit 560 ppm"
That does not mean TCR is undefined, you retarded little shit eating moron.
"which is the same range as it was in 1991."
And under which you are most likely wrong, by about a 90 to one chance.
And under the actual reality, not models, you are absolutely wrong right now.
Dean,dick is not an engineer.
He does not comprehend how to measure pressure until you use a full square inch (or full square meter if you're working under SI units).
He clearly is not an engineer.
What was the temperature when it was 200ppm CO2, dick?
You are correct - my math/stat background is not very strong.
As an electrical engineer at the University of Minnesota Institute of Technology (back in the day) I only had to take six quarters of calculus (two full years). I made it through vector calculus (that was my sixth quarter of math). I only took one quarter of probability theory.
Fortunately for me - I don't actually have to do climate science.
I just read what others have done and decide whether I think it is correct or not.
Isn't that what all non-climate scientists do?
I know enough to think that linear regression is suspect for a non-linear system.
I know enough to doubt when a weak test is used for a very small signal and the error and noise in the system is very high.
I know enough to know that what we don't know about the climate is still a lot.
I know enough to know we have to wait to see how predictions pan out.
I know enough to know no climate model has been validated.
I know enough to know that paleo evidence has larger error bars than instrument data.
But believe what you want.
That is your right.
Me - I am going to wait to see if we hit 560 ppm for CO2 in the atmosphere and then see what TCR and ECS turn out to be (at least we can then directly measure TCR and use it to estimate ECS).
I know enough to know that we will never reach equilibrium so ECS will be fought over even after we hit 560 ppm.
I know enough to know that the SLR at 560 ppm will also tell us a lot about the heat retained by the ocean - so that will be a useful data point also.
I await more data.
I hope for more nuclear power.
In the absence of more nuclear - I hope for an invention which produces non-carbon power, but which is cheaper than fossil fuel power generation.
I know enough to keep reading and keep an open mind.
I know enough to admit that even though I think ECS is at the low end of the range - I might be wrong.
But I know enough to know we don't know that yet.
MikeN, my doctorate is in statistics.i teach it. Your background doesn't give you the abilities you think it does.
"You are correct – my math/stat background is not very strong."
It is nonexistent.
"As an electrical engineer at the University of Minnesota Institute of Technology"
This is patently a lie. Unless you were the janitor.
"I know enough to know no climate model has been validated."
Among the many tings you claim to know but do not, you have ignorance and keep it close.
"Me – I am going to wait to see if we hit 560 ppm for CO2 in the atmosphere and then see what TCR"
Proof your maths is nonexistent and your "knowledge" is actually ignorance. We already know TCR is above 2.2C. No more need to wait for 560ppm than it is necessary to wait for a year to find out what your salary is.
"But I know enough to know we don’t know that yet."
Again, this is not knowledge, it is ignorance. And you insist everyone else must be ignorant where you are.
Wow makes accusations that I am maliciously asking questions. Be pretty foolish when the answers are readily available. What type of 'gotcha' is there in asking about brakes in electric cars. I've heard of regenerative braking, but always assumed it was the same brakes but some means of recapturing the energy. Another question you started by agreeing with me on transmission losses then gave reasons for disagreement. A reasonable answer if you leave out the attacks. What sort of 'gotcha' is there in asking that?
"Wow makes accusations that I am maliciously asking questions"
And that is the GENEROUS interpretation "mike". We can go the other way if you prefer.
" Be pretty foolish when the answers are readily available. "
Yes "mike", it is.
" What type of ‘gotcha’ is there in asking about brakes in electric cars."
By the way you asked it, you retard.
"Another question you started by agreeing with me on transmission losses then gave reasons for disagreement"
Yes, because when you're making a valid comment I will accept the comment AS IT IS GIVEN, not prejudged based on who gave it.
But that does not mean I accept everything you say just because you said something one time that was sort of right.
"A reasonable answer if you leave out the attacks"
It is a reasonable answer even with the attacks. If you do not like the attacks, precious, you need to stop being a dumbass in public in an attempt to make people waste time dealing with your disingenuous bullshit.
>Wow and Brainstorms like to argue even if there isn’t anything to argue about.
The two are not similar. Brainstorms argues reasonably.
And he goes elsewhere when he's on the receiving side of Wow's indignant wrath.
Somewhere down the line, Wow confused "being correct" with "being right" and concluded there's no need or value in being sociable, charitable, empathetic, or polite.
Here comes Wow with his hammer to demonstrate that and beat it firmly into place... ::wince::
" concluded there’s no need or value in being sociable, charitable, empathetic, or polite."
And there is still nothing that has shown it is worth anything other than as a "Welcome Mat" sign on your back.
However, unlike those who whine about tone, I don't insist that others must follow or even applaud my methods, they are free to choose their own.
But none of those whingers feel it necessary to be polite when it gets in the way of their crusade to force their opinion of how to discoursse on others.
Because I see polite as being the recognition that someone has the right to approach their life their way, and not calling someone a fucking moron when they're being a fucking moron is NOT polite. And I see the bitching about tone as IMpolite.
Therefore from my point of view, you have been excessively impolite, brainstorm. Hasn't stopped you though.
And your complaining won't stop me.
"Here comes Wow with his hammer to demonstrate that and beat it firmly into place"
Tell me, why do you make me a man?
Do you feel it harder to believe a woman is able to be as tough as a man?
Dean @ ~ 71
Dean @ ~ 76
"Your background doesn’t give you the abilities you think it does."
Exactly. And both he and RickA really don't know what they don't know. They confuse their 'known unknowns' with their 'unknown unknowns'.
No. Some know how to learn, and are interested in doing so. For the rest, that is why some awareness of epistemology (how we know what we know) and metaliteracy help fill in the gaps.
And just for the record, consensus matters.
If you're going to place a bet, you're better off going with professionals who are well published in peer reviewed journals and who are well cited by other professionals in that field. It's just self-indulgent to throw in with some outlier, who frankly in some cases, should be recognized as questionable by anyone who has taken a basic college course in critical thinking.
If you had spent suffient time learning about how the field of climate science works, let alone about the science itself, you'd have a better idea of just how much expertice and understanding is involved in something like, say, the IPCC. And you'd be a little less sanguine about what is required to cover it (even second hand) to form an opinion of your own.
Otherwise you are just a postmodern maven of false balance and manipulative rhetoric adrift with no meaningful foundation.
I've known, and worked side-by-side with plenty of tough women. And I'm married to one now. Makes a great partner.
And I've seen plenty of insecure women who resort to bullying tactics to try to offset their perceived lower place on the pecking order, especially when dealing with men they see as being somehow superior.
Reminds me strongly of you, Wow. Wife keeps you on a short leash at home, does she?
Ah, so you think that the only way a woman can be tough is if they're insecure.
Is that why you post stupid assertions, because you must reduce everyone down to your intellectual level?
Note: no swear words were used. Isn't that totally polite?
"Polite" is just the bullshit someone has when they have nothing of substance to "win" on, so must try to win by changing the game.
You mean "What?"?
You were asking that about only one unsubstantiated assertion about motives for statements made.
You need to fill in the request for the other blank assertion.
What is 'tough'?
1/ Raising six kids in a refugee camp
2/ Rarely losing a street fight
Why must tough be only one thing?
That is very obvious by the way you keep going on about the need for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 before TCR can be calculated, although I suspect the cause is not the level of instruction you have received, but a lack of understanding of basic mathematical concepts.
Project much, do we?
And your comprehension skills are lacking. Again. Given that you have as much capacity for Theory of Mind as RickA has for climate science, we shouldn't be surprised.
>Tell me, why do you make me a man?
>Do you feel it harder to believe a woman is able to be as tough as a man?
There is a difference in variance in men and women. Women tend to be more average. So someone who behaves poorly or is retarded is more likely to be male.
MikeN has as bad a grasp of statistics as rickA.
"Project much, do we?"
Ah, so when you have no rebuttal to the accusation, you go the schoolyard "I am rubber, you are glue".
Pretty much what I'd expect from you. You know those racists who insist they're not because they have a black girl friend? You are just like that, with your "Oh, I have a wife who is strong". The racist thinks that having a friend of a different race makes them non-racist, but they merely know that particular person and KNOW they're just another human like them. But they STILL think the same racist shit about other people of that race they don't know.
Because they're still a racist.
And you remind me of that person, brainstorm.
Please note I still insulted you, despite not once using a swear word.
Makes "you used swear words" a fucking stupid metric to gauge insult, doesn't it you retard.
"MikeN has as bad a grasp of statistics as rickA."
Also fond of the nonsequitur.
They have less than the average body hair. Less than the average muscle mass. More than the average breast size, more than the average uterus.
And men start off female. It's quite some time into the pregnancy that the clitoral slit inverts for the human who will have the male genitals.
And some of those "more average" are due to social pressures that either do not require women to risk to get reward or do not reward women as well. Break those social constructs and women will have to exert themselves and risk more to gain social standing and then there could very easily be a negation of that assertion, even in the few places it applies.
But simplistic thinking is another thing "mick"/"dick" does.
"someone who behaves poorly or is retarded is more likely to be male"
"Mike" and dick both behave poorly and are patently retarded. And both male.
But a statistician would understand that this sample size has a variance as big as the sample size, therefore no conclusion can be made from this test of the assertion.
Engineers don't have to worry about "sample size" and variance. And a janitor at such a facility would pick up nothing on the subject, though would hear enough phrases to pass as an engineer on the internet.
Average is the average among women, not all people. More women will be closer to the mean of women than men to the mean of men.
Dean, assuming that
1) Wow is below average, well below average(of all people)
2) The trait for which he is below average is something that has a bell curve like distribution
3) For this trait, women tend to be more average(closer to average of women than men are to average of men)
then I think it follows that men will make up the vast majority of the bottom end of the distribution.
So women aren't people "mike"? Wow. That's some serious sexist bullshit right there.
But on average, a woman is the same as the average woman if you select only women to average.
I take it, then you're an extremely subnormal man, "Mike".
"Average is the average among women, not all people. More women will be closer to the mean of women than men to the mean of men."
You really don't expect someone so uncomprehending of what they're saying, saying such complete and utter misogynistic bullshit on the internet out of nowhere, do you.
Especially since this was supposed to be how this not-average would be male....
Richard Simmons #91:
When CO2 has doubled to 560 ppm, we don't need to calculate TCR - we can measure it. Then use the measurement to verify whether various calculations for TCR are correct or not.
Wow says that "TCR is 2.2+C".
Now, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is - but I read Wow to be saying TCR is 2.2+C and not that it will be 2.2+C at some point in the future.
Now, if Wow said he calculated TCR to be more than 2.2+ - rather than saying TCR is more than 2.2+, than that would be different.
However, you use the word calculate and Wow uses the word "is" - which are quite different words with different meanings.
As I explained, I think Wow is wrong - whether he meant "is" or projected a future value.
Confirmation that you lack understanding of some basic mathematical concepts.
P.S. Why are so many people incapable of reading my name correctly?
>Why are so many people incapable of reading my name correctly?
Let me ponder on that.
>So women aren’t people “mike”?
Women is not the same as people, which is women and men. But of course you knew that and just wanted to 'opine'.
"When CO2 has doubled to 560 ppm"
We don't have to dick. And your insistence that we have to indicates the proof that you are not an engineer nor even educated.
It had to double to get to 400ppm.
And half a doubling can show you what TCR is just as well as a full doubling can. All you need to do is know how to multiply by two.
But you cannot.
Because you are an uneducated moron incapable of doing any more than counting fingers without recourse to asking someone at your workplace. Even another janitor.
">So women aren’t people “mike”?
Women is not the same as people"
So, "Yes" is your answer, "mike".
"Wow says that “TCR is 2.2+C”."
Because it is, Dick. Because it is.
Wow says "All you need to do is know how to multiply by two."
Yes - but what are you multiplying by two?
According to my math it must be 1.1C.
And I think you would agree that 1.1C IS not 2.2C.
So TCR is not 2.2, but according to you 1.1C times two.
Your times two is an assumption - in fact a linear assumption, which may not turn out to be correct.
It is a guess about the future.
Also, we do not know the global average temperature when CO2 was 200 ppm - so we cannot actually measure TCR from a doubling of CO2 from 200 to 400 ppm.
But we do know the global average temperature at 280 ppm, because we have an instrument record going back to that date - and we can measure the global average temperature in the year in which we hit 560 ppm and actually measure TCR.
Instead of your technique, which is to estimate it by multiplying by two.
My technique is to measure TCR.
Yours is to estimate it.
Richard Simons #105:
I apologise for getting your name wrong.
I simply forgot the correct spelling between the time I read your comment and reached the bottom of the thread.
I suspect I mixed you up with the famous Richard Simmons (and I am guessing about his spelling).
Anyway - I am very sorry.
"Yes – but what are you multiplying by two?"
I think you'll agree that 2 times 1.1 is 2.2.
"So TCR is not 2.2, but according to you 1.1C times two."
No, TCR is 2.2, but according to you 1.1 times two is not 2.2
"Your times two is an assumption"
No it isn't.
" which may not turn out to be correct."
No, it is correct. Maths. Ask someone who went to school what it is.
"It is a guess about the future."
No, it's a knowledge about today.
"Also, we do not know the global average temperature when CO2 was 200 ppm"
No, we do. Paleo records.
"so we cannot actually measure TCR from a doubling of CO2 from 200 to 400 ppm."
You can't because you're an uneducated moron. But those who went beyond kindergarden can.
"and actually measure TCR."
We don't have to wait, still. We know NOW you are wrong, dick.
"My technique is to measure TCR."
No your technique is not to know how to multiply.
"Yours is to estimate it."
No, mine is to measure it.
But, Greg, this sort of behaviour really does prove that dick here should be banned. They are wilfully ignorant and incomprehensibly dense, yet lie about all of this because they are the absolute dunning kruger. Retaining the ignorant bullshitter merely makes for more work undoing his pervasive and voluble ignorance.
And kim, because you remain 100% absolutely incomprehensibly silent about this aberrant stupidity and refusal to acknowledge anything from dick here while whining and bitching and moaning and complaining and berating everyone for saying things in a manner and style you want silenced proves that your complaints are completely null and void.
Same for all the morons whining about tone.
As long as you refuse to deal with content with MORE vehemence and disapproval, your complaints about TONE are vapid and meaningless.
Let us remind readers of the definition of TCR.
Page 82 at the following link:
". . . while TCR is defined as the annual mean GMST change at the time of CO2 doubling following a linear increase in CO2 forcing over a period of 70 years . . ."
CO2 doubling is referring to 560 ppm, a doubling from pre-industrial level at 280 ppm.
Following means we can measure it following the doubling.
Before the doubling, we are merely estimating it.
As proof, I offer the PDF (probability distribution function) which is offered for TCR.
There is no single measured value, because it is an estimate.
Tone is important and you should be careful what you wish for.
Greg could decide to ban you.
I can only guess at where MikeN is coming from . But that's because instead of trying to engage in a conversation, you guys go into this silly argumentative mode, not to mention getting sucked in by RickA's childish word games.
Being a statistician, you know very well what MN is talking about. It may be grounded in some kind of strange sexist misinformation...again, who knows... but why not ask for where he gets this idea about the shape of the distribution?
Exploring the strange ideas that come from the alt-right or wherever it is is one of the reasons I still check in on various blog comment threads that otherwise tend to be repetitive.
