energy

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

gregladen — Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:47:08 +0000

Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races

Sorry for the inconvenience, this post has been moved HERE.

gregladen Wed, 10/04/2017 - 04:47

Tags

energy

Green Energy

Carbon Price

Clean Energy

Minnesota

States Can Lead the Way on Climate Change

gregladen — Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:03:50 +0000

States Can Lead the Way on Climate Change

True that. In the US, energy policy and regulation happens much more at the state level than the federal level, and our federal government went belly up last January anyway. Some states will not lead, they will go backwards, but others will lead, and show the way.

So, here I want to highlight this new item in Scientific American by Rebecca Otto.

States Can Lead the Way on Climate Change
The Trump administration's threats to abandon Obama's Clean Power Plan and exit the Paris accords don't necessarily mean all is lost

The word “corporation” does not appear in our Constitution or Bill of Rights. But as Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse notes in his book Captured, corporations had already grown so powerful by 1816 that Thomas Jefferson urged Americans to “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Today the conflict between the unfettered greed of unregulated capitalism and the right of the people to regulate industry with self-governance has reached extreme proportions. Corporations now have more power than many nations and feel justified in manipulating democracy to improve their bottom lines instead of the common good.
Nowhere is this problem more pronounced than...

Then where? THEN WHERE??? Go read the original piece!

gregladen Wed, 09/27/2017 - 09:03

Tags

Indeed, and we the States MUST tale up the ball and run with it. My state, CA, is doing quite a bit as you know, but we could be doing more. The power of those who wish to frack out every last drop of oil is strong here in CA, and the tax revenues and campaign donations from that industry are not lost on Sac politicians.

Those darn corporations.

If only state law hadn't created them and gave them the right to own personal property.

Why if it wasn't for ExxonMobile, and their climate denial advertising, nobody would even buy gasoline for their car!

Top fossil fuel producers caused half of global warming, third of sea level rise

gregladen — Thu, 07 Sep 2017 07:02:47 +0000

Top fossil fuel producers caused half of global warming, third of sea level rise

I'll just put this item from UCS here for your interest:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Study Finds Top Fossil Fuel Producers’ Emissions Responsible for as Much as Half of Global Surface Temperature Increase, Roughly 30 Percent of Global Sea Level Rise

Findings Provide New Data to Hold Companies Responsible for Climate Change

WASHINGTON (September 7, 2017)—A first-of-its-kind study published today in the scientific journal Climatic Change links global climate changes to the product-related emissions of specific fossil fuel producers, including ExxonMobil and Chevron. Focusing on the largest gas, oil and coal producers and cement manufacturers, the study calculated the amount of sea level rise and global temperature increase resulting from the carbon dioxide and methane emissions from their products as well as their extraction and production processes.

The study quantified climate change impacts of each company’s carbon and methane emissions during two time periods: 1880 to 2010 and 1980 to 2010. By 1980, investor-owned fossil fuel companies were aware of the threat posed by their products and could have taken steps to reduce their risks and share them with their shareholders and the general public.

“We’ve known for a long time that fossil fuels are the largest contributor to climate change,” said Brenda Ekwurzel, lead author and director of climate science at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). “What’s new here is that we’ve verified just how much specific companies’ products have caused the Earth to warm and the seas to rise.”

The study builds on a landmark 2014 study by Richard Heede of the Climate Accountability Institute, one of the co-authors of the study published today. Heede’s study, which also was published in Climatic Change, determined the amount of carbon dioxide and methane emissions that resulted from the burning of products sold by the 90 largest investor- and state-owned fossil fuel companies and cement manufacturers.

Ekwurzel and her co-authors inputted Heede’s 2014 data into a simple, well-established climate model that captures how the concentration of carbon emissions increases in the atmosphere, trapping heat and driving up global surface temperature and sea level. The model allowed Ekwurzel et al. to ascertain what happens when natural and human contributions to climate change, including those linked to the companies’ products, are included or excluded.

The study found that:

Emissions traced to the 90 largest carbon producers contributed approximately 57 percent of the observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, nearly 50 percent of the rise in global average temperature, and around 30 percent of global sea level rise since 1880.

Emissions linked to 50 investor-owned carbon producers, including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Peabody, Shell and Total, were responsible for roughly 16 percent of the global average temperature increase from 1880 to 2010, and around 11 percent of the global sea level rise during the same time frame.

Emissions tied to the same 50 companies from 1980 to 2010, a time when fossil fuel companies were aware their products were causing global warming, contributed approximately 10 percent of the global average temperature increase and about 4 percent sea level rise since 1880.

Emissions traced to 31 majority state-owned companies, including Coal India, Gazprom, Kuwait Petroleum, Pemex, Petroleos de Venezuela, National Iranian Oil Company and Saudi Aramco, were responsible for about 15 percent of the global temperature increase and approximately 7 percent of the sea level rise between 1880 and 2010.