Yo, MikeN, what studies are you talking about that show a different shape for the distribution curve for women? What characteristics are being measured?
"Let us remind readers of the definition of TCR."
Let us remember that you do not know what ECS or TCR means, but cherry pick definitions to suit your moment and insist on purely that claim that supports your current narrative, being 100% devoid of either honesty or sanity.
See, for example, this:
But you do not understand what "per unit someghing" means, because you are not an engineer, not even schooled at an educational establishment, having failed the entrance exam of infants school.
"Being a statistician, you know very well what MN is talking about. "
Yes I do know. He's talking from a mixture of ignorance, bigotry, and dishonesty, as he always does.
"Why not ask what he thinks the shape of the distribution is?"
Irrelevant: when you use numbers incorrectly it matters not one whit whether things are skewed, symmetric, multi- or uni-model, discrete, continuous, or a mixture. They are happy in their ignorance and dishonesty, and facts are irrelevant.
We know TCR now because we can use deltaCO2 and deltaTemp to determine TCR (deltaCO2/deltaTemp) at any time period where deltaCO2 and/or deltaTemp is small enough that finite differential analysis is approximately equal to the instantaneous differential.
It does not, canonically, require you to wait until either deltaCO2 or deltaTemp are widely separated, because the approximation of a finite differential to continuous variable differential does not hold when the finite change is large.
A thing that ANY ENGINEER would know.
You, however, DO NOT know that.
Ergo, you are no engineer.
"“Being a statistician, you know very well what MN is talking about. ”
Yes I do know. "
And the point being "mike" doesn't know what he's talking about.
I am not familiar with MikeN or have forgotten previous comments.
But what is the point of Greg posting about electric cars or any other topic if "lurkers", should they exist, can't read about the substance-- including the phony arguments of the usual suspects?
Pretty much my thinking, too.
Some leeway, because in any discussion, thoughts come up and without anywhere to expand or expound, the idea dies. Since this isn't a school lesson, side trips aren't antithetical to the purpose of the location, but it certainly could be decided that it should be. But absent that, some sideways discussion and divergences should be temporarily allowed and even encouraged. Just if it goes on too long either it should be closed or a thread to discuss THAT should be opened.
Off topic is a waste of the topic, but the gain of discussion on that topic outweighs the loss of on-topic discussion. Though the integrated loss will outweigh the gain, since the off topic remains off topic all the time and only gets a one time boost of being new.
Glad you agree if that is what you are doing.
At the risk of setting you off on another rant, #117 is pretty confused...I'm just saying that in the interests of those hypothetical lurkers. Too many and/or.
Of course, this is an example of RickA getting people to respond to a junior-high word game with too complicated an explanation.
Really, we are using both a simple extrapolation and model results. Engineers do this all the time; you reach a decision based on multiple inputs and lines of reasoning, not one number.
"Glad you agree if that is what you are doing. "
You too, zebra.
This topic is about electric cars, not about off topic rambling. Or is the difference that you don't realise what you're doing?
I also wonder why people are so "glad" when reality is realised by someone who realises reality? Are you glad when down remains "toward the earth"? Are you glad that your legs are still attached to your butt? Are you glad you have typed?
What, precisely, makes you "glad" here?
Perhaps you could explain your understanding of "centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year".
What do you understand "centered at CO2 doubling" to mean?
Do you understand that is an estimate of a future value, done using a simulation?
Do you understand CO2 doubling refers to 560 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Do you understand that we are not currently at 560 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Do you understand that it is possible we will never even hit 560 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Do you understand that we will be able to measure TCR when we hit 560 ppm and compare the measured value to the simulation estimate we grind out today?
I am very interested in your thoughts, since you brought up this other definition of TCR.
I don't think Wow admits he is doing a simple extrapolation.
He actually believes that TCR, today, is 2.2+.
Not even understanding that TCR doesn't exist until a doubling of CO2 has occured.
Everything being done relative to TCR and ECS today is merely estimates of what it will turn out to be, using a variety of different techniques.
No climate scientist would ever say, today, that TCR is 2.2+.
I concede that some might say TCR will turn out to be 2.2+, once we have doubled CO2 to 560 ppm, although some would put the estimate much lower.
I don't think it is word games to distinguish between what is and what they think it will be - but everybody is entitled to their own opinion.
"Perhaps you could explain your understanding of “centered at CO2 doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year”."
Oh, I definitely could, dick. It's to do with models. Not with experimental measure, though.
"I don’t think Wow admits he is doing a simple extrapolation."
Perhaps, then you can explain what you mean by "extrapolation" because under the definition of extrapolation here:
I am not doing an extrapolation.
Dick, do you not know how far you are walking (or running) until you have walked or run (or sprinted) for one full hour?
When drag cars do their quarter mile sprint, do you shout at the commentators that they cannot extrapolate the speed of the cars in miles per hour like that?
"...do you not know how FAST you are walking..."
Wow's definition of TCR discusses a 1% increase per year to get to the CO2 doubling.
My definition discusses 70 years.
If you punch up a financial calculator, and compute the future value of 280, increasing at 1% per year, for 70 years, you get to 561.89 in the 70th year.
In other words, to get to the CO2 doubling in the simulation WOW is discussing, takes 70 years, which ties back to my IPCC definition.
So they are saying the same thing - it is just that Wow's definition doesn't define the time period to get to CO2 doubling, while my cited definition does (70 years to double assuming 1% increase compounded annually).
Just thought I would throw that out for Wow's consideration.
Someone claims to be an engineer. Doesn't know how you calculate velocity...
Not mine, dick.
We can calculate TCR now. We have. You are wrong. You were wrong last year when you claimed it, you were wrong the year before when you claimed it, and you're wrong still today.
Because the time it takes you to run 26.2 miles is not necessarily 26.2 times the time it takes you to run the first mile.
Your two times is a linear extrapolation.
We don't know the relationship is linear (in fact we know it is not linear, but logarithmic).
More importantly, after one runs one mile in a time of 5 minutes, one doesn't say my time to run 26.2 miles is 131 minutes.
One says something like, assuming I run each mile in 5 minutes, as I ran the first mile, I will complete the marathon in 131 minutes.
Think about this for a minute and I think you will agree.
"Because the time it takes you to run 26.2 miles is not necessarily 26.2 times the time it takes you to run the first mile."
I did not ask how long it took you to run 26.2 miles you moronic retard. I asked you do you have to run a full hour to find out how fast you run.
"Your two times is a linear extrapolation."
Incorrect you mouth breathing shit eating turdbrain. It is a calculation. Actually educated people know how to do them. They were taught to us many years ago in school.
"We don’t know the relationship is linear "
Irrelevant you ignorant blowhard. We know TCR now.
"More importantly, after one runs one mile in a time of 5 minutes"
You believe that you cannot claim how fast you are running t do that. Yet this sort of calculation is part of the school maths class for anyone over the age of 8. Indicating AT THE VERY LEAST you did not get school after year 4 or whatever.
"Think about this for a minute and I think you will agree."
Yes, I agree you're a moronic retard with no ability or schooling. Since you are a moronic retard with no ability or schooling, you will not think about this and refuse to accept this fact.
Wow - what you are doing is telling me how fast you ran a marathon after only running part of the marathon.
Dickhead, no, I am not. I am saying you can run at 12 miles per hour for 5 minutes.
Well not YOU, obviously. You probably can't get nurse to wheel you around that fast. But most active people can manage 12 miles per hour for 5 minutes.
I will leave it to other readers to decide if that is in fact what you are saying in connection with TCR.
I'm still confused by what you are saying about TCR. Where does the 2.2C value come from again?
It's very high. The current estimates are around 1.6C - 1.8C at the point of doubling (560ppm).
CO2 has increased by 120ppm from the reference pre-industrial value of 280ppm to 400ppm.
There's been about 1C warming since pre-industrial period (by convention 1750CE). Most of it since 1950.
So the transient response to 120ppm CO2 is 1C or thereabouts.
The transient response is held to be approximately 60% of the equilibrium response (ECS):
1 is 60% of 1.7
Calculating the delta T at equilibrium using the method in Knutti & Hegerl (2008) and assuming ECS to be 3C per doubling of CO2:
ΔT = S ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))/ln2
ΔT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.5C at equilibrium
So observed transient warming is what we'd expect if ECS = about 3C.
It's also right in line with what you would expect if TCR at doubling is in the 1.6 - 1.8C range: 1.8 is 60% of 3.
That is the formalism. No, it does not mean we cannot estimate the transient response to a forcing change informally as we are doing here. Please take this squirrel outside and drown it. Thanks.
"I’m still confused by what you are saying about TCR. Where does the 2.2C value come from again?"
Still the same place as before.
1.1C after half a doubling. 2x1.1=2.2
Identical to the last time. Did you expect any massive change in how maths works in the last six months?
"So the transient response to 120ppm CO2 is 1C or thereabouts. "
More than that. Best estimate is 110% of the warming and it's warmed just over 1.0C, and very nearly, 1.1C.
"ΔT = S ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))/ln2"
That is still 100% identical to the last time you posted this. Since you do not expect your own maths to change in the interim period, why did you think that simpler maths, using just subtraction and multiplication would have?
Bernard J also posted his calculations and a reference to a paper doing the work.
Since maths is still the same even months later, you can go look at that again. That's the nice thing about the past: it stays happened.
Yes, dickhead, and we will see how you think it impossible to measure speeds in miles per hour if it only happens for 5 minutes.
From an ignoramus janitor who pretends to be an engineer on the internet. And doesn't have the first idea of finite differentials.
That's a linear extrapolation of a logarithmic forcing. It's incorrect, hence the high result. You need to use the correct method, eg. the one I keep posting.
He took this over to ATTPs and it didn't fly.
BBD #137 says "No, it does not mean we cannot estimate the transient response to a forcing change informally as we are doing here."
Believe me - I understand that.
You are calling it an estimate.
Wow is actually saying that is what it is.
I am merely trying to get Wow to understand the difference.
I would also point out that Wow says 1.1C is 1/2 a doubling.
However 1/2 a doubling puts CO2 at 420 ppm - which we have not reached yet.
Maybe Wow is extrapolating to 420 and then doubling it?
I cannot tell what Wow is doing because he doesn't explain it well enough.
One think I am sure of - it is not the same thing as computing speed from a distance and a time already completed.
But Wow doesn't appear to understand this.
"That’s a linear extrapolation of a logarithmic forcing. "
No, that's a conversion just like between "miles per hour" and "miles per hour" when one is measured over 1 hour and the other over 5 minutes.
TCR is, definitionally, the transient response. The derivative of a graph of CO2 vs Temperature. And the longer a delta you leave, the less accurate to the TCR your value is.
"He took this over to ATTPs and it didn’t fly."
You aren't in any position to be condescending RickA. You think ECS is 1.6C which is incompatible with palaeo evidence and so clearly incorrect, but you don't appear to understand this.
"Wow is actually saying that is what it is."
And I am correct and both you and BBD are incorrect. As has been mathematically shown.
"However 1/2 a doubling puts CO2 at 420 ppm – which we have not reached yet."
Yes, however, it's slightly less than 1.1C change so evens out. All taking this into account would make you (slightly) more wrong.
Oh dear, how mean of me. Being kind to a retard like yourself.
"I cannot tell what Wow is doing because he doesn’t explain it well enough."
No, you're just too much of an uneducated dumbass to understand. Just like you don't understand English or questions, and prefer to answer different ones to avoid showing how MUCH of a fucking moron you are.
But we do now know how much of a fucking idiot you are. You insist that unless something happens for one full hour, you cannot say how fast someone has gone in miles per hour.
Your conversion is still just a linear extrapolation.
The transient response is not the derivative of a graph of CO2 vs temperature.
That is not correct.
Um, Wow, your estimate is incorrect for exactly the reasons provided - it is linear extrapolation but the forcing increase from rising CO2 is logarithmic. You cannot superimpose a linear extrapolation on a log curve and get the correct result.
I am not being condescending.
Far from it - in fact I am bending over backwards not to be insulting or belittling.
I am simply pointing out that Wow is wrong.
And doesn't appear to understand that fact.
No, you are incorrect and Knutti and Hegerl who are credentialled experts are correct.
Both of you are in error. Let's see who has the integrity to admit it and adjust their position.
"Your conversion is still just a linear extrapolation. "
I am not extrapolating anything. I am calculating. Something that engineers as well as physicists (and other science-like professions) do so often they 100% comprehend that it is a calculation and not an extrapolation.
You, however, are an ignorant moron who cannot comprehend how pnwed you are.
Bernard didn't have a reference supporting his TCR calculation. IDK what you are talking about.
The difference between Wow and me is that we don't know if I am wrong yet.
1.6C for ECS is within the PDF of the IPCC range for ECS values, which means that value is not inconsistent with palaeo evidence.
Just less likely to be the correct value.
However, less likely is not wrong.
We have to wait and see.
By linear extrapolation.
Come on, wow.
So Knutti and Hegerl are ignorant morons who don't know how pwned they are? And every other climate scientist who (routinely) uses this standard method? Really?
"" And I am correct and both you and BBD are incorrect"
No, you are incorrect "
No I am not, BBD.
"and Knutti and Hegerl who are credentialled experts"
And talking about something else....
It's not Knutti and Hegerl who are wrong, just like it's not the IPCC is wrong when dickhead's definition if TCR refers to the IPCC.
In a model you can calculate TCR. But reality is not a model. I am talking about measurements right now today. Knutti and Hegerl use the result of a model that tells them the % of ECR that is viewed is TCR, and correcting measured warming under that model.
Something you do not seem to be able to comprehend, so obsessed you are with what others say and unconcerned with what they mean.
"By linear extrapolation. "
Nope. No extrapolation.
Are you extrapolating when you calculate that at $4/lb that a quarter pound of beans will cost you a dollar?
I am not extrapolating at all.
No, that's wrong. The IPCC AR5 range isn't a single PDF, its a bodged together synthesis of lowball EBM results (now known to be too low) with everything else. The palaeo range is higher - 2.2 - 4.8C (PALAEOSENS Members, 2012 op cit, many times).
1.6C ECS is incompatible with known climate history, therefore it is too low.
"1.6C for ECS is within the PDF of the IPCC range for ECS values,"
And that value is wrong.
Just like you, dickhead.
No, they weren't. Read the reference if you doubt this.
"No, that’s wrong. The IPCC AR5 range isn’t a single PDF"
It's also only one version of it, so not even the IPCC say dick is right, he just cherry picks because he's a fuckwitted moron.
Moreover, that range is a result of combining many different models, some of which disagree with others (indeed most of them), so this is yet again the moronic retard cherry picking one model which is in diagreement with most other models, and insisting he's possibly right when actual measurement of actual reality indicates he is absolutely wrong.
"" And talking about something else…."
No, they weren’t. "
Yes they were. Try comprehension.
Your insistence, BBD, is no different from Dickhead here pointing to an ECS definition that says it is per doubling of CO2 and insisting he therefore is right, or pointing to the IPCC PDF and saying his 1.6C is in the range therefore he's right.
You point to Knutti et al and claim you are right.
Both of you are making the same error.
You do not comprehend what they're saying, you only read it. Then interpret it to fit your narrative.
Dick is too fucking stupid to be able to.
You are just blinded by presumption.
How is this not a linear extrapolation? Can anyone explain that to me?
Try reading the reference.
This is getting really tedious, Wow.
Well I don't comprehend it, so somebody 'spain it to me.
(A little less tizzy and a little more attention to the lurkers please. Parse, if you hae a point.)
re 166. No.
Because you haven't said what you don't understand. "No" and "Yes" are quite simple words with no room for miscomprehension.
Unless you're Bill O'Rilley.
"Try reading the reference. "
Hence my conclusion.
"This is getting really tedious, Wow."
Not my fault, BBD.
"" 1.1C after half a doubling. 2×1.1=2.2"
How is this not a linear extrapolation?"
How is it one?
If a bullet is fired from a gun with a muzzle velocity of 1000m/s, it is not extrapolating to say it is travelling at a muzzle velocity of 1000m/s.
Extrapolating would be saying "And in 10 seconds time it would have gone 10km".
Likewise, I am saying that TCR is close to 2.2C because 1.1Cx2 half-doublings=2.2C per full doubling.
If you have a look at my #136, I set out in detail what I am doing. What wow is doing is this:
1.1C after half a doubling. 2×1.1=2.2
Which I think is simple linear extrapolation which won't work because the forcing change from increasing CO2 is logarithmic, not linear.
This is why wow's TCR estimate for 560ppm is quite a bit above the 'standard' one.
Wow, that *is* an extrapolation. You are projecting the relationship between dF and dT into the future and holding the relationship between the two to be linear.
Right, I've got to feed the family :-) Back later.
See, you guys have been sucked in to the junior-high definition debate.
Why doesn't everyone just agree on a full-sentence description for each term and then proceed to explain what the point is they are trying to make? If you can't agree on the word, make up a new one to fit your full-sentence description.
I think of extrapolation applying to empirical data-- it is stated in the quote that we assume a linear increase in CO2, which is such.
There is a mathematical model (more than one, but for the sake of discussion...) that relates the CO2 to mean surface temperature.
If this relationship is manifested as a rate, then we are calculating the MST at the point in the future when that linear (extrapolated) increase in CO2 reaches 560 or whatever.
Now, it doesn't really matter if you like my definitions or not-- if you want to discuss substance, stop with the JHS word games and provide your own.
So far, RickA is winning because he has sidetracked any serious discussion, whether of electric cars or global warming.
"If you have a look at my #136, I set out in detail what I am doing. "
And I, apparently, know what you are doing far better than you do, BBD.
You are arguing that the current temperature trend is copacetic with the ECS of 3.0C per doubling, and the consequence ****FROM MODELS**** is that TCR is 1.6C.
*I* am arguing that we currently see the TCR for the half a doubling and this indicates that TCR is 2.2C per doubling CO2.
****YOU**** are seeing this as an extrapolation because
a) you desperately NEED me to be wrong
b) you insert from your own insistence (see a, above) a claim that by the time we reach 560ppm temperatures will have risen by 2.2C.
(a) is 100% your dumbass ego problem.
(b) is 100% your fiction, not mine.
Zebra, close, but no cigar.
You can calculate the instantaneous value from models (mathematical ones for "accuracy") or finite differences in either simulations (discrete time steps) or real life (you need two measurements at separate times to get a value for the rate of increase).
It's extrapolation to then say "this rate will continue", but I have not said so. Nor anything like that.
I have said that the TCR, rated as degrees rise per doubling of CO2, is 2.2C.
This is a calculation and not an extrapolation.
But you were a hell of a lot closer than either BBD or dickhead. Possibly by trying to be generic enough to be applied to any scenario.
"Wow, that *is* an extrapolation."
That is not. There is no projection there. It's 100% between now, today, so NOT the future, and the past, ALSO not the future.
It does not project. It merely approximates by finite differences, the TCR value, the rate of change of a value. Which is an instantaneous value, the integration of which gives a total change in the value over time.
It also doesn't project where CO2 will go.
Dickhead "tries" (badly) to save his asinine claim of TCR and ECS by insisting that since CO2 might not double, he could be right about TCR and ECS which is an asinine claim. You, however, buy into that narrative with your insistence that I am projecting.
Dickhead IS RIGHT that we might not double CO2. Hugely unlikely because fuckwits like himself insist that we don't have to and shouldn't. Where he remains utterly and incomprehendingly wrong is that not doubling CO2 doesn't have anything to do with his claim of TCR.
IF he'd claimed we would see less than 1.6C of warming, his claim that we might not double CO2 could be used as unlikely wish fulfillment, but it can in no way be used to support his ignorant and busted claim about TCR/ECS.
I am not projecting anything. I make no claim here of future changes in CO2.
But that does not change the FACT that by measurements of actual real life Dickhead is wrong with his claim of 1.2TCR and 1.6C ECS.
Indeed by actual measure dick may even be wrong on the face of the "We'll see 1.2C rise after CO2 has doubled" claim of his. It could quite possibly be over 1.2C change already, and we're nowhere near a doubling of CO2.
I make no claim of future TCR, nor claim of future CO2 concentrations.
Right here, right now, unextrapolated, TCR measured is about 2.2C per doubling of CO2.
You just demonstrated my point perfectly. I said "I don't care if you agree with my definitions." I was illustrating what I call "giving a full-sentence definition".
It's what serious scientists and engineers do when embarking on a project. Then, they proceed to disagree, or not, about the actual thing they are discussing.
But you still want to argue about definitions.
Arguing about definitions is what people do when they don't have anything substantive to contribute.
If you didn't care, why did you post that?
Clearly you aren't being honest with at least yourself.
And can I only post responses to you if you said you cared to receive them? Or am I forbidden to have my say to you if you claim you do not care about anyone else's opinion?
What does it say of your opinion if you conceive it as valid to not care one whit for the opinions of others? And what point is it to give your definition when you believe it correct and valid to discard without thought or care anyone else's definitions? ESPECIALLY when it's the definition that they themselves used in their words?
Without knowing what I mean by a word, you consign yourself to a humpty dumpty conversation.
In which case, everyone here has been talking about electric cars. Because you must use definitions that make this so.
Therefore your complaint is 100% your fault. Just redefine the words to fit what you feel they should be saying and shut up.
Note, when you claimed you did not care, I stopped reading. You may have said something else to clarify what you meant, but, frankly, you don't seem to care.
Wow # 167
RickA lost all credibility a long time ago, as far as I'm concerned.
Wow: heavy on the rhetoric, evasive pedantry. And "Bill O'Rilley?" Gratuitous. You're starting to piss me off, though I'm trying to be sympathetic, because you obviously have some sort of weird comment addiction. Maybe you need an interention.
BBD is pretty much the most straightforward one here.
But your point is well taken, I tend to be elliptical which is made worse by the fact that I don't always read for the same content as everyone else. I apologize for that, it's a really bad habit.
What I was fishing for was a good parsing of Knutti and Hegerl's reference. Can you guess why? (No need to answer that.)
I was probably stepping on BBD's toes, but I estimated that the exchange would likely be diverted from what I was interested in.
"And “Bill O’Rilley?” Gratuitous. "
Actually I thought it quite amusing. "Never a miscommunication" call-back.
Evading what? Clear the shit out and cut to the chase. Evading what?
"You’re starting to piss me off"
"BBD is pretty much the most straightforward one here."
But he reads something and, quite a lot like dickhead here, gets a straightforward interpretation then does not and will not budge from it.
Hell, look at the calculation done.
"Assuming ECS of 3.0.... with TCS calculated to be 60% of ECS..."
We don't have equilibrium. This is 100% measured. OLR at TOA is still out of equilibrium with ISR at TOA.
But he insists that this is saying the same thing as "dCO2/dT" from two measured points giving TCR.
Because BBD has read, interpreted in a "straightforward" (and incorrect as far as his insistence on the paper is concerned) way and will not budge.
Exactly like dickhead here reads IPCC giving a range of 1.6-2.5, ergo he may still be right and no subsequent information can change that because it's not in that IPCC report.
"I tend to be elliptical which is made worse by the fact that I don’t always read for the same content as everyone else."
Don't worry about that. If you're terse you can miss out pertinent information, extraneous though it may be. Terse may get to the nub, cut out the crap, and get down to brass tacks, but 75% of communication is non verbal (discounting vocal as not verbal), therefore adding more in to replace that is still useful.
More thought may cut down on the effort expended for equal outcome and cut down on the effort required by others and as a courtesy you may wish to be less wordy and get to the point. Just remember that this is as a courtesy, not a requirement. And it takes a back seat to getting out what you think needs to be out.
Concentrate on that, and let the pro forma details look to themselves, unless you wish to expend effort to perfect your post.
"What I was fishing for was a good parsing of Knutti and Hegerl’s reference"
I could redownload it and cutnpste (if the PDF access allows it, if not I have to reconvert to a text only format or something), but the paper is about working what models tell us about what we should be seeing at this point in time and noting that they show consilience with the current data.
They are working on the form of MODEL CONFIRMATION. Is what we see compliant with what models tell us should be the case.
It can, for example, give some guess as to what the delay from TCR to ECS for a specific dCO2, which my method ignores, because it's not a model, only a measurement in the experiment.
My method (not mine, see Bernard's post if anyone can find it, to see an example of someone else who arrived at this possibly independently, maybe my reading it was forgotten but left its trace) includes all the known and unknown unknowns, the only remaining thing not accounted for is how much of the past is now equilibriated, or in other words how far out of equilibrium are we?
Knutti et al are talking about a different thing.
BBD's interpreting it and will not budge. And is too "straightforward" to revisit it. It's now embedded preconception.
The extension of a graph, curve, or range of values by inferring unknown values from trends in the known data.
Clearly, that is an extrapolation. And because it is linear and the increase in CO2 forcing is logarithmic, it is wrong.
It really isn't possible - or necessary - to explain this any more clearly.
You are entitled to rule out anything below 2.2C for ECS, if you wish.
I will stick with the IPCC FAR, SAR, TAR and AR5 range of 1.5C to 4.5C and wait and see what TCR turns out to be, and then use it to estimate ECS.
Then we will have a number we can use to say who is right or wrong.
Until then, we are merely speculating and waiting (like the outcome of the Mann v. Steyn case).
Until then we don't know the answer, other than to say that ECS will likely be between 1.5C to 4.5C.
I think it is silly to rule out part of the official range - but that is merely my opinion.
We are all entitled to our opinions.
Funny, isn't it, how all the numbers in #136 fit together: the observed transient response about 60% of the best estimate ECS (modelled or palaeo, take your pick).
Methodology correct, results in line with mainstream science.
Palaeoclimate behaviour does the ruling out, not me. You can deny it, but it's still going to be there when you stop going la-la-la.
You don't understand how conservative the IPCC is, RickA, or how it got wrong-footed by a couple of EBM studies that wouldn't get the same weighting today.
This is gibberish.
The extension of a graph, curve, or range of values by inferring unknown values from trends in the known data."
I know. I gave the exact same one above, dumdum.
" 1.1C after half a doubling. 2×1.1=2.2
Clearly, that is an extrapolation"
Clearly it is not. If it were a claim "after another half a doubling, we'd see another +1.1C" that WOULD be an extrapolation.
But you do not read any more than dickhead does, do you.
"I will stick with the IPCC FAR, SAR, TAR and AR5 range of 1.5C to 4.5C and wait and see what TCR turns out to be, and then use it to estimate ECS."
You remain wrong, dickhead.
"" Knutti et al are talking about a different thing."
Funny, isn’t it, how all the numbers in #136 fit together: "
No more than it's funny how my figures fit together too. TCS within range. ECS average higher than 3.0.
It's funny how you think that your numbers are right because they're fairly close and my numbers are wrong despite being fairly close.
But you are well capable of doing a dickhead and reading what you want and discounting any contrary evidence, especially if it's based in reality, when it counts against your claims.
"This is gibberish."
I suppose to someone as dim as you it is. But to get it down to your level I may have to invent HTML markup to make a pop-up book appear.
Perhaps AR5 got wrong-footed.
Or perhaps AR4 got wrong-footed.
Occam's razor says AR4 is the one most likely to be wrong (1 out of 5 instead of 4 out of 5).
But there is no way to know presently.
We have to wait.
Wow. FWIW, I wasn't interested in my parsing of Knutti et al, but in hearing you and BBD drill down on it a bit.
Enough about that: Carry on.
That's bullshit, RickA, as in 'rhetoric designed to convince while simply ignoring the facts'. Which I have now explained to you several times.
Perhaps you are being dishonest again.
How anyone can expect to get away with bollocks like this leaves me speechless:
Yes, read that again and try not to howl with laughter.
Wow, you are a sad, sad case.
Circulating back to my #54 - what diverted this thread was the accusation that MikeN was lying.
It is always a mistake to starting throwing around the "L" word in a thread.
People get to have an opinion - even if you disagree with it.
Sometimes people are wrong (like Wow in this thread).
It is really very very difficult to know whether someone is making an intentionally false statement, especially from just posts.
Even Wow, wrong as he is, probably believes he is correct.
I would never accuse Wow of lying - even though he is wrong.
Much better just to stick with saying someone is wrong (in your opinion).
I think this thread also demonstrates the undesirability of name-calling.
Does this thread reflect well on Wow - who likes to name call in most every post?
I think not.
But we are each entitled to our own opinion.
Speaking for myself - I will continue not to call names.
If I think someone is wrong I will say so - but not call them a liar because they refuse to change their mind to conform to my opinion.
And I will continue to wait for the future to unfold - rather than trying to force it to meet my preconception of what it will be.
People are free to continue calling me names.
It matters not to me, because it detracts from the name caller's credibility (in my opinion).
Lurkers will have to weigh in to let us know if I am right or wrong about that assertion.
It's all there at #136. I would only be repeating myself.
If TCR is about 60% of ECS then Wow estimates ECS to be ~3.6C per doubling. This is within the plausible range (that is, compatible with palaeoclimate behaviour) although a bit on the high side. The standard estimate for TCR is 1.6 - 1.8C, compared to Wow's 2.2C, which is on the high side.
And that's it: we differ over 0.6C, which puts us much closer together than the deeply silly RickA, who doesn't understand the methods, the IPCC process, the EBM stuff, palaeo evidence or anything much else as far as I can see.
Not when there are deniers about pretending that they are acting in good faith.
Denier - another word which diverts threads.
I am not denying that the earth has warmed.
I am not denying that the climate changes.
I merely think it doesn't change as much from our CO2 emissions as you do.
No one knows whether I am right or you are right or even whether the IPCC is right.
We have to wait, gather data, take measurements and in due course we will hopefully have enough information to look back and decide who was right - you or me.
I cannot say you are wrong.
And you cannot say I am wrong (of course you can say it, but you cannot prove it).
That is why it is a mistake to call me a denier.
It is just name calling.
It's clear rickA learned nothing from any math, science, or engineering courses he might have taken -- likely because he disagreed that problems could have solutions that meant something. In his view, any comment about the problem would be sufficient since everything is simply an opinion.
The real question is whether the intellectual and moral rot he demonstrates led to his libertarian "views", or whether the group of miscreants and vermin who identify as libertarians were the only group that would accept him.
Thus denying a huge body of scientific evidence that makes an ECS as low as 1.6C vanishingly unlikely. So, you are by any reasonable definition, a denier.
>1C transient response to 120ppm CO2 *already* provides enough information to push an ECS of 1.6C off the table. As you have been told over and over again. And you wonder why people think you are fundamentally dishonest...
BBD @ ~ 196
Yes - but only if all of the temperature increase is due to CO2 emissions.
We don't know that.