“Until a decade or two ago, no corporation could be held accountable for the consequences of their products’ emissions because we simply didn’t know enough about what their impacts were,” said Myles Allen, a study co-author and professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford in England. “This study provides a framework for linking fossil fuel companies’ product-related emissions to a range of impacts, including increases in ocean acidification and deaths caused by heat waves, wildfires and other extreme weather-related events. We hope that the results of this study will inform policy and civil society debates over how best to hold major carbon producers accountable for their contributions to the problem.”

The question of who is responsible for climate change and who should pay for its related costs has taken on growing urgency as climate impacts worsen and become costlier. In New York City alone, officials estimate that it will cost more than $19 billion to adapt to climate change. Globally, adaptation cost projections are equally astronomical. The U.N. Environment Programme estimates that developing countries will need $140 billion to $300 billion annually by 2030 and $280 billion to $500 billion annually by 2050 to adapt.

The debate over responsibility for climate mitigation and adaptation has long focused on the “common but differentiated responsibilities” of nations, a framework used for the Paris climate negotiations. Attention has increasingly turned to non-state actors, particularly the major fossil fuel producers.

“At the start of the Industrial Revolution, very few people understood that carbon dioxide emissions progressively undermine the stability of the climate as they accumulate in the atmosphere, so there was nothing blameworthy about selling fossil fuels to those who wanted to buy them,” said Henry Shue, professor of politics and international relations at the University of Oxford and author of a commentary on the ethical implications of the Ekwurzel et al. paper that was published simultaneously in Climatic Change. “But circumstances have changed radically in light of evidence that a number of investor-owned companies have long understood the harm of their products, yet carried out a decades-long campaign to sow doubts about those harms in order to ensure fossil fuels would remain central to global energy production. Companies knowingly violated the most basic moral principle of ‘do no harm,’ and now they must remedy the harm they caused by paying damages and their proportion of adaptation costs.”

Had ExxonMobil, for example, acted on its own scientists’ research about the risks of its products, climate change likely would be far more manageable today.

“Fossil fuel companies could have taken any number of steps, such as investing in clean energy or carbon capture and storage, but many chose instead to spend millions of dollars to try to deceive the public about climate science to block sensible limits on carbon emissions,” said Peter Frumhoff, a study co-author and director of science and policy at UCS. “Taxpayers, especially those living in vulnerable coastal communities, should not have to bear the high costs of these companies’ irresponsible decisions by themselves.”

Ekwurzel et al.’s study may inform approaches for juries and judges to calculate damages in such lawsuits as ones filed by two California counties and the city of Imperial Beach in July against 37 oil, gas and coal companies, claiming they should pay for damages from sea level rise. Likewise, the study should bolster investor campaigns to force fossil fuel companies to disclose their legal vulnerabilities and the risks that climate change poses to their finances and material assets.

gregladen Thu, 09/07/2017 - 03:02

Tags

How to clean coal

gregladen — Thu, 24 Aug 2017 18:35:27 +0000

How to clean coal

It suddenly became apparent, just a couple of days ago when President Trump was ranting and raving at a political rally, that the man does not know what clean coal is.

This is a concern because his entire energy policy stems from the assumption that we can mine lots of coal in West Virginia and use that for energy, that this is OK because it will be clean coal.

The term clean coal has been used in three ways, but really, is correctly used in only one way (number 2 of the three below), and when used that way, it is still bogus.

1) The term clean coal, or phrases very close to it, have been used by the energy industry to refer to their cleaning up of coal plants to have them put fewer nasty particulates and chemicals into the air. Clean plants produce clean effluence while burning coal. This is nice and all, but it has nothing to do with the fundamental problem that burning coal is a major contribution to global warming, because when you burn coal you take Carbon that is attached mainly to other Carbon atoms in solid form, and combine it with Oxygen, to make heat and CO2. The CO2 is the greenhouse gas.

2) The term clean coal refers to burning coal and somehow making the CO2 not go into the atmosphere. A method that makes the Carbon not become CO2 is essentially impossible because it is the oxidation of the Carbon that is the energy production process. You can not turn coal into heat energy without making CO2. It. Is. Not. Possible. But, some say it is possible to make the CO2 go away or not be a problem in some other way. If we were talking about a small amount of CO2, that might be possible. We could store it underground or something (never mind that this takes energy too). But for burning a lot of coal, for keeping coal as a major part of our energy policy, we simply can't do that. You cant store away a gazillaton of a gas every year and expect it to stay stored.

3) This is the newest definition. This is Trump's definition. You dig the coal up, then you wash it so it is clean. Then you burn it and everything is fine.

Nope.