It is possible that some natural variation is a portion of the warming.
It cannot be ruled out - which is why the ECS extends down to 1.5C.
You can pretend you know what the answer is - but the answer is not known today.
All we can do is wait and see what the answer turns out to be.
I have offered up my no regrets solution to the "problem" several times.
1. Generate as much energy as possible with nuclear power.
2. Invest in research to invent a non-carbon producing power source which is cheaper than fossil fuels are.
3. Invest in grid level storage - we don't really have a satisfactory solution to that problem - which is needed to overcome the problems with intermittent renewables. Pumped hydro is just not available everywhere (as far as I know).
Under 1 and/or 2 (if we can invent something) we can cut down on our CO2 emissions, whatever we think ECS or TCR will turn out to be.
With adequate 3, we can deploy more renewables without emitting so much carbon (for when it is dark and not windy).
What is your plan?
Yes we do. It's all in AR5 which you seem happy to misrepresent, sorry, reference upthread when it suits you.
To keep kicking your arse as long as I see it here.
Nope. Another fucking lie. Low ECS estimates have to do with the strength of net positive feedbacks.
I think I mentioned it before, but is there a term for a blog thread exploding at a late time? There were 105 posts from Mar 10-19, and had quieted down and moved to the second page, now in one day it doubles.
Dean, you started by saying my statistics was poor. Given the assumption I make about higher variance for women, then is the conclusion valid? What are you saying is poor, the statistics calculation, or the statistical assumptions I start with?
Zebra, different variance in intelligence between men and women is reported. The thread died down, but it was an issue that Lawrence Summers brought up as an explanation for fewer women in science and engineering(the high end of the distribution). I don't really know if that's the case for 'behaviour', just making a joke about Wow, but Dean said it was lousy statistics.
Listen to this carefully, RickA:
You cannot have high natural variability and low climate sensitivity at the same time. High nat var happens because the feedbacks to radiative perturbation of the system net positive and are fairly strong.
So they will amplify small changes in natural forcings, producing a significant degree of natural variability.
Those same feedbacks would *also* amplify radiative forcing from CO2. So it is physically impossible to have a climate system that is both relatively insensitive to CO2 forcing yet exhibits significant natural variability.
Read that as many times as are necessary for you to understand it.
If nat var accounted for a significant amount of the total modern warming, then the sensitivity to CO2 forcing is probably higher than currently estimated (>3C).
Meditate on this.
For the hypothetical lurkers, even though I don't think any rational person would be reading this nonsense:
I will indulge in a slight definition nitpick; RickA #204 is not offering a "plan" but a goal. A plan would tell us, for example, what government policies should be implemented to achieve the items listed.
But that aside, it is interesting in two ways.
The only justification economically for investing in nuclear plants would be if burning FF (coal, for example) did in fact lead to serious negative consequences. If you think the lower end of the projections/predictions for warming is the correct one, the logical approach is promoting wind and solar and conservation, because if it ends up it's OK to burn coal and gas, nuclear can't possibly compete. So, you would have sunk much less capital into "white elephant" electricity generation. You would have less consumption, and the solar panels and wind turbines would be useful for their lifetimes as auxiliary (e.g. peaking and charging) sources.
The other point, which is more along the lines of a "plan", and brings us back to the original topic, is that promoting electric cars, through government subsidies and regulation, would promote nuclear generation and provide large-scale storage capacity for renewables.
Still looking for a specific reference.
It all depends on the test (e.g. IQ) you are talking about and how it has been adjusted (calibrated) historically.
If it is designed to yield a standard normal distribution for a particular group, then you can't rely on the outcome for some other group.
Perhaps Dean can expand on this.
"If it is designed to yield a standard normal distribution for a particular group, then you can’t rely on the outcome for some other group."
IQ test scores are transformed to fit a Gaussian with mean 100 (standard deviation differs from test to test).
The issue is that IQ tests don't reliably measure anything having to do with "intelligence", and only vaguely relate to innate abilities. They are best described as measuring how acclimated people are to a social system.
Comparing performance from one group to another, even on the same test, simply gives you an indication of how they score. It tells you nothing about (for example) how women will fare in a discipline compared to the performance of men in the same discipline.
Zebra, here's one, though it says the differences are not because of the statistics I cited that Dean says is junk(I think).
On the other hand, another paper found a 5 point higher IQ for men and the same variance.
This one tested at ages 7,11,16 and found higher variance and a higher mean for boys at 16 but lower at 7 and 11.
Harvard had a debate over what Lawrence Summers said. The slides do not show the studies used, but 35/37 studies found higher male variance.
Comment in moderation due to 4 links,
35/37 studies found higher male variance.
"But there is no way to know presently."
Actual measurement records today.
"Yes, read that again and try not to howl with laughter. "
The only bit is the bit you were saying, bbd. But it's not THAT funny. Just expected.
Extrapolation is not a conversion of numbers. It's not an extrapolation to change 15 m/s to 30mph, despite one second being shorter than an hour. But in this you are 100% identical to dickhead here.
You are a lunatic idiot, BBD.
"I have offered up my no regrets solution to the “problem” several times."
But you insist there is no problem. Hence the scare quotes and the denial of reality and probabilities.
"Yes – but only if all of the temperature increase is due to CO2 emissions."
More than all the temperature increase is due to CO2 and feedbacks arising therefrom.
"Denier – another word which diverts threads."
No, it's an accurate description that deniers then divert threads because of being identified.
"If TCR is about 60% of ECS then Wow estimates ECS to be ~3.6C per doubling. "
But that 60% is not a fact, it's a result from model runs and analysis. It's somewhere around that. But it isn't exactly that.
Current best guess, including the paleo data, is 3.2. The difference could be just the caution of scientistis reducing the upper end from models or measurements in the past, or due to more of the past CO2 rise having been equalised. But somewhere 3.0-3.4 seems the peak of the distribution, with a longer upper tail and a truncated lower one.
The two figures are different because they work it out differently.
TCR is ~2.2C per doubling right now, today, based on the historical values.
Knutti is looking at this from the "other end", hence the back-calculation from ECS estimates. If TCR were 65-70 of ECS, he would calculate almost exactly the same value. If I picked a shorter period and took an average, I might possibly get a lower value. But the values calculated are correct. They are NOT extrapolations.
"Speaking for myself – I will continue not to call names."
Couldn't give a shit. If you were accurate or just honest, you could swear like a pissed off navy sailor and it would still be a massive improvement.
Being a lying deceitful arsehole is not countered by being well-mannered.
"The issue is that IQ tests don’t reliably measure anything having to do with “intelligence”, and only vaguely relate to innate abilities."
They tend to measure logic rather than intelligence, and the test is pretty much debunked as valid. It's *a* measure, but it's rather like measuring nose length. It can be done but it means bugger all.
Based on a *extrapolation* from historic values. Do you truly not get this??
This is you at #187:
So, you are extrapolating. You *make* that claim. Repeatedly.
Please own your own behaviour. This is a minor point of order, as we can both see that the actual numbers aren't very far apart and not the actual point of contention which always was correct methodology and calling an extrapolation an extrapolation.
W&S are not dispatchable and can therefore never be used as peakers.
"Based on a *extrapolation* from historic values. Do you truly not get this??"
Bow can you get "extrapolation" FROM historical data TO HISTORICAL (just recent) data?????
What the fuck do you think you're thinking????
If the stock market rise is currently averaging about 11% per year, that is NOT an extrapolation. If polls indicate that Trump's popularity has fallen since his inauguration, that is NOT extrapolation.
TCR currently, right now, is 2.2C by measurement NOT EXTRAPOLATION.
FFS, you moronic tit, the ABSOLUTE BEST I can come up with is you're getting yourself fucking arse over tit confused between approximation and extrapolation merely because they're both not canonically accurate.
An extrapolation would be to take that 2.2. figure CALCULATED NOT EXTRAPOLATED and the EXTRAPOLATE THE RESULT OF IT CONTINUING.
By insisting that the 2.2 figure is an extrapolation because it is a measurement of the current rate approximated by finite difference you are 100% absolutely identical to dickhead's claim "We have to wait and see what TCR and ECS is!".
"W&S are not dispatchable"
Neither are coal or nukes. And you need fast small expensive and inefficient gas power to manage that.
You are, still, 100% moronically accepting a bullshit paper and bullshit claim because you idiotically found someone who said something and supported it with numbers that you like and will not or cannot test the claims yourself.
I have to ask you the same.
Historical data = ~1.1C transient response (observed) to 120ppm
The ~2.2C TCR at 560ppm is an extrapolation.
No, that is completely wrong. Transient response, right now, by observation, is about 1.1C.
You need to rethink your position here.
Incorrect, just like the last time. Here is the same link I posted last time you made this mistake:
Source: Energy Education:
These are standard definitions of technical terms used by the energy industry. They are what they are, not what you assert them to be.
"The ~2.2C TCR at 560ppm is an extrapolation. "
The ONLY one claiming that is YOU, dumbass.
I'm claiming TCR right now is 2.2C per CO2 doubling.
You are doing EXACTLY THE SAME as dickhead. But only when he does it do you notice how fucking idiotic it is.
AGAIN. If a car is travelling at 60mph it is NOT AN EXTRAPOLATION. It's its velocity. YOU DO NOT wait until it's gone a mile to see how fast it's going right now. If only because after a mile, it's no longer the right now you were asked what the fucking velocity of the car was.
YOU sit there and claim it has to double CO2 before we can get TCR.
YOU are just as fucking moronically wrong as dickhead.
At least you're not claiming to be an educated engineer. But that's one hell of a damnation with faint praise there. "Hey, you're dumber than a sack of spanners, but you've never claimed otherwise!"
The ONLY ones claiming that TCR is the increase of temperature as soon as CO2 gets to 560ppm are you and dickhead.
And you're both as fucking stupid as each other.
"YOU sit there and claim it has to double CO2 before we can get TCR."
Actually it's even more fucking ridiculous than that. You insist that TCR has to be the temperature change experienced when atmospheric CO2 doubles from 180ppm to 560ppm.
SHOW ME THE FUCKING DEFINITION THAT INSISTS THIS IS THE ONLY REGIME TCR IS POSSIBLE TO DEFINE FOR.
Because nowhere, NO WHERE in "per doubling CO2" does it say "from 180ppm to 560ppm".
You are, 100%, absolutely as fucking ignorant and stupid as dickhead here.
You want to argue definitions, find some 8th graders.
Thermal plants cannot be "turned on and off", as has been explained many times, in order to match the load.
This language is just as much childish, manipulative, word-play as what RickA does.
Why not address the physics and engineering involved and let people decide how well each meets the application?
1. Thermal plants operate continuously because it would be extremely wasteful of fuel to allow them to cool down and then have to reheat the structure each day.
2. In addition, the expansion and contraction involved would rapidly degrade the structure and reduce operational life.
3. Nuclear plants have the additional problem of fuel isotope "contamination"; there is a very constrained time sequence in stopping and starting-- if you don't follow it, you get Chernobyl.
So thermal plants, other than specially designed (and expensive) peakers, operate (burn fuel) constantly, which is why you can buy electricity cheaper at night.
-A wind turbine can be feathered and held motionless if there is no demand, so you get no wear on the system.
-Solar panels are purely electrical systems, which means that if there is no current flowing, there is no degradation, other than whatever thermal effects are due to insolation.
Those are physical facts, not definitions.
For example, shitheads, when we get to 560ppm, what do we use then to answer "what will the response of the climate be if we increased it to 1120ppm?". Can't be TCR because both of you fucking idiots think it only applies between a doubling from 280ppm.
(NOTE: That should have been 280ppm earlier too just noticed I'm hitting 1 instead of 2 with the third finger)
So because you two asshats insist it is purely and solely defined as the change between 280 and 560ppm CO2, there needs to be a different name for what the climate does between 560ppm and 1120ppm. Because 1120 is not 560.
"" Neither are coal or nukes."
No, dumbass, you are wrong, again. See also zebra, who just went on longer because he still doesn't know how much of an unthinking retard you are on this specific issue. If "civil language, please" is of any use, their use of less intemperate language should change your mind. If yours doesn't, then either it's pointless to demand "civility" or with some people, specifically in this case, YOU, BBD, it doesn't fucking matter because you're against the idea of being wrong.
Again, just 100% like dickhead, above.
"A dispatchable source of electricity refers to an electrical power system, such as a power plant, that can be turned on or off;"
So solar and wind, then. You can turn wind on or off by engaging or disengaging the motor. You can turn solar on or off by putting a tarp over it.
Try turning on Fukishima or Hinkley C when it was down for nearly (or over now?) a year.
In the USA they issue timeouts for maintenance of their nuke plants during summer because it's during summer that many of those plants cannot run due to lack of cooling. And count that as not an outage because it's timed and arranged, therefore doesn't come off the availability figures for nukes, despite the nuke plants being unavailable.
One would suppose this is done because they do it for all the water-cooled power generation.
But wind and solar aren't water cooled and don't get arranged to be taken down for a month or two every year.
What I find fascinating is that the man's argument could be characterized as following the pattern he describes as "female" thinking, while the woman's position comports more with my (male, mathematically intuitive) nuanced thinking.
So, you've provided a reference to support the claim that for some characteristics, there is a higher variance in men than women. However, I don't think you can then generalize to any characteristic, which is what you appeared to be doing.
You want to pontificate about energy, get the terminology right.
No wind = no electricity. No sun = no electricity. These factors are not in the control of the plant operators therefore W&SPV are not dispatchable.
Then you are a fuckwit and this conversation has run its course.
There's a bit too much idiocy on this thread at the moment.
Learn. To. Read.
Me at # 137:
Emphasis added for poor readers.
Just to clarify, I only read the "edge" debate and that's what I was referring to.
What part of "definition debates are for dummies" don't you get?
Really, really, childish.
"No wind = no electricity. No sun = no electricity."
No coal=no electricity. No cooling = still no electricity. Broken = yet more no electricity.
" So because you two asshats insist it is purely and solely defined as the change between 280 and 560ppm CO2,
Learn. To. Read."
I. CAN. READ.
BBD, retarding away says:
“The ~2.2C TCR at 560ppm is an extrapolation. ”
Go check where you said that, moron.
YOU said it.
You haven't much of a clue what you are talking about. I *know* this because I do know what I am talking about and your errors are gratingly obvious. For example:
That would be 'childish, manipulative word-play', aka a strawman. Nobody said the plant has to be turned on or off, only that its output can be varied in response to demand.
You use this strawman as a launchpad for the claim that nuclear cannot load-follow. But it can:
Coal plant can be made much more flexible but there's less point in discussing coal as the trajectory now must be towards phaseout.
My advice to you at this point would be to stop calling me 'childish' etc and improve your topic knowledge until it's as good as you currently imagine it to be. Then, perhaps, we can continue productively.
"There’s a bit too much idiocy on this thread at the moment."
And you're borrowing it big time, and adding your own content of idiot fucking moron on top as a side dish.
"Then you are a fuckwit and this conversation has run its course."
Yeah, that fucking works. With retards like YOU, in your own "mind". Doesn't ACTUALLY work, fuckwit.
TCR right now is 2.2C. Delta ln(CO2%) =0.5 Delta T = 1.1C. TCR=2.2.
Just because you don't know what the hell you're talking about doesn't mean "you're a fuckwit" actually words, moron.