By the way, the photo above is of the harvesting of sea coal in Hartepool. That, apparently, was a thing.

gregladen Thu, 08/24/2017 - 14:35

Tags

energy

Green Energy

President Donald Trump

clean coal

Nope

Trump Coal

For those who are wondering WTF is our host talking about - read President Trump Made a Confusing Reference to 'Clean Coal.' Here's What He Probably Meant

I would love to read the article but there is a Camery ad that will not let the page scroll. It seems that more and more sites have so much crap on them that they can't even be navigated properly. If you visit a porn site you pretty much expect to have to wear a virtual condom to keep control of your computer. But here? You - like the coal companies - are responsible for the world that your choices create.

Sorry, feeling grumpy tonight. Truth is this place is much better than many. But then that's why I'm grumpy.

Thank you, Kevin ONeill. That helped considerably.

We had Reagan, the "Great Communicator" (of a lot of lies and bullshit), now we have Trump, the "Great Obfuscator" (through accident or design). Is he really as ignorant as he seems of so many important things which are part of his job?

He's shown lately that he has remembered how to say "you're fired" from his tv years but that's a tool of limited usefulness for the problems facing him and the U.S..

Scores are just resigning first. He's lost, what, four? five? of the advisory councils now because they've all just sodded off because the orange turd is not listening to anyone.

Smaller government is what the Republicans wanted. They just wanted to get the tax cuts and pork barrel sorted out first.

Re #5: "Scores are just resigning first."

Oh yes, resignations galore. Maybe that's a sign that some Trumpcateers do have limits in what or how much they can stomach.

"Smaller government is what the Republicans wanted."

That's what they say they want/wanted but in actual fact government has gotten bigger during Republican administrations since Reagan.

Republicans also say they want to decrease the national debt but it has risen through all the Republican administrations beginning with Reagan. You can credit that to the supply-side economics idea that Bush the 1st correctly labeled as "voodoo economics" during his battle for the GOP presidential nomination. During his post-Reagan administration he was later condemned for raising taxes to avoid the crash to which the Reaganomics voodoo led.

It seems to me that the original definition of clean coal was either low sulfur coal from certain sources or coal that had been treated before burning to reduce the sulfur content. Low sulfur content coal releases less particulate and less SO2, which were the main concerns with coal before we started looking at CO2 and climate change.

I'm not a big fan of the carbon capture and sequestration plans. It seems to me like it's just pushing the problem further into the future and setting us up for a big fail at some point.

Tyvor Winn:

"You can credit that to the supply-side economics idea that Bush the 1st correctly labeled as “voodoo economics” during his battle for the GOP presidential nomination"

Looks like we might be in for a second dose because Laffer, believe it or not, has risen from the politically dead and the Trumpsters appear to pay attention to what he says.

So, another round of tax cuts for the wealthy with fingers crossed that trickle-down will work this time.

Tesla Model 3 is Breakthrough Technology

gregladen — Mon, 03 Jul 2017 13:13:22 +0000

Tesla Model 3 is Breakthrough Technology

The Tesla Model 3 will have a 215 mile range. Zero to sixty in 6 seconds, in case you ever have to do that. Seats five adults. Five star safety rating. Uses supercharging (so, if supercharged, charges in something like the time it takes to fill up a gas car IF you also use the bathroom, pick up a candy bar, there's a few people in line ...).

It cost the same as a lot of cars a lot of people buy: $35,000.

It is 100% electric.

You can't have one yet, but if you really one one and work on it you might be able to get one by the end of the year. The first ones out will be distributed to their new owners Friday.

gregladen Mon, 07/03/2017 - 09:13

Tags

energy

The question I have about these cars is whether they last. The jury is out. Consumer Reports gives them a low rating insofar as needing repairs.
If they need a lot of repairs, and if they have to be junked after 100k miles, they would not benefit owners more than conventional gas cars. The expense of having to replace them would negate any environmental benefit. That expense is a shorthand way of saying that the replacement involves further waste of materials and energy, with extra greenhouse gas emissions.

Uh, they have fewer working parts and are built from the same manufacturing process.

In what way would the default be that they don't last longer?

"If they need a lot of repairs"

They don't. Fewer moving parts, remember. Not forgetting that there isn't a very fast moving bit that has to deal with thermal shock of an explosion inside and a hot gas rushing around in it.

"and if they have to be junked after 100k miles,"

They don't.

No more than cars do. And in a car the battery is the most recyclable bit and guess what a lot of the mass of an electric car is? That's right batteries.

"The expense of having to replace them "

Is the expense of having to replace them. Guess what: if you're buying a car in the Tesla S or 3 range, you're going to have an expense replacing them with the same level car.

"That expense is a shorthand way of saying that the replacement involves further waste of materials and energy,"

No, the expense isn't in any way connected to the further waste of materials and energy. Throw away an aluminum can and that's a shit-ton of energy thrown away for pennies. Throw away a plastic bottle and that's a dangerous waste for thrown away for pennies. Throwing away the original Mona Lisa is a massive expense to replace, but very little waste is generated.