"Coal plant can be made much more flexible "
And wind doesn't need to be much more flexible. It follows demand like solar and generally ramps up when solar is lacking (and vice versa).
Coal plants need coal.
Fail to supply and no electricity.
Not forgetting "Oh, they could be more flexible!" != "they are dispatchable!!!!".
"Nobody said the plant has to be turned on or off,"
Lying fuckwit. To quote your quote:
“A dispatchable source of electricity refers to an electrical power system, such as a power plant, that can be turned on or off;”
Meanwhile, W & SPV aren't dispatchable because no wind = no electricity / no sun = no electricity. These factors are not in the control of the plant operators therefore W&SPV are not dispatchable.
That's what the term means. That is how it is used in the energy industry and that is how it will be used here.
"But it can:"
But it doesn't. As zebra knows because they read while you just crammed propaganda then stopped, running load following is still hellaciously slow, wastes a shitload of electricity (radioactive decay gotta radioactively decay, bro), poisons the fuel and quenches it early, damages the plant and reduces efficiency.
So it costs more, has to be specifically optimised (most of France's fleet DO NOT and CAN NO load follow, even at the slow rate of load follow that is the best a nuke can get), produces less to sell, and ends earlier than "normal".
Meanwhile you whine about how backup is needed and not costed in to estimates of how to go 100% renewable...
It's not well worded but you are guilty of selective quotation.
Actual shutdown / start isn't necessary for dispatch (load following), only adjustable output.
Meanwhile, coal and nukes aren’t dispatchable because no fuel = no electricity and no cooling = no electricity.
"That’s what the term means"
No it does not. It means it can be changed on demand. Pretty much the only stuff like that is spinning (or hot) generation, hydro, flywheel and pressurised air, which last three are just stores of temporary use.
Meanwhile solar also includes solar thermal. No wind never happens any more often than nuke failure does, less even, and being load following there's less need for generation (see greenman's youtube video posts on the subject) so total generation capacity can be quite a lot lower and baseload generation itself reduced.
More half-baked crap from wow.
"It’s not well worded but you are guilty of selective quotation. "
IOW "Yes, I said that, but I didn't mean it, because it doesn't work my way".
"in other words they can adjust their power output supplied to the electrical grid on demand."
But why the hell is this a requirement for a power source THAT EXPENDS NO FUEL?????? Why would this be impossible to use because it couldn't be turned off to "save" the nonexistent fuel source?
It matters with coal gas oil and nukes because the fuel costs money. So if you burn it and waste it then you spent for it and gained nothing from it.
That claim there is NOTHING to do with dispatchability, only profitability maximisation.
Oh no, the sun shining on that field is being wasted, we have to turn the solar panel off so we can save the sun's energy!!!!
And with wind, as zebra points out, you can cut out the mechanical wear by disconnecting the rotor from the induction motor and planing the blades to capture no energy from the wind.
If you happened to be so dipshit nuts that you worried that the wind farms were slowing down the wind....
No, more bullshit from an idiot.
Yeah, nukes are profitable.....
Meanwhile, W & SPV aren’t dispatchable because no wind = no electricity / no sun = no electricity. These factors are not in the control of the plant operators therefore W&SPV are not dispatchable.
And W&SPV plant operators cannot guarantee that there will be *enough* spare capacity available to increase output at times of high demand.
You don't need no wind for wind plant to be unable to meet peaking demand. Just a little bit less than necessary will do it every time - and *that* happens with increasing frequency the more baseload and conventional load-following plant you remove from the grid.
That was just childish word-play on zebra's part, wow. The issue is with peaking demand and the requirement for spare capacity available for dispatch to meet it.
If it's dark (or cloudy, or winter) then SPV spare capacity can be non-existent. So SPV isn't classified as dispatchable because the plant operators don't control the diurnal cycle, clouds or the seasons. Same applies to wind - zebra tricksily reversed the problem rather than admitting that he was wrong. Since the plant operators can never guarantee that there will be enough wind to provide a dispatchable headroom for peaking demand, wind isn't dispatchable.
Why don't you email a wind farm operator of your choice and just ask them to confirm this? They will.
Meanwhile, coal and nukes aren’t dispatchable because no fuel = no electricity and no cooling = no electricity.These factors are not in the control of the plant operators therefore coal/oil/gas/nukes are not dispatchable.
Run out of gas? No electricity for you! It happened a few winters ago.
And nuke plant operators cannot guarantee that there will be *enough* spare capacity available to replace an unplanned outage of a nuke station, which, being unplanned, is outside the control of the operator.
"You don’t need no wind for wind plant to be unable to meet peaking demand."
And you don't need fuel in a nuke station for a nuke plant to be unable to meet peaking demand.
But you've made so much shit about how "no wind" is a "problem" for nuke retards like yourself that this newest claim is just backpedal city.
"Just a little bit less than necessary will do it every time "
Same with every power supply. Even if you go full retard and put 75% of your power in nukes, you have to buy a shitload of energy off others to cover the FACT that nuke plants supply less than necessary.
So nukes are not dispatchable.
"That was just childish word-play on zebra’s part"
And another "But I don't benefit from it, so it's a "childish word-play"" non-dodge.
No, the ONLY way being able to stop production of wind generation is to cut wear and tear on the mechanisms. No moving parts for solar PV means there's no mechanical wear and tear.
So EVEN IF you tried to dodge the fact that "oh, it has to be able to switch off and on on demand" is pertinent because you "lose" operating lifetime, wind covers it right there and it's irrelevant for solarPV.
But that you claim it "childish word play" merely cements the fact that you do not care what it means, you want to interpret it to mean that solar and wind (what happened to the rest???) are not dispatchable because of a blogroll by non-specialist scientists that comport with what you want (note it is WANT) to believe.
"Why don’t you email a wind farm operator "
I'm a major owner of a solar farm. It's a local project so "major" is just "high up in the ranking by investment into the build", there's a shedload of us chipping in.
I've talked to farmers and the're fucking ecstatic over wind farms. Not so hot for nuke power stations, though.
Instead of reading nuke fluffer PR jobs, go ask people working in Hinkley or used to work in Didcot and ask them.
"If it’s dark"
Demand is lowest.
" (or cloudy"
", or winter"
Is also windier.
The point of the exercise for me is to have a different paradigm for the generation and utilization of electricity (and reduce CO2 production in the process.)
If you can't discuss the topic without invoking the existing paradigm, it demonstrates that you don't have a grasp of the engineering and economics and social framework in question, and/or are incapable of independent reasoning.
Feel free to re-read what I said at 210.
Also, since it's been a while since I discussed it here, my different paradigm:
Transmission of electricity is either public sector or very highly regulated private; and completely separate from generation. This "utility" entity facilitates direct transactions between generators and consumers with no favoritism.
If you wish to discuss without using terminology created by the existing monopolistic utilities to further their anti-competitive position, feel free.
Very interesting paradigm.
The other day I was driving by a substation near my house and I was wondering about the feasability of burying a small modular nuclear reactor under every substation and hooking up the substation to get power from the small modular nuclear reactor.
I have done no calculations so I don't know if this is feasible - but I was thinking it would be great to size the reactor to provide all the power that the substation handles for a 30 year period of time.
At the end of 30 years, the "owner" of the reactor swaps out the old and puts in a new.
It would be buried pretty deep - say 50 feet or more, so security would have time to spot a bad guy trying to dig one up to try to break into it.
Perhaps we could use thorium in these reactors.
Anyway - if a substation region pooled together and formed a coop they could buy or lease the reactor and the price of electricity should be pretty stable for 30 years.
Would that fit into your paradigm?
Both the generation and distribution is kind of private in my scenario (if it is even feasible and not just unrealistic wishing).
As usual, you aren't making any sense at all.
This is the exact opposite of what I said.
Just get some investors together, buy one of those "small modular nukes", and put it on an appropriate piece of land. Then offer to sell electricity to individuals or businesses at your fixed 30-year price.
The transmission lines will be government-owned and available for everyone to use, just like the roads.
The only power generation that is not able to do that is renewables, and not because of technical issues, but because government interference (even if its state level government) forbidding it.
But most places, renewables do just that. Rent or buy land (or FiT on your own roof) and pay for the generators to be built and then sell the product to the grid.
Unlike Mackay, who claims "oh, best scenario 10W/m^2", we get something averaging over 45W/m^2. Aye, this is the south-west, but it's also a hell of a lot higher than that load of hot air blew out.
The problem for the big generation companies is that solar and wind generate power at the most profitable times, and trade prices are depressed from the astoundingly high peak spot prices (ask your local Aluminium smelter about business rates at peak), where they use it to prop up profits.
'Course when they cherry pick the profitable postal routes and leave the nationwide coverage to the "inefficient" government postal services, they're happy as larry to pick up the profitable lines and depress the profits elsewhere, but they're not so chipper when their profits are being picked up by a newcomer.
"At the end of 30 years, the “owner” of the reactor swaps out the old and puts in a new."
And then the old one is sent to landfill or shipped off to "India" where it will be dumped because it;s even cheaper to just throw rubbish overboard at sea where nobody sees you than to get even slave wage labour to pick it apart and recycle....
"most profitable times"
Yes. Obviously, a smallholder can undercut those prices if there is an actual free (competitive) market in operation.
I wouldn't worry about decommissioning Rick's "small modular reactor" since they don't exist at this point. Same problem...too much initial capital to allow for competitive pricing of the electricity.
Whereas, one can scale up wind and solar over time if you have some land and the market is good. Economies of scale are really increasing in manufacturing the components.
Ok - that makes sense.
Do the utilities own the transmission lines in the USA now?
Or does the government already own them?
I had the impression (which could totally be wrong) that the utility companies own them.
They certainly repair them after storm damage.
That is why I though in my hypo both generation and distribution would be private.
If the lines are owned by the utilities (Xcel in my area) - how do you see the ownership being transferred to the government?
I see the waste being recycled.
We certainly have a good track record of recycling nuclear reactors, don't we!
No - we have not.
There is a lot of energy just being held at all the various nuclear plant sites in the USA, in casks and so forth - just waiting to be recycled.
I think we should be recycling all the waste in the USA - it just makes good economic sense.
So someday I predict we will.
No. Generation and supply are inseparably linked in realtime. You don't understand how grids work. They do not store electricity.
Therefore grid balancing (generation vs demand balance) must be *instantaneous*.
This is inimical to pick'n'mix paradigms which don't work IRL.
Oh do stop the bullshit. You made some basic errors. Own them. Don't try and pass the crap on to me.
Great. Source the 45W/m^2 figure. I want to see evidence of it. Link to it now.
Otherwise, I will feel free to disbelieve you again.
Not in the UK and N Europe. Solar peaks in summer early afternoon which is minimum annual demand. Maximum annual demand is winter evening.
Christ, don't you even know this?
There are currently several different setups in the US, as I understand it.
It doesn't have to be government owned, as long as it is subject to rules similar to those for "common carriers", and the rules are strictly enforced. That means you have to treat all buyers and sellers equally, just like a UPS or a taxi service.
You charge for the "transportation" service only, and at established rates. So, a municipality could contract with a private company to do that, or do it itself. Like trash collection, for example.
This would of course have to be a federal regulation, since electricity moves across State boundaries.
The point is to promote competition so that the best match can be achieved between the generator and the consumer. You know, that "free market" thingie.
You keep repeating this nonsensical thing about grids.
Electricity is bought and sold in real time all the time, with multiple suppliers and multiple consumers.
Separation between generation and ownership of transmission and distribution already exists in multiple locales.
The monopolistic paradigm has nothing to do with the physics of electricity; I think you have some strange misconception about the latter.
I just have no idea why you are talking about "storage"?
But not hundreds of thousands (millions?) of suppliers and tens of millions of consumers. In real time. Without supply shortfalls.
What happens when your chosen supplier cannot meet demand?
I'm still not clear what it is you are proposing, although I note that you've now conceded that in the US, federal regulation would be required to create the necessary grid interconnections to integrate a much enlarged renewables sector. IIRC, you weren't having that last time around.
To be clear about federal regulation and grid interconnection:
You need a fully-interconnected national grid for this to work. Nothing like this currently exists in the UK, hence the need for federal regs and grid interconnection before that 'free market thingie' can begin to operate (not that it ever actually does, coz free markets don't exist, but whatever).
Meant "exists in the US".
We have a national grid in the UK.
The requirement that grid operators act as common carriers requires federal regulation; it has nothing to do with physical interconnections. I said..."since electricity moves across State lines"...; how would that happen if there were no physical connections already?
Anyway, I still don't get what you are thinking here.
-The number of customers stays the same.
-There are more potential suppliers. Arguendo, let's just say people add rooftop solar; this is going on constantly in California, for example.
-If there are more suppliers, then wouldn't it be less likely for there to be a shortfall?
You really haven't made clear what exactly you think is going to happen because the numbers increase. In case you haven't noticed, we have very fast computers that engage in all kinds of near-instantaneous transactions in very very large quantities.
What's the problem??
I had an earlier comment with several links, and it is hung up in moderation.
We have a sort of national grid, which has several regions which are interconnected.
Electricity is bought and sold (even between regions) all the time in the United States.
Okay, here are a couple of articles that hopefully clarify where I am coming from:
No brainer - rebuild the grid
California grid expansion
Upgrading US power grid for 21st century
There is *so much* to be done. And no room at all for handwaving.
Those links at #284 are must-reads for you. It is nothing like as simple as you think.
I never said it was simple.
I simply pointed out that we do have an almost national grid, which has regions which are interconnected, and with third parties buying and selling electricity intraRTO and interRTO all the time.
It is not simple.
It looks like the small modular nuclear reactors are slated to be available in 2023 in the USA and cost about $90/MWH (from my reading).
I am trying to calculate the cost of a 50 MW reactor for 30 years and get about 1.182 billion (90 * 50 * 24 * 365 * 30).
Assuming 500 homes per MW, that is a little over $1500 per year per home.
Say about $131 per month for the electric bill, per home.
A bit pricey.
But so very very green, which would be a selling point.
Maybe my math is wrong and it will be cheaper.
Stop dodging the question.
What's the problem??
You are a fantasist who knows nothing about the real world issues and won't even read the links provided summarising them.
That's the problem.
It has *everything* to do with physical interconnections.
Ask a grid engineer.
No, you don't. Just RTFRs and stop talking.
"But not hundreds of thousands (millions?) of suppliers and tens of millions of consumers"
Tens of millions of consumers, hell yes. Thousands of suppliers? Not far off right now, and no reason for it to limit to millions.
Net metering makes everyone with power generation a supplier.
Your biggest problem is you complain about wind and solar but the problems you complain about them exists for ALL power generation.
But you don't have a goddamned clue what's there but have stuck in your head what MUST BE right.
Again, 100% identical to dick.
"I think we should be recycling all the waste in the USA"
We don't know how. Not economically AND safely. And the VAST majority of that waste is stuff like clothes, piping, concrete,water, plastics, and so on that are just in a building.
"" The problem for the big generation companies is that solar and wind generate power at the most profitable times,"
Not in the UK and N Europe"
Yes in the UK and N Europe.
"Oh do stop the bullshit. You made some basic errors"
Stop the bullshit and avoidance yourself dumbass.
No, wrong again. Wind's all over the place and solar is just wrong - max in summer early afternoons, zero in winter evenings when demand is highest.
Back it up with references or admit that it's crap.
Where's the link for your outlandish 45W/m^2 annual average area power density?