#1 t marvell,

The maintenance costs and working life of an electric drivetrain makes it about 3 times as valuable as an ICE system. (My ballpark estimate.)

Given the same build quality, (if the body doesn't rust away around it), it will last much longer with very low "repair" costs.

For example: There is no transmission. Transmissions are a major cost in older cars. Lots of other stuff like that.

I have pointed out in the past that a major beneficiary of electric vehicles will be poor people, who will be able to get reliable transportation with much less possibility of being ripped off. The batteries would be the only issue, and they are consistently coming down in price and improving in lifetime.

And if each wheel is driven by a separate engine, guess what you don't need? The differential. Anyone want to guess at how to design the differential of a car? Anyone? No?

Add in that torque can be made independent of revs so you don't need a fast car for your "Oh, but if I'm near an accident, I need to be able to accelerate away out of trouble much quicker" excuse why you can't have a speed limiter. The peak speed of an EV could be 60 and incapable of going (much) faster, but accelerate up to that extremely fast.

Wow,

A while ago I looked into the individual wheelmotor idea. It is an ideal design conceptually, but probably isn't going to be adopted any time soon, for various reasons.

I believe most manufacturers are going with two motors, front and rear, for now.

And no offense, but I would only accept a top speed of 85, not 60, here in the USA. Others would not like even that, because "freedom", of course, and because they don't understand about torque.

It's fairly common, zebra. Many older designs used the differential because they repurposed the same ICE design that had them.

Hybrids are also more likely to be repurposed ICEs with the differential.

But it's easy to make a smaller engine (cheaper) that if it fails manufacture test is just replaced, and it cuts a lot of the constraints on side torsion of the frame by needing a huge long T-shape driveshaft. And if you want battery replacement you can't have a long driveshaft. The battery has to come out underneath.

Nice cars. Here in Michigan our wonderful governor and hair minions passed an "anti Tesla" law that makes it illegal for them to sell cars directly to customers.

Uh, why 85? That's 25% higher speed therefore 50% greater power drain. And your limits there is 55. Indeed in the EU many lorries have limiters to 72mph.

Know why they overtake each other at +2mph over two miles of motorway? So that each gets the chance to make the most of drafting reducing the fuel used.

So why do you want 85 in a country with 55mph limits?

Wow,

It's fairly common?? I've never heard of a passenger vehicle with 4 electric motors.

Oh, and isn/t it only 4wd evs that use front and rear? Two motors on the front, because FWD is the common design is the obvious choice for common car EVs.

http://www.electric-vehiclenews.com/2017/06/hondas-all-electric-nsx-4-m…

Though I've known about two from Top Gear (of all places) that used 4 wheel drive for their cars. These were performance cars. Then again 0-62mph in 6 seconds is a performance car.

Tesla was also denied a dealership license in late 2016.

From The Detroit News, Sept. 16, 2016

State officials have officially denied Tesla Motors Inc. a dealership license to sell its all-electric vehicles in Michigan.
The license was denied because the company’s business model of selling its vehicles directly to consumers is illegal under Michigan law, according to a final decision and order released Thursday by state officials. The state requires a dealer to have a contract with an auto manufacturer — not act as both."
>>>>I

Yes, this civilization-damaging closing of the ranks started the moment Tesla started to sell cars years ago. The reason Tesla's model is illegal is because they saw it coming, saw the price of cars for everyone dropping by cutting out the con artists in the middle, and made it illegal.

Wow,

The typical highway speed limit in USA is 65mph. Higher in a few places I believe.

55 was in place for a few years a while ago, but mostly ignored.

I have driven at 72mph on well-built and maintained highways for decades, because that is the "safe" speed in terms of getting a speeding ticket. I am constantly being passed, often by someone talking on a cellphone.

But you do need to be able to hit at least 85 to get out of the way of trouble in that speed range.

Wow,

Glad to hear they are trying out the wheelmotor design, but getting from there to a production vehicle is going to take some time, as I said. (The reference has a good discussion if anyone is interested in learning more.)

Front and rear motors each driving two wheels is actually a good compromise at this point, again for various reasons.

Two-motor front wheel drive only has a fatal flaw, I think, which is that if one system fails, you lose control. It's not like an airplane where you can maintain stable flight on one engine.

They're not trying it out, zebra. It has been used for years.

There's already production vehicles using it. That link was the first one and it says that there's a new product out soon ***based on two previous designs that already are out there and being driven***.

Actually, no real need for RWD and FWD as two separate motors. About all having one motor between the two driven wheels has for it is you can put gearing in rather than use a differential (again, go look at how they're designed and what they're supposed to do, it's crazy that anyone thought it would be doable when you look into the idea and not the solutions found), having both forward and rear driven wheels is kinda pointless for the same reason as 4WD ICEs are. You don't need the extra grip, the extra weight is not worth it (though EV AWD will not have as big a weight penalty unless the total engine weight is higher) and that's just more expense.

Why do they do it? Maybe marketing. Higher range vehicles want more bling and ticking the AWD box is a bling point. And expense in the higher market is another bling point.

"Two-motor front wheel drive only has a fatal flaw, I think, which is that if one system fails, you lose control. "

I think they can already see that. Don't you? It's not like a Harrier where in hover you lose one engine and no longer hover.

Lose one wheel and you can't power from that wheel. Then again if you lose one axle you can't power that axle. So moot, really.

And if you have two wheels linked to independent motors, lose the link or seize up and you're again at the "lost one wheel" option,

From my recollection, such motors fail in the "regenerative braking" form of failing, neither freewheeling nor max power out LoC. Which is safer than losing the differential.

There is another reason to avoid AWD. Brakes can be added to the rear for slow speed stopping. You have to have brakes anyway, and the brakes have to be strong enough to overcome the engine power (or the engine has to decouple only in a failure mode for electric engines, this is possible), so regenerative braking cannot be used for safety regulations. Add in that braking this way doesn't actually stop you because power drain depends on rotation, and you're nearly stopped when you're nearly but not quite still, so you can't stop. Only slow down.

So you need actual brakes. And if they're not attached to the same wheel as driving, you can avoid problems of the engine running and the brakes braking on the same wheel causing some local issues. And strengthen the wheel specifically to allow braking on the axle.

"The typical highway speed limit in USA is 65mph. Higher in a few places I believe."

So is it only non-highway speed limit of 55?

Here's the thing about speed. Two things, really.

One, the UK has a limit of 70mph. But if I drive at the rate of the traffic, therefore (with the expected under-reporting from the speedo) being right on 70mph, I get 220 miles or so, including off motorway and roundabouts and piss breaks in about 3h 20min. Driving at 60-65mph it takes me a little over 3:35. I could waste that time taking another piss break. And the range on a full tank goes from less than 600miles to over 700.

Secondly when there was a petrol tank driver strike petrol was rationed and hard to get, so people drove slower. They found to their surprise that they got in at the same time as always but it was much less expensive and a little less stressful. EVERYONE noticed that (who drove to work, I cycled the 6 miles). But when the strike was off, everyone else saw everyone else passing them and sped up to not lose position and the price of the commute rose back up again, leaving them getting in no earlier anyway.

If you're NEARLY at your destination, I can see you wanting to speed up a bit to get out and finish the drive when you've been driving several hours. Though that's the least safe time to do so. But apart from that, no reason to go faster.

"Freedom" doesn't cut it, because there are other people on or near that road.

Despite being about 1.5 miles from the motorway, with the window open, even at 3am, the motorway traffic is loud enough to keep me from sleeping. I'm up on a hill so there's not much in the way of my window and the motorway for 2 miles or so.

Freedom to sleep in comfort? Not for those wanting freedom to drive at 70mph...

The Volvo AWD EV uses an electric motor and automatic ICE.The electric motor drives the rear wheels (IIRC) and the engine drives the front. The "first gear" uses the EV motor the "second gear" only uses the ICE if it's still accelerating at the changeover. This means stop-and-go traffic is EV and regenerative, as is parking and starting off in the snow. As well as hill starts. The engine is set to add ICE for higher levels of speed and the EV then only regenerates the battery as its part to help brake the car in normal traffic.

Not to cast nasturtiums, but I'd come up with something very similar for a hybrid design myself a few months earlier. But I was just idly speculating. I can't help but think engineers need longer than a year to come up with a design, so even if they'd heard it from someone who heard it from someone who.... all the way back to me, I sincerely doubt I had a novel idea they used. It's just kinda obvious if you think about the pros and cons of current engine tech.

At $35,000 purchase you will not get the federal tax credit. It will expire as Tesla is delivering to people who bought packages.
They might game it to extend the credit by a year, delivering 199,999 cars, so the people who put in deposits might be able to get it for $35,000 purchase, but new buyers no way. Beyond base and you are more like $50,000 price. The next model after the Y is supposed to be the revolutionary one, with 20k price or less(base).

Wow,

I could try to give you some lessons on what you are talking about in #15, but I suspect you could figure it out for yourself if you did a little organized research.

Most of it is incorrect, if I understand what you are saying correctly.

AWD is a big seller in my part of the USA because...snow. And I can tell you from experience that it makes a big difference.

Of course you can stop the wheel completely with an electric motor-- think about it.

No idea what you are talking about with mechanical brakes working against motors, unless you are one of those two-foot drivers?

#13 and #22,

And some people here get on my case when I say "let's have a (real) free market".

What the Republicans call a "free market" is as close to Fascistic Oligopoly as you can get without dressing up in brown shirts.

"And some people here get on my case when I say “let’s have a (real) free market”.