"What happens when your chosen supplier cannot meet demand? "
Same as any other power plant.
You do it like this:
"You need a fully-interconnected national grid for this to work. Nothing like this currently exists in the UK, "
I think BBD meant there is no fully-interconnected national grid in the US.
There is an interconnected grid, but it doesn't cover the entire United States.
Zebra, that was one of the three assumptions I made, that the trait in question(rude behavior) exhibits this differential.
BBD, Zebra said charging and peaking. Using wind and solar for charging grid storage is certainly possible. Peaking could work if highest demand is when solar is most needed. Is summer afternoon really a minimum? I would think that's when the AC is used the most?
Your ability to read.
But only if you have already built it. According to some armchair experts here, it is not necessary.
The next assumption is that there will be, on average, more generation from renewables than demand and that there will be a net annual surplus. That is a hell of a big maybe.
I said in the UK and N Europe, not in the US. Please *read* what I say (including the example quote at #298).
Sure. But you could assume anything about anything. If you read the "edge" debate carefully there is a lot of information about issues with measurement. It's not just in social/behavioral sciences, but biases in those areas are particularly tricky to discern. And bias in the measurement instrument can lead to a difference in the variance between groups, not just in the central value.
I have read some of this stuff with respect to education, but I claim no expertise-- I'm good with instruments for the physics lab, not measuring how much of a jerk someone may be. So again, maybe someone like Dean could elaborate some more.
Of course, speaking of people being jerks, discussions with BBD....
The problem with BBD on this subject is that he can't answer the simple question I posed: What's the problem?
The problem for BBD and the current utility companies is that changing the paradigm means changing the paradigm, which disrupts a business model that relies on economic rents not productivity.
"Peak demand" is an artifact of the system, not a natural law. But the language that BBD clings to is designed to obscure that fact.
In your case of AC, for example, AC with thermal storage means the "peak" can be spread out and occur during the time when the sun is shining.
"I think BBD meant there is no fully-interconnected national grid in the US."
That is the case (thought there are quite a lot of interconnected states, the difference may be the size precludes any useful 6000km links with AC so it'd wait for HVDC). But he specifically said "nothing like that in the UK" maybe he meant "nothing like what we have in the uk".
We connect to Europe with HVDC.And we do that because of our nuclear power stations. Hinkley C requires a doubling of our link to France because our total Hinkley generation would be too much to replace when (not if, when) it goes unexpectedly down. And we just don't have the backup generation, so we double the link to France. We also plan to link to Denmark for the Scandanavial renewable generation they have.
And the line will pay by allowing us to sell overproduction of nuke power to Europe at night. Which only works because there's so little use of nuke power.
"“Peak demand” is an artifact of the system, not a natural law. But the language that BBD clings to is designed to obscure that fact."
As is baseload. It was invented to describe how much unresponsive non-dispatchable but cheap and efficient generation of coal power was needed to cover the mimimum. You need at least that nameplate capacity.
Following demand much better, renewables of solar and wind save 40% of nameplate build-out. So even if you were to demand as much as double production to cover catastrophes that occur, merely for different reasons, with coal, gas or nuke stations, but insist on it solely for renewables and deliberately ignore that this is the case for non-renewabes too, it's still only 20% more in reality, if you simplistically just plonk nameplate for nameplate.
Something nuke fluffers like Mackay don't mention (like their other erroneous assumptions) and those who want to believe nuke fluffers (like BBD here) don't bother to find out.
"But only if you have already built it."
But you have to build it for ANY new energy plant. Morons here refuse to acknowledge that WE ALREADY HAVE BACKUP..
And by morons, I mean you.
Apparetly you were incorrect, Rick. Dumbass here says "I said in the UK and N Europe, not in the US."
" Peaking could work if highest demand is when solar is most needed."
Night time pricing is below cost to make power "needed" at night.
Much demand is based from businesses, specifically industries, who can change their power use to make best use of spot prices, and thereby fit demand to supply.
It's why the UK has or had Economy 7. To make home electric heating use oversupplied (because coal power generation and nukes both supply energy whether you want to dispatch it or not, being non-dispatchable) power and create an artificial demand at night.
Another think dumbass here doesn't comprehend because it's not part of the Hot Air narrative.
A vast, hyper-complex real time computational transaction system which balances the national US grid from second to second. What could possibly go wrong? Especially in the age of Russian and Chinese cyber-warfare?
Fortunately for your children, I very much doubt that any US government (even this one) would ever permit such a massive, fundamental threat to national security.
All your sententious (but tellingly vague) twaddle about 'paradigms' is just cover for the standard peddling of free market snake oil.
Tut, tut. I was talking explicitly about peak demand in the UK and N Europe being winter early evening. Your fundamental dishonesty is showing.
- industrial activity has not stopped but a sizeable percentage of the population has gone home
- it is cold and dark and lighting and heating are maxed both in domestic, street and industrial contexts
- it is time to prepare the evening meal so big spike from electric ovens, microwaves, kettles etc
- TVs, tablets and gadgets are all switched on
That is peak demand in the UK and N Europe. It happens in early evening during winter. Go check. All you will find is references confirming exactly what I said. Bollocking on *irrelevantly* about AC just confirms that you are as stuffed as Wow on this point.
This was and still is a lie. See unequivocal demonstrations above.
W & S do not in any real sense 'follow demand'. They are not dispatchable. Plant operators do not control the wind, the clouds, the diurnal cycle or the seasons.
Why all the endless lies? Clearly there is a fundamental issue here.
Just crazy shit. W & S are highly variable. So actual output is a fraction of nameplate capacity. This is called capacity factor. It is a measure of how unreliable renewables output actually is.
To watch wow try and turn this into a totally false claim about demand following is, frankly, jaw-dropping.
Zebra - why don't you tell wow to stop the blatant crap? Please explain your weird silence in the face of all the garbage and lies on this thread.
"A vast, hyper-complex real time computational transaction system "
Ah, now, when deniers want to complain about hysterical doommongering, they can point to you, BBD. Well done.
"which balances the national US grid from second to second"
It's already done, BBD. Hell, Europe does it. Ask any business owner in the industrial sphere.
"I was talking explicitly about peak demand in the UK and N Europe being winter early evening."
Being a lower peak than summer?!?!?!??!? AC is a bigger thing than you can possibly conceive.
And moreover this could only be the case if you're mangling electrical demand and heating demand, which IN THE UK means gas burning heaters.
And, yet again, it's windier by quite a lot in the UK in winter.
"– TVs, tablets and gadgets are all switched on"
LOL! How fucking clueless! Yeah, right. The big time power users are people watching Eastenders.... FFS. You moron.
"" Following demand much better, renewables of solar and wind "
This was and still is a lie. See unequivocal demonstrations above. "
No, it's what you want to BE a lie but refuses to be.
"W & S do not in any real sense ‘follow demand’. "
Yes they do.
"They are not dispatchable."
Neither is coal or nukes or all but specifically designed stations.
"To watch wow try and turn this into a totally false claim about demand following is, frankly, jaw-dropping. "
Only because you will not admit reality.
Again, 100% like dick.
And, again, 100% like dick, you're an incredibly false lying little shitstain who cannot and will not accept anything against your preconceived politically and monetarily derived demands.
"Zebra – why don’t you tell wow to stop the blatant crap?"
Because it's not crap its a truth you WILL NOT accept.
Just like dick WILL NOT accept that his ECS of 1.6 is wrong.
He, like you, points to papers that he can twist to support him being right and ignores and calls "crap" and "lies" and "unsupported" anything and anyone who tries to tell him different.
"Why all the endless lies? Clearly there is a fundamental issue here."
Yes, I assume that your continuous and immobile bullshit claims are because you're a nuke fluffer.
"So actual output is a fraction of nameplate capacity."
And for nukes it's 60%.
For solar it's about 40%.
Oh, and for wind, it can be over 100%. Power goes as wind speed cubed.
The US grid is at this moment frighteningly vulnerable to cyberattack. So please, stop being absurd. Distributed generation and the upgrades that my approach would entail would make it more, not less, robust.
I have no idea what your description of the specific "peak demand" conditions of the UK has to do with what I said.
In the past, I have pointed out, in contrast to your ideas about the US having a "national grid", that each geographical area will find its own solutions to particular needs.
So, if your need is heating, use thermal storage heaters-- I'm pretty sure they are off-the-shelf in the UK. Or heat pumps. Or use gas for heating and cooking...it's more efficient than burning gas to generate electricity. If you need streetlights, convert to LED, which will give a significant savings in energy consumption. And for heaven's sake...tablets come battery included!. What, the great humanitarian disaster would be if people had to remember to keep them charged?
You are confusing (as is intended by the terminology) demand for some function with demand for electricity.
And speaking of dishonesty: Nothing I have suggested precludes using nuclear if that's what your particular geographic area decides. Or coal, if you are willing to absorb the cost of externalities.
So, again, what's the problem?
I have critiqued wow on style (ranting) and clarity of language (some of which is the result of the ranting style, I suspect), because I can't understand the points some times.
But I am not interested, as I have said, in arguing definitions and he said she said gotchas.
And most of the time when wow is being clear, I don't see anything I need to contradict, as far as my main theme goes.
" and clarity of language"
Some of that is because I think much faster than I type and I can be several sentences beyond where the characters appearing are, so there can be runon sentences, changes of tense, and other time-based errors in grammar.
If it appears that it would be read by the person it is written to, since this effect usually comes when talking to someone, not expressing to a general audience, if that person has clearly demonstrated that they prefer not to comprehend anyway, I can't be arsed going back over my post to clear it up.
Though on occasion I've used the wrong word or initialism and had to correct that, since it would necessarily cause confusion about the subject, which is accepted as existing (in most cases, but not all), rather than the argument, which will not be by the one in denial.
The dumbass thinks that solar doesn't follow demand (or wind), yet how can Germany be a net importer of power yet a net gain in the monetary balance of trade on power if it were not for the FACT that solar produces most when market spot prices are highest? And why would the market price be highest when demand is only middling, and not when demand is highest?
Other problems with nukes include: have a jellyfish invasion bloom = No electricity. Have a heatwave (meaning lack of cooling water at times of highest demand) = no electricity. Have a drought (meaning water levels too low to provide cooling, as is arranged and elided by the capacity factors the US claim for their power stations) = no electricity.
Solar power may be very slightly reduced if you don't have enough water to wash them clean occasionally, but they don't stop working without water....
Rubbish. Hundreds of millions of more notes (smart meters) multiplies the vulnerability by magnitudes.
The risks of making every aspect of the grid a part of the internet of things are off the scale.
What about the blatant lies? Speak up, or be complicit by silence.
RTFRs at #284 and stop peddling free market snake oil in terms so vague and opaque as to make criticism difficult. Although I have little doubt at this point that this is a feature not a bug.
Pure fantasy island.
* * *
See wow at #316 and #317.
Utter garbage. I'm busy as you can probably tell. Please sort the mess
Happy to help out.
Wow says nuclear capacity factor is 60%.
It is much higher than that.
For the largest USA nuclear facility it was 90.4%.
Nuclear capacity factor is much higher than 60% in the USA and it is much higher than 60% worldwide.
Wow is wrong about his definition of dispatchable also.
Wow also doesn't understand TCR or what linear extrapolation is.
Wow is wrong to name call.
Wow is wrong about a lot of stuff.
But thats ok.
People can be wrong and often are.
BBD is wrong to start using the lie word again.
I am sure Wow believes he is correct - although he is woefully wrong.
That makes him wrong - but not a liar.
Since I have no idea if Wow is being knowingly deceptive, I cannot say he is a liar - so I will just stick with this.
Wow is wrong.
". Hundreds of millions of more notes (home PCs) "
With that change, do you realise how dumb tour claim is? When posting on the internet?
"Wow says nuclear capacity factor is 60%."
Right. It is.
"For the largest USA nuclear facility it was 90.4%."
By deducting the outage in summer because it was planned. It's out in summer because it cannot be kept cool enough.
Not like I've failed to point this out before or anything....
Aye, every single complaint you've made against renewables is complete and utter guff.
"What about the blatant lies?"
Where? Just because you're an idiot who insists that something MUST be a lie because you read something different somewhere and interpreted it yourself, 100% like dick does with the IPCC AR5 report, you are whining about something only YOU think is a lie.
Have raised this with you before, but truly critical to discuss 'fully burdened' benefit streams. The fuel trade-offs (savings) are only a portion, and frequently the lesser portion, of payoffs.
Here, for example, are four EV value streams (http://getenergysmartnow.com/2012/03/26/naming-electric-vehicle-value-s…):
* The Woolsey Effect: Contributing to national security by reducing reliance on oil from places like the Middle East.
* Gas Station Anxiety Relief: reducing number of times having to go to the gas station & (with hybrid extended range) reducing the tension of 'my fuel is down' need to get to the gas station ASAP. (Example over weekend, my teen-age daughter left my Ford C-Max Energi with close to zero gas. Well, was able to plug in & run off to a meeting w/mileage to spare ... w/out that electricity range, would have had to run to gas station and enter meeting with (likely) hands smelling of gasoline).
* The Sound of Silence: For >90% of drivers/passengers, I suspect, the silence is a real benefit.
* Breath of Fresh Air: In driveway, in parking lot, etc, nice nice to have face-level fumes.
Lots of additional value streams -- for example, reduced maintenance (especially on EVs, but also on HEVs (reduced brake liner replacement, for example); ego/status symbol (the vehicle 'as statement' isn't only Corvettes & Hummers); etc ...
"Wow also doesn’t understand TCR or what linear extrapolation is."
I know. You don't.
Your complaint is exactly the same as Dick's complaint against you for not accepting we don't know ECS is about or below 1.6C.
And despite this being pointed out to you, you do not and will not, and CAN NOT make the connection.
For precisely the same reason why dick thinks he's right and he could still be correct to claim ECS is 1.6C or lower. And just like his insistence it only means due to CO2 doubling, and NOT due to "whatever caused the MWP".
Another reason why you're a bloody retard, BBD.
There are also relief for power production (and cost to the consumer, though this necessarily means reduced profits for the companies doing the selling):
Btw, having an EV in a coal-dominated market provides another useful payoff: creating higher value from off-peak power. See discussion here: http://getenergysmartnow.com/2013/10/28/dispelling-electric-vehicle-myt…
Wow #327 says "By deducting the outage in summer because it was planned."
Nope - wrong again.
They did not deduct anything.
If you read the link you will see they divided by 365 days and 24 hours per day, as well as by the nameplate capacity.
If they had deducted the outage in the summer, the denominator wouldn't be 24 hours per day for 365 days per year.
Nope - the plant output was 90.4% of the power it could provide for the entire year of 2010 if you compare the total output to the nameplate capacity for each hour of the entire year.
You are wrong Wow.
You are wrong Wow.
Call some more names - it is so persuasive.
You are quoting me - not BBD.
You are wrong about even your quote attribution.
Wow - you are wrong.
"They did not deduct anything."
No, they do. They don't count arranged outages or planned ones in their availability figures.
UK gets, as does just about every other nuclear powered country, 60%. Some of the smaller countries with less experience gets less (e.g. pakistan gets, IIRC, a smidge over 40%), but the USA gets 90% by disclaiming, unlike all the others, outages that were planned for, or unplanned outages that arise either within the nominal outage period (therefore they can for short periods get MORE THAN 100%), or unplanned extensions of outages, because they account things differently.
Like I said, this may be because they do that or did that with earlier coal powered stations.