Yes, the modern right has a habit for valuing things (the Constitution, Reagan, rights, decency, the market, science, pretty much everything) as they imagine them instead of what they are.

"And some people here get on my case when I say “let’s have a (real) free market”."

And this is relevant to Greg saying that Tesla is not in a free market because of the businesses lobbying government to pass laws to make the middleman relevant how?

"I could try to give you some lessons on what you are talking about in #15"

But you would prefer to pretend that would happen rather than indicate it.

Seems legit.

Not.

"AWD is a big seller in my part of the USA because…snow. "

No, it's because you've been sold the idea it works. Let me tell you about farmers here in the UK. They buy clapped out ford fiestas and similar FWD cars because they frequently have to drive through slurry and mud and the use of a 4WD or AWD really doesn't help them much at all, this getting nearly as frequently as stuck as the cheaper and lighter FWD cars they buy.

Moreover, being lighter, they can, if they get really stuck, easily tow the car out with their tractor for the very rare cases they need it.

And if it gets muddy/scratched/dented/abandoned, it's cheap enough to not matter at all.

AWD doesn't make a lick of difference. You'll see plenty of AWD/4WD cars sticking their arse out of the roadside in winter because the heavier car, when it loses it, loses it much worse. And the reason to lose it is down to the driver more than anything else. The miniscule bit of traction you get from a second set of wheels only matters when you're running slowly over deep ruts, deep and tough enough to make your car balance on them in the middle of the wheelbase.

You've been sold AWD because it's a blingspot. And it makes more profit for the dealer. No different from underseal.

"At $35,000 purchase you will not get the federal tax credit."

So?

You whined about the credit and now you're deadpanning it not being available as if it were some dismal failure and problem.

"Beyond base and you are more like $50,000 price."

Oh, car dealers upsell additions?!?!?! OH NOES!!! WORLD IS ENDINGINGINGINGN!!!! How dare car dealers upsell! BASTARDS!

"Of course you can stop the wheel completely with an electric motor– think about it."

You can't stop it with regenerative braking. Go ask a diesel electric train engineer.

MikeN:

"At $35,000 purchase you will not get the federal tax credit. It will expire as Tesla is delivering to people who bought packages.
They might game it to extend the credit by a year, delivering 199,999 cars, so the people who put in deposits might be able to get it for $35,000 purchase, but new buyers no way. Beyond base and you are more like $50,000 price. The next model after the Y is supposed to be the revolutionary one, with 20k price or less(base)."

MikeN, first, this is a $50 car of the future for the price of a normal car (not a normal cheap car, just a normal car, like Prius or a Subaru Forester, etc.)

Secon, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that this car goes to $50 once you ad things. That's absurd. No car has ever done that. Also, many of the ad-ons regular cars often have (a few thousand here, a few thousand there) have to do with drive train features that simply are not needed on an electric car, or other features that are standard on this car.

THIS is the one that is supposed to be the revolutionary one, and it is. The next one, that can be a revolutionary one too.
Or did I misinterpret what

Greg,

You have to accept reality....Haters are gonna hate.

What's fascinating is how this

https://electrek.co/2017/04/06/tesla-model-3-average-sale-price-data/

supports the point about the direct sales model-- so many of the buyers really know what they are getting into, far from what happens when you walk into a dealership.

But I guess other companies are providing cars with self-driving capacity at no extra charge.

It isn't surprising that the thirty elites that get to buy the first cars are willing to buy extraordinarily expensive options.

Perhaps I should have noted in the post that this is a new and dynamic situation so you can't just go out and buy one yet.

Oh wait, I did!

Greg, I'd respond, but I'm not sure what you are objecting to in my post. The $35k becomes $50k with options or more. This is not unusual in the car industry. I was pointing out that the base model buyers are likely missing out on the tax credit because the people who made deposits will get their cars based on order of price.

"More".

a) I had assumed you were being facetious with the 50k, but since you hadn't said that in your defence here, you must have been serious. So go ahead, show the extras you'll buy to bump it up by 60%. We'll wait. If your nest post isn't that, we'll consider the post voided.

b) You're complaining that this car isn't the next one and greg is pointing out that this is what they goddamned say it was in the fist place, yet you whine about it like it's some vast scam.

Wow,

Look at the reference I gave #29. The information is there.

For example, getting what appears to be a high level of autonomous driving would add $8K. So it is easy to bring the price up to $50K with options.

What you should be asking is: "What's your point?"

My point to Greg was that unlike dealing with the traditional dealer, people know upfront what is going on, or they will when more detailed prices get published. You actually know what the markup is and what it is for.

This is a standard EV-bashing argument about cost-- there's supposed to be some "correct" price for electric vehicles, but not for ICE.

The evidence for what? 35+8=50?

You can buy a Ford Focus for about £16k. That would be the 1.6L. You could pay £30k but that would be the 2.4L Which would be a different car.

#34

The evidence that it is easy to bring the price up to $50K with options.

Nope, that isn't in there. What is in there is they're preparing to pay about 50k.

reread #35. For an EV getting the bigger battery is like getting a bigger engine for an ICE.

Trump, Perry, Energy, Climate, #Sad

gregladen — Thu, 29 Jun 2017 06:32:15 +0000

Trump, Perry, Energy, Climate, #Sad

Two items I know you'll want to check out.

The ‘intellectual’ debate Rick Perry says he wants is already over

Last week, Energy Secretary Rick Perry told CNBC he considers his skepticism towards climate data to be a sign of a “wise, intellectually engaged person.” Yesterday, at a press briefing at the White House – it’s apparently supposed to be “Energy Week” – Perry used similar phrasing, calling for “an intellectual conversation” on global warming.

Four myths journalists should watch out for during Trump’s “Energy Week”

The White House has declared this to be "Energy Week" and is pushing a theme of "energy dominance," with a particular emphasis on exports of natural gas. Three of President Trump's cabinet members are out in force this week trying to spread misleading or false messages about energy and exports through the media.

"An energy-dominant America will export to markets around the world, increasing our global leadership and influence," Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt wrote in a joint op-ed published Monday in The Washington Times.

Watch out for these myths:

Myth #1: Natural gas exports are good for ordinary Americans and the overall U.S. economy

Myth #2: Natural gas exports are good for the climate

Myth #3: Natural gas exports have been blocked until now

Myth #4: The U.S. can achieve "energy dominance"

The item at MMFA has the details.

gregladen Thu, 06/29/2017 - 02:32

Tags

energy

Green Energy

President Donald Trump

climate change

global warming

Perry

All exports are good for America. If we have a surplus in a good (like natural gas), and we can sell it abroad - that is good.

Why wouldn't natural gas exports be good for climate change? If the natural gas is used to replace coal, that is better for climate change.

We still live in a world were just a few percent of power is produced from renewables - so natural gas has lower CO2 emissions than coal or oil.

The first two "myths" don't seem like myths to me.

After nearly sixty years of natural gas exploitation in the province of Groningen and a worldwide sale of Dutch gas, complete areas are getting uninhabitable, because of earthquakes ruining houses, farms, churches, monuments and soil. What are the effects of the overexploitation of non renewable energy for the economy, the land, richness and well being of citizens? The USA can open its gas tap fully and unconditionally, but what happens than?

Climate Change and Earth Change are two sides of the same medal. People help raise the temperature of oceans, land and atmosphere and in doing so people bring earth to the melting point of poles and glaciers. In doing so people accelerate the process by which the crust of the earth will change positions, by collapsing poles as fuses. The president of the USA and the GOP are (blindly) applying for a historic role as fuse igniters. Not a thing to be proud of. They are literally playing with matches. Time for change. Laren NH, Thursday 29 June 2017, 23.38 PM DT.

"In doing so people accelerate the process by which the crust of the earth will change positions, by collapsing poles as fuses."

Asinine baseless claim of a moron without a clue.

"Why wouldn’t natural gas exports be good for climate change? "

So you have some sort of magical carbon free hydrocarbon gas?

Or are you an idiot?

The latter, isn't it.

@ Wow: "Asinine baseless claim of a moron without a clue"

Comment by a non-anonymous to troll Wow:

an excellent choice of words of Wow’s own input.

Laren NH, June 30th. 2017, 6:47 AM DT.

No, it was a comment by me, great boogers.

Go learn about reality. Any piece of it would be an improvement. Because all you have at the moment is complete shite.

#1 By christ you export alot of shit movies and telly shows.
Give it a rest will yas.
Your Hummers and Ftrucks are an abomination too.
That said, thanks for MASH and Sienfeld and Rear window, which is one of my favorite flicks. Raymond Burr was outstanding.
Cant think of one decent yank motorcar or lorry.

RickA

All exports are good for America. If we have a surplus in a good (like natural gas), and we can sell it abroad – that is good.

Why wouldn’t natural gas exports be good for climate change? If the natural gas is used to replace coal, that is better for climate change.

Both incorrect claims are addressed in the link in the OP.

Perhaps read?

BBD, RickA invests in fossil fuels. This is why he ignores fact and favours the GoP mythology on the goodness of coal, oil, and gas.

A suicidal economy based on conspicuous consumption makes us little more advanced than megaloceros giganteus, and promises us the same fate.

NGS Coal Industry Documentary Free For A While

gregladen — Tue, 27 Jun 2017 07:49:29 +0000

NGS Coal Industry Documentary Free For A While

There is no free lunch, but you can watch a normally unfree documentary for free on the usual streaming networks for a little while.