If you expect to be offline one third of the time or running half or less capacity for three months, then you can just figure in your expectations into your "nameplate" and then find yourself as close to 100% as your calculation of how much non generation you will achieve will allow.
And also note that even the USA get 40% or thereabouts on new designs. Each plant is a unique one-off, part of the reason for the massive cost. And they have no figures to work with on how to drop the claim of power production to account for "known outages".
To an extent, especially on a count of "how well are you doing compared to your competitors", this calculation makes sense. But only if you compare like with like. And that isn't what you do when you proclaim 90% compared to Solar 40%.
Or when you compare UK nukes at 60% with the USA's claims of 90.
For the same reason you can't compare "murder rates" or assaults reliably without accounting for the different terms for those crimes in different countries.
Yet still it's done. And like with nukes, for political and partisan reasons.
You never cease to amaze me.
You said "They don’t count arranged outages or planned ones in their availability figures."
I think you are totally incorrect.
However, I am willing to be corrected.
I know you are lying about this because (a) it's impossible and (b) you have blanked three separate requests to provide a link backing it up.
Repeated several times, despite clear evidence shown that it is a false claim.
You've been shown umpteen times that wind and solar are not and cannot be load following and the claim that capacity factor represents an efficiency is a total inversion of the truth (a lie).
"I think you are totally incorrect."
I know that is your opinion.
"However, I am willing to be corrected."
Evidence to date has indicated otherwise. Go read up the DUKES report. I keep calling it DAWES for some reason, though.
I gave you a list of some strategies that people use to reduce electricity usage or shift the time of purchase.
This has nothing to do with you continuing to dodge my question.
I am simply proposing that consumers be allowed to achieve their goal-- whether it be maintaining the temperature of their house, or being entertained by electronics, or whatever, by whatever means they choose.
That means that I, as a consumer, can buy electricity from wow's windfarm, and use some of the methods I suggested if I feel it is necessary, to maintain my comfort.
As I said, this does not preclude you from buying electricity from a nuclear plant, perhaps because you value the security and convenience that gives, and don't want to be bothered with changing household technology.
The only change from the present would be as I described-- the grid operates under rules that allow all buyers and sellers of electricity to have equal access.
Last chance: What's the problem?
People with your inclinations will buy from the nuclear plant, people like me will buy from wind and solar.
What's the problem?
" And for nukes it’s 60%.
For solar it’s about 40%.
Oh, and for wind, it can be over 100%. Power goes as wind speed cubed."
"from wow’s windfarm,"
I suggested it be lined with some turbines to the north, but planning permission makes it a new proposal. Adding more panels is currently considered a better proposal.
For example, BBD, see:
I need a cite.
I googled and came up empty.
Give me a cite to this dukes report.
Or quote from it.
I think you are wrong.
And this stops winter demand peaking in UK and N Europe (my original correction to Wow's rubbish, please remember) how exactly?
You didn't say. Probably because (as I pointed out in my admittedly rushed response) none of what you suggest actually does anything except smear an evening peak into a seasonal one. It's still a peak in demand and it lasts for several months, during which solar is pretty much out of the game.
Facts trump rhetoric, as usual.
You never, ever responded to my correct and substantiated point that before we enter the sunlight uplands of a free market energy utopia, we have to evolve the grid. A project that will cost ~$2tn and take decades - and require federal intervention in the US. Something you keep, well, dodging. Perhaps when you concede that point, we can move on.
What's the problem?
One has but to google 'capacity factor' and look, Wow.
Here's some entirely representative figures from a solar power company:
SPV = 10-25%
Wind = 25%
Hydro = 40%
Coal = 70%
Nuclear = 89%
CCGT = 38%
As you can see, everything you said was wrong. Just as I keep telling you.
"I need a cite."
Sure you do. And if it doesn't fit what you want, like every other cite that did that and disagreed with you, you went and denied it or just wen "That's your opinion".
Kinda sucks to be you, really.
"One has but to google ‘capacity factor’ and look, Wow. "
And one only has to look at actual reports and see you are talking, once again, out of your crap hole.
And, like every fact that you do not want to know, and yet again, 100% lke dick there, you completely ignored the post:
For a dumbass who says "you merely have to read" you don't bother fucking well reading, do you. Because you're as much a denier as mick or dick.
And that 10% is capture efficiency.
I.e. turning 1200W/m^2 to electricity.
And that 90% is again deducting "expected loss" so that's still an unexpected and uncontrolled loss of 10% when you cherry pick the current top gun.
For which the owner is going to be rather certain to push forward, even if they had to do a "dieselgate" to provide it.
Wow #331 said "And just like his insistence it only means due to CO2 doubling, and NOT due to “whatever caused the MWP”."
According to the Ljungquist 2000 year temperature reconstruction, the temperature rose about .7C over a 400 year period, from about 550 ad to 950 ad.
Then the temperature fell about .8C over a 700 year period, from about 1000 ad to 1700 ad.
According to the consensus, this was all totally natural - not caused by human CO2 emissions, as the emissions were fairly constant at 280 before 1750.
The magnitude of the .7C rise and the .8C fall, is fairly close to the current temperature rise from 1700 ish to today of about 1.0C, about .2C of which is the 2015-2016 el nino.
I find that all very interesting for those who say that natural variability should cancel out over fairly short periods.
How do we know we are not in a period like 550 ad to 950 ad?
That could explain 7/8 of the 0.8C modern rise (excluding the el nino).
Of course, I understand the current rise happened a little faster.
And I do believe that human emitted CO2 is part of what caused the modern warming over the last 250 years.
But what if 1/2 of the modern warming is natural?
What does that do to calculations for TCR and ECS?
I think science will address this issue in due course and I am happy to wait and see what the answers turn out to be.
Point of order: I need to put a stop to this creeping misrepresentation. I do not advocate for nuclear vs renewables (that's another of Wow's incessantly repeated lies). What I am *trying* to get over here is that for high penetrations of renewables you are going to need a new grid. And no, I don't think we can leave that to the free market. This was - and remains - our original and unresolved argument.
The change from the present necessary to integrate enough renewables to represent a meaningful energy transition will require an major evolution of the grid. So no, not 'the only change' at all. This is where we diverge, massively.
Better luck next time.
You've confused an idealised model with an actual turbine (or array) which rarely operates at close to peak efficiency because of variability and lulls in wind speed. It is the latter which mean that wind farms only ever produce a percentage of their nameplate capacity when output is averaged annually. IIRC offshore wind is about 40%, which is still 60% shy of your claim (and that's ignoring the 'it can be over 100%' which is just nuts; capacity factor can *never* reach 100% let alone exceed it).
Once again, I marvel at how cocksure you can be given the chasms in your knowledge.
"According to the Ljungquist 2000 "
That is your opinion. But you cherry pick to support it. And elide any information otherwise. Just like BBD.
Speaking of which,
"Point of order:"
Nah, you lose it when you do not listen and do not argue with honesty or intelligence but barricade yourself against anything that does not support your preconceived requirements of reality.
You know, what deniers do.
You therefore lose the ability to request a point of order.
SPV = 10-25%
Wind = 25%*
Hydro = 40%
Coal = 70%
Nuclear = 89%
CCGT = 38%
*IIRC offshore wind is about 40%
Not at all. Zebra was confused - possibly by your endless lying - and need to be set straight about where I was coming from.
You do realise that zebra is a free marketeer, don't you?
"You’ve confused an idealised model "
Wrong. Energy of a moving body is mv^2. If the air is moving, it has that energy. And per unit time, the amount of air that passes varies with v.
Therefore the energy extracted will be varyable to the third power of the wind velocity.
Whether it captures 1% of the energy from the wind that passes the blades or 10% or even 100% does not change the velocity dependency being the cube law, any more than the square-cube law is wrong because mass and area are "idealised models".
You claim "all wrong" and one example shows you were incorrect at least in one of those multiple claims, therefore "all" at the very least was wrong.
But, like any good denier, you do not care and refuse to accept any error.
Which is why zebra said "Bye bye", and why you don't get to claim "point of order".
When you are entirely dishonest in reality you do not get a pass on being treated as valid in any of your asinine claims, since you have shown either that you are incapable or unwilling to be convinced of an error even when it's plain as day.
You got REALLY shirty about dick doing it.
But you engage in it yourself without a glimmer of self-reflection and shame.
I already told you at #209. Why am I having to repeat myself?
You cannot have high natural variability and low climate sensitivity at the same time. High natural variability happens because the feedbacks to radiative perturbation of the system net positive and are fairly strong.
So they will amplify small changes in natural forcings, producing a significant degree of natural variability.
Those same feedbacks would *also* amplify radiative forcing from CO2. So it is physically impossible to have a climate system that is both relatively insensitive to CO2 forcing yet exhibits significant natural variability.
Read that as many times as are necessary for you to understand it.
If natural variability accounted for a significant amount of the total modern warming, then the sensitivity to CO2 forcing is probably higher than currently estimated (>3C).
Meditate on this.
"You do realise that zebra is a free marketeer, don’t you?"
Talk about ad hominem...
Moreover this seems to be an unwarranted extension.
And even (and this gets to why ad hom) it were the case, WHY DOES THAT INVALIDATE HIS CLAIMS OR QUESTIONS????
It does not.
Dick is wrong not because he's a denier but because EVIDENCE is against him or his CLAIMS are unsupported or so badly supported that the "support" is to all intents and purposes wrong.
He's wrong for his arguments and claims, NOT because he's got money invested.
His investments may be WHY he keeps bleating on about how we shouldn't do anything, but that is not why his claims in support of that position are wrong.
You've spent so much time arguing AGW deniers, you've become a denier yourself. Their tactics (such as they are) have become so much a part of what you experience they are now "normal" and you ape them without even noticing, since every argument you see is framed against that as the norm.
When dick is right, he's right.
And you don't decide to believe nukes are shit because dick is a denier, do you.
But you DO want me to disbelieve zebra just because his political ideology is "free market"?
Go tell the wind industry that it can't calculate its own capacity factor correctly.
You have no idea how ridiculous you can be at times (or you wouldn't do it).
"But what if 1/2 of the modern warming is natural?"
But what if ECS were 3.4, dick? You'd be wrong.
Will you therefore insist that you must be wrong because the answer to that question to you were "Well, in that case, it's not 1.6 and I'm wrong", would it.
Because you'd insist that the rhetorical question is leading and therefore unsupported.
Yet you claim, without support, that 50% of the warming is natural, in a JAQing off on the internet.
Accept mine instead, or admit that this "technique" is a load of bollocks and should rightly be ignored. AND THEN STOP TRYING IT.
Wow, wind speed variability determines capacity factor. You are hopelessly muddled again.
"Go tell the wind industry"
I don't have to.
Once more you are mistaking a correction of your asinine stupidity for a criticism of those whose job it is to work there.
THEY KNOW that siting can cause MORE THAN 100% of nameplate. And they know too why: because the average of a mean to a higher power is higher than the average to a higher power of the mean.
Fuck, anyone who's done A level maths should know it.
m-bar squared != m-squared-bar.
Go ask a teacher or google up maths on averages to find out for yourself.
Or tell every mathematician that they've got it wrong.
You *agree* with zebra that we can just sit back and let the frigging market fix it for us???
We should be told.
100% nameplate capacity is the plant operating at 100% of its capacity 100% of the time. That is a physical impossibility. You are being completely silly now.
Typical industry figures:
SPV = 10-25%
Wind = 25%
Offshore wind = 40%
Hydro = 40%
Coal = 70%
Nuclear = 89%
CCGT = 38%
We can't use methods that release fossil carbon into the air to move things, heat things, see things. At every single level.
People easily forget in this kind of conversation that it does not matter where the electricity comes from or how it is made, when deciding to change over to an electric vehicle. You change to the electric vehicle. Meanwhile, you change the way you make the electricity to use sun, wind, etc.
We don't wait for one system to some how perfect itself for another system to start being developed. That is known as circular illogic. Using that logic to slow down the energy transition is a circle jerk.
As it were.
Well once again we have reached an impasse.
I don't think high natural variability and low climate sensitivity are ruled out by the evidence (yet).
I will not rule out 1/2 natural and 1/2 human until the evidence rules it out - which has not happened yet.
So we wait and see.
I guess we will all just have to agree to disagree.
See you guys on a different future thread.
"Wow, wind speed variability determines capacity factor."
But you have to assume the speed of the wind to arrive at that, idiot. And site it at a better place than "average" and you get much more power.
With coal, it burns based on the coal's calotrific value, less losses in the system. Therefore capacity is always less than 100%. Entropy.
Wind has NO calorific value, since it is not burned. Therefore if the place is windier than average, a 1.5MW rated turbine may return on average a power rating of 2MW.
Much like a 200W solar panel is rated at 200W in the UK, but if you placed it facing North, it won't get that. And if you place it on a turntable, it will get more. In the case of a solar panel, though, that is the capacity claim, not the actual theoretical power, which would be the (1400/4) that is the total insoation, since not all photons will produce an electron.
And, indeed, one reason why solar heating is more effective than solar PV electric heating. And, happily, is still VERY effective in winter, even in the UK.
One thing we don't do well with, though, is jellyfish swarms. They tend to plug up the water intakes for our nuclear power plants and, as the planet warms and may predator species die off, those jellyfish bloom more and more often in summer in the UK and remove nukes from producing until the inlet is cleared.
Face it, by your standards, nukes just cannot do a damn thing, they're a massive white elephant and only retards and morons would push them as the right solution to ANYTHING.
"I don’t think high natural variability and low climate sensitivity are ruled out by the evidence"
Your think is not supported by reality, however.
Someone thinks you should be beheaded as an infidel. Should we wait to find out who is right?
Wind = 25%
Offshore wind = 40%
That's as good as it gets.
This has become a painful waste of time and will remain so until you go.
Remember, if there's a heaven, and there's people who think there is, then if you deserve to die, you will be meted out the correct punishment, and you should have been beheaded. And if you did NOT deserve to be killed, you will go to heaven and your killer will be the one punished. Again, the right result will happen after we let the event take place.
So should we just let you be beheaded, because either you did deserve it or you didn't and heaven's pleasures await for you?
After all, they're of the opinion you are satan's helper, and you, I assume, though I could easily be wrong here, do not think you are working for satan. So we should do nothing to stop them trying. After all, it's just an opinion, and we should not do anything about it now. Nothing has been proven about your deserved fate.
"Wind = 25%"
And that means it doesn't vary with wind speed cubed????
You're a fucking lunatic, dumdumb.
Whats 25% of 1? Now what's 25% of 8? Now what's 25% of 27? Now what progression were those results? Did they go up LESS THAN by the cube power ratio?
Or are you a complete dumbass, just as ignorant and willingly so as dick or "mike"?
"That’s as good as it gets. "
Ah, so you claim that the experts don't know how to calculate the output of a system. Best go tell them they should be claiming 20% of the profits.
Zebra, of course the assumption could be weak. I didn't bring up IQ. It was a joke about Wow, then Dean accused me of bad stats and I clarified the assumptions needed. He never responded to my question about where the bad stats is, perhaps because it got lost in the thread explosion.
BBD, I get the impression you and zebra are almost entirely in agreement. What is the disagreement as you see it, and what do you think is zebra's view of it?
"I didn’t bring up IQ. It was a joke about Wow, then Dean accused me of bad stats and I clarified the assumptions needed. He never responded to my question about where the bad stats is, perhaps because it got lost in the thread explosion."
The bad work is thinking that IQ scores measure something remotely related to intelligence. The don't.
All you can do when you compare performance on IQ tests across groups is to say that there is a slight tendency for one group to perform differently than another. That may be indicated by the scores (although you need to remember that IQ scores are not raw data, they have been massaged to fit the mythical "normal distribution") -- you can't (or shouldn't, as the only person putting breakers on is yourself) draw conclusions past that.
So the statistical conclusion given the assumptions is valid? You said it was bad stats before I said anything about IQ, though perhaps 'retarded' is defined by IQ.
>bad work is thinking that IQ scores measure something remotely related to intelligence.
If I have a group of people with IQ 50 and a group with IQ 150, do you expect them to perform equally well on intelligence tests?
I thought about your question some more and I think you need to be more explicit with your comments. (Some people write too much, some too little.)
If you have a group of people who score low on IQ tests, it is very likely that they will score low on IQ tests. This is kind of a "duh".
The question which I think you started with is whether you can infer something about an individual based on statistical information.
I suggested that you carefully read the reference you gave...the "edge" debate. They, who are real professionals, start out being very clear about distributions and what they tell us. So, they tell us that there are more males who score in the high end with respect to "three dimensional spatial rotations" for example, but there are females who score equally high. But unfortunately, if I remember it correctly, at least one of them ended up using the more colloquial "males are better at TDSR". For people not in the field, it is easy to misinterpret this.
The question is, if you are hiring someone for a job requiring TDSR, and otherwise equal male and female candidates are sitting on the other side of your desk, should you hire the male candidate, based on that language? The answer is no.
This is why we have people like Dean, so you should listen to his explanations on this point... as I said, this is not my expertise; I know enough, but not enough to explain it with the precisely correct language.
Did you read this?
"All you can do when you compare performance on IQ tests across groups is to say that there is a slight tendency for one group to perform differently than another. "
Probability distributions describe populations - in your question, populations of scores on tests. If group A has mean 50 and group B has mean 150, then either
* the tests are measured on such widely diverse scales that it makes no sense at all to compare the raw score: there is simply no way to say a person who scores 155 on one is in any way "better" than a person who scored 52 on the other: in this case you'd need information on spread, and at the simplest would have to compare their relative positions.
* there is some massive error in measurement in one group, or the other, or both, and nothing at all can be said
(I know you tossed that out as a hypothetical question and nothing more: I'm just pointing out how to think about it).
As zebra points out, and I reference tangentially with my "population" comment: you cannot make any statement about an individual's potential (or lack of potential) based solely on their sex and score on an IQ test.
"If I have a group of people with IQ 50 and a group with IQ 150, do you expect them to perform equally well on intelligence tests?"
Touched on above in a slightly different approach. However, this could also be considered an ill-posed question. There are at least two ways to interpret this:
A: every person in 1 group has had his/her IQ measured, on some test, at 50, and every person in the other group has been measured at 150. Again, given the huge difference, either the two tests were designed to different scales or there is something else going on. Without more information, there is no way to tell how they would perform on a common test
B: Every person in one group comes from a population with mean 50, every person in the other comes from a population with mean 150. Here we still have the issue of not enough information - the same issues as above. There is no way to tell how members of the groups would do - even if you interpret "tell" in the sense of a probability - without much more information.
But even if we have that information: the mere fact that person X scores a few points lower on an IQ test than person Y does on that same test -- we have 0 information about what that might mean for their capabilities.
Zebra, I agree my statements are unclear. It is deliberate. The point I was making was not about a specific character trait, but the conclusion that different variances will overwhelm the high and low ends, even with different means. For which character trait it applies is irrelevant.
>If you have a group of people who score low on IQ tests, it is very likely that they will score low on IQ tests. This is kind of a “duh”.
Of course. Dean said IQ scores don't measure anything remotely related to intelligence. I don't agree with this, but I could be wrong.
Assuming we have a good definition of 'intelligence' and a test that can measure this, then it seems like we should expect Dean to answer yes to the question of whether a group of IQ 50 or IQ 150 would do equally well on this. Even if a good test does not exist, just a hypothetical test that does a good job of measuring intelligence, he should expect the two groups to do equally well. I do not, but I could be wrong about this. I suspect instead he means a weaker statement than 'thinking IQ scores measure something remotely related to intelligence. They don’t. '
Dean, I'm confused about why you think a group scoring 50 vs 150 is a problem. Suppose it is a single test taken by 1000000 people, with people scoring 48-52 and 148-152 each being a group of 300 people.
You've supplied a little more context, although I doubt its reality. The limits you're discussing now are most likely about 3 standard deviations above and below the mean (100 to 148, 100 to 52) as its safe to assume scores are scaled to have a sigma of around 16.
But now you aren't trying to predict future performance: if these two groups of 300 each have already scored as you described, asking about the chance one group will score higher than the other is not relevant. Will one group outperform the other? Almost certainly. By the same difference? Maybe, maybe not. What we can say if that you have two groups like that, who are separated in performance by essentially a six sigma difference, repeated measurements will consistently show differences. What is that a reflection of? Difficult to say: simple intellectual variability or a serious issue with one group.
Do IQ tests measure something that translates directly to what people consider "intelligence"? No.
See #346 (final para) and #353. (Also @ wow # 367). There was a previous thread but I can't find it at the moment.
If you are being deliberately evasive and equivocal, then it is a waste of time to answer you.
If the rest of the paragraph is serious, then no, there's no such thing as the variance "overwhelming" the high and low ends, if you have a "normal" normal distribution. You could have a bi-modal distribution, for example, but that is not what you seem to be talking about.
This is why you have to be clear in stating the question.
With respect to IQ and other such tests: They only measure performance on the test, as Dean says. This is a much-discussed topic. Again, I suggest you carefully read that reference you gave. If you haven't done even that, you can't really make a useful argument.
"But now you aren’t trying to predict future performance"
Even dafter they're begging the question. "If one person scores 50 and the other 300...?". But that's a "24" like godview. You know because you've set it up that way what the reality is, but it IS NOT reality, it's the hypothesis you set up specifically.
Moreover the entire thread of his "defence" is merely a sidestep of the arrant stupidity and bigotry of his claims he was making "supported by stats".
It's kinda irrelevant that he doesn't get the stats or IQ, it;s the claims he's made and then decided to "support" by stats and IQ, even if he's made up the connection or segued off into.
BBD, I can prove to you your claims of 90% efficiencies for nukes is flat out wrong.
They use the nuclear reaction to generate heat to generate steam, correct? And then that steam turns turbines that then generate electricity from the steam pressure, right?
But that steam to electricity conversion is limited by the efficiency of the carnot cycle.
What temperature must the steam be at to get 90%?
Do you know how much energy is emitted by a fuel rod, how long it lasts and therefore how much total calorific energy is in the fuel for a nuke station? Is that the same as it's "nameplate" for which you calculate that "capacity factor" to be 90%? If you do not know how much energy is released per ton of nuclear fuel and how long a ton of it lasts to get at the total energy possible to compare to the output rating, you better go find out.
>If you are being deliberately evasive and equivocal, then it is a waste of time to answer you.
To a certain extent yes. I wasn't arguing about intelligence, though that is the implication. I was joking about Wow's, "How do you know I'm male?" "Because you are way below average, and statistics show women are more likely to be average." It's a basic conclusion that if you have two bell curves and one has higher variance, then it will dominate the high and low ends.
If I wanted to argue about intelligence, then I would go into the details. I'm happy with your replies since I discovered the edge videos that I will explore later.
Wow, you don't understand what 'capacity factor' is.
And after yesterday's utter farce with you confusing figures I quoted for capacity factor with windspeed (reading comprehension, again), I'm no longer prepared to discuss this with you.
Dean, are you saying that the IQ test itself does not measure IQ very well, and retests will show substantially different numbers? I'm confused why you think the premise is flawed, of having a group scoring 50 and 150(which I though was 4 sigma away from mean, but in either case would be equal for both). If the range is too high, we can use 70 and 130, or 60 and 140.
>I’m no longer prepared to discuss this with you.
Now you realize it?
"Wow, you don’t understand what ‘capacity factor’ is. "
No dumdumb, you don't.
And the FACT you haven't even attempted to say that you do know how much energy potential there is in solar or how nuclear can run the exact same design of steam turbine half as efficiently again as coal, gas or oil can, is yet more indication that you are in deep deep DEEP denial of your lack of comprehension.
"I’m no longer prepared to discuss this with you."
IOW you cannot answer because you don't want to know if you're wrong.
Which is why you remain completely clueless yet so very DK certain you alone have it right.
What wind velocity is a 1.5MW wind turbine rated at to produce 1.5MW?
Question about nameplate capacity that Wow brings up. Isn't the capacity specific to that plant, declared at construction time? So it is possible to achieve higher than that, at least some of the time, right? Wow is theorizing higher wind conditions than predicted, causing production to exceed so much that you can go over 100%. Why is this impossible? Ignore the siting he describes, since nameplate capacity should account for that, but that for some reason after construction, the windiness increases. Maybe some upwind construction produces a wind tunnel like Yankee Stadium.
The desing of nukes also do not include losses either, yet for solar and wind, "capacity" as dumdumb's sources want it, do not exclude losses for solar from accounting.
How often is a solar power plant not producing?
And that is the figure nuke power stations claim. How often are they not producing? And reducing from that expected outages means you can't include night time for solar.
The figures are not comparing the same assumptions.
One has to try.
At the simples level, it works like this:
Capacity factor (CF) is limited by the maximum output that a turbine is capable of while operating within manufacturer's specifications and warranty (aka nameplate capacity). This is a hard limit, and this is why CF cannot exceed 100%.
It doesn't matter how many turbines you have in an array, this always holds true.
Capacity factor is the average power generated over any given operational period, divided by the nameplate capacity of the turbine (or array).
It isn't but IRL you go from say 25% CF to 27% CF for a given year. But as I hope you can see, it is never, ever going to be possible to get even close to 100% and it would be technically impossible to exceed 100% CF.
The example I kept quoting to Wow was onshore wind vs *offshore* wind (a more optimal siting):
25% vs 40% for offshore.
Shite. Should be:
And what wind speed is a wind turbine rated at 1.5MW rated 1.5MW at?
What is the availability factor for nuclear? How about Wind? What about SolarPV?
What is the load utilisation factor for nuclear, solarPV or wind?
(and still waiting on that call on the calorific value and rate of fuel burn in a nuke station!)
"you go from say 25% CF to 27% CF"
Or you have 60% by siting wind in a better place.
It depends on the turbine but all that matters is that whatever it is, the turbine cannot operate above its rated specs.
So in scenario where wind speed was constantly at or above the rated capacity of the turbine for a day, CF would be 100% but could never exceed 100% for that day.
But IRL, wind is highly variable and there will be many days when wind speed is much lower, and the turbine output will be well below 100% nameplate.
So over a month or a year or whatever, CF will always average below 100%. IRL, well-sited wind arrays on land in the UK average a CF of about 25% and offshore, 40% as it is windier.
What is declared net capacity? And how do they appear for all the sorts of power generation?
Meanwhile, what is the LCOE?
And, to come back again to the original problem you have with reality,BBD, in what way have you shown that wind turbine power does not go up as the cube of wind speed?
You can answer those questions with a bit of research.
What matters to me is that you realise that I am not lying. Just trying - honestly - to explain the facts.
That's not in dispute! Never was.
The interaction between wind speed and the turbine is always limited by the turbine's maximum operating capability - aka 'nameplate'.
With that in mind, try #401 and #407 again - they might make better sense now.
Complain too to this professor, Derek Abbot.
Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia. I know how you like to accept the blank word of a professor.
Derek Abbott is attacking a truly massive strawman. He posits nuclear producing *all* the global energy supply, not just electricity, total primary energy - 'at least 15TW'.
Nobody proposes this. Something like 20% global *electricity* generation by nuclear by mid-century is considered optimistic.
"You can answer those questions with a bit of research. "
And you haven't.
Kinda indicative, innit.
And yes you are lying dumbass. Still not deigning to look at wind power going up as velocity cubed.... part of what you proclaimed "all wrong".
Moreover your protestations sound more and more like dick's posts.
"Derek Abbott is attacking a truly massive strawman."
Because even if you divide his numbers by 15 AS HE HIMSELF POINTS OUT, it's still impossible to manage 6.5% coverage. Not mechanically possible.
Meanwhile it's rather rich in a "dickA" way to whine and cry off about "massive strawman" with YOUR asinine rhetoric and complaints.
If renewables are such a shambles as you proclaim them, dumbass, then nuclear too is EVEN MOORE a complete trainwreck. For those same reasons, and you should be exhorting nuclear to be cut back.
Moreover, what the fuck is this strawman? France tried 75%. It doesn't work only at 100%, dumbass little shithead.
"That’s not in dispute! Never was."
Oh yes it was you lying little shit.
Go back to your post at 339, you little turdbrain.
er, Greg, can you deliver a sanity check to this thread?
BBD, if it is technically impossible to exceed 100% CF, even for a few minutes, then doesn't this mean the nameplate is being set too high, for a variable item like wind?
Hank: Amazing, isn't it? I get busy with doing the laundry and stuff, come back, and this flood of conversation!
>UK average a CF of about 25% and offshore, 40% as it is windier.
By windier, do you mean the wind is more frequent, or when there is wind the wind is stronger?
I think I see the answer to #420.
So if it were windy 100% of the time at a wind farm, it is likely that it would still be well below 100% nameplate, right?
Abbot's first two points are weak.
20.5 square km per plant, so 15,000 locations is impossible. Has he considered multiple plants per location?
Then he says lifetime of the plant, so with 15,000 plants you have to build one per day, while it takes 6-12 years to build and 20 years to decommission. Again, has he considered that this is operating over many locations around the world?
I'm confused by this:
At the current rate of uranium consumption, the world supply will last 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, supply will last for less than 5 years.
He suggests a 40 fold increase in energy and plants, but the supply only shrinks by a factor of 16? Where did the 2.5x difference come from? Current nuclear production is 2.5% of his target, but that doesn't explain it.
Again you ignore the point. what wind speed is a 1.5Mw wind turbine rated at?
Why do you claim steam turbines work at 100% efficiency when generating from nuke power but nor coal?
What is load utilisaton. What is availaviliry factor.
What is proving in all your bollocks thhat wind tubine output does not vary with wind speed cubed?
And as to more lies from the nuke f;uffers, where do I claim 40 fold increase in energy and plants?
"20.5 square km per plant, so 15,000 locations is impossible. Has he considered multiple plants per location?"
Ah so one tailing the size of the spoil required to service uranium mining operations can contain the tailings of, what, 10 mining operations?
Do you see the dumbassery here?
Water supplied multiple times? How does the cooling work when you then run the water straight into another one?
Got any more dumbass claims?
"Again, has he considered that this is operating over many locations around the world?"
Yes, it's part of the impossible bit.
and how do you get multiple at the same location and all around the world at the same time? Small world...
"BBD, if it is technically impossible to exceed 100% CF, even for a few minutes, then doesn’t this mean the nameplate is being set too high, for a variable item like wind?"
And for hydro power it's set to sized for peak design, not sustained maintainable flow.
If the distribution on the test deviates from the standard normal distribution by so much that it allows you to discriminate between men and women subjects, then the test is biased and invalid for one or the other gender. By definition.