Click here to get to the NGS site

From Hollywood Reporter:

Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg Philanthropies, says, “Coal affects our lives and planet in important ways, but people often take positions on it without seeing the full picture. So this week, National Geographic is making From the Ashes available for free on a number of platforms. We encourage family and friends to watch the film and join the CrowdRise campaign to support organizations that are helping create new jobs in coal country.”

The film premiered earlier this year at the 2017 Tribeca Film Festival and then had a limited theatrical release in New York and Los Angeles before its global broadcast debut on National Geographic beginning Sunday. National Geographic will continue to roll out the film globally across 171 countries and 45 languages.

Bloomberg Philanthropies also organized a worldwide screening tour of From the Ashes, hosting viewings in several cities including Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, San Francisco, Vancouver and Washington, as well as stops in Brussels, London, Mexico City and Paris. The film has also been screened at more than 200 colleges and universities nationwide.

gregladen Tue, 06/27/2017 - 03:49

Tags

Not available outside the US (or at least here in Canada) without a VPN

If there are only 50,000 coal miners left then as each coal mine closes pay those miners $30K/year until retirement - that would be about 1.5B a year - peanuts in the US economy - take it from the military or tax the wealthy.

Or cut medicade 2Bn.... then blame democrats and obama.

It is time to stop punching the hippies

gregladen — Thu, 27 Apr 2017 07:05:12 +0000

It is time to stop punching the hippies

The Republican line is this: Bring back coal, shut down development, subsidies, any encouragement at all, for solar and wind energy.

There is absolutely no logic to this policy, but it is in fact the policy. The reason for it is generally thought to be that the big rich corporations and individuals that control coal and petroleum resources, and that are fully engaged in delivery of those energy sources (and other materials, such as plastic bags made of petroleum) pay off the politicians to support their businesses. And that is true, they do this. But that does not explain why regular voters or grassroots "populist" supporters go along with it. Every other thing about how such folks think and act should turn them away from the big corporate donors. These grass-rooted populs should be putting up their own energy generators and cutting themselves off from the grid, telling Big Electricity to tread no more upon them. But they don't do this. Rather, they go along with the Republican plan to repress the development of renewable independent energy production, which I like to refer to as the making of Freedom Volts, and this is entirely inexplicable.

In the broader context it makes sense, in the context in which the populs vote for the faux populist against their own interests. Voting for coal and against solar is voting against one's own interests, by and large, even if you are a coal miner. But then, while we have explained the bone-headed approach to energy that most Republican voters embrace we've only explained one illogical process by saying that it looks and feels like a larger illogical process.

The reason the leaders and politicians that run the Republican party vote against the planet and in favor of the Koch Brothers is because the Koch Brothers and their ilk own them.

But, the reason the people who support those politicians, against their own interest, act like they do, is a matter of punching hippies. Some call it identity politics. That's a fancy term, "identity politics." Translation: "hippie punching."

But recently, it seems like there is a move to stop punching the hippies quite so much. Consider the following quote, from a recent piece in Bloomberg News:

“Seventy five percent of Trump supporters like renewables and want to advance renewables. The conversation has changed. You have to have the right message. Talk about energy freedom and choice. The light bulb will go off.”

Those words were uttered by Tea Party organizer Debbie Dooley at a recent energy finance conference.

Indeed, we are seeing a pro-energy transition shift among the right wing generally. It is not at all clear that the current Republican White House, assuming they ever manage to do something that isn't based on a night time drunken tweet storm by the leader of the free world, will go in one direction or the other on energy, climate change generally, or Paris in particular. Subsidies for renewable energy may be left alone. Promises to renew coal have already been broken. Paris may be kept intact.

(Make no mistake: Big oil owns the state department, science is fully under attack and research will be curtailed. These things are very real and very bad. But at the same time, there is strong evidence of waffling on just how much the Trump White House well end up hating on clean energy in the private sector.)

Congress is less uncertain. The Republicans in Congress are bigly owned by Big Energy and they will not change their stance at all. Or, more exactly, the only way the hoax huxters in the House and Senate are going to drop their love affair with coal and oil is if they are replaced.

I would predict a fight between Congress and the White House over this, but there won't be. The Congress owns the White House and will own the White House until actual arrests are made. (Never wonder again why both the House and Senate investigations of the White House are stalled.) So there won't be any real fighting, just a lot of counter productive and destructive confusion.

But long term, the hippie punching is becoming a thing of the past, with respect to energy.

Don't worry, though, there are still plenty of reasons to punch the hippies. No one on the right wing need be worried that their favorite past time is going anywhere any time soon.

gregladen Thu, 04/27/2017 - 03:05

Tags

The Energy Transition and the Question of Perfection

gregladen — Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:36:53 +0000

The Energy Transition and the Question of Perfection

I just read an interesting piece on the widely influential VOX, by David Roberts, called “A beginner’s guide to the debate over 100% renewable energy.” It is worth a read, but I have some problems with it, and felt compelled to rant. No offense intended to David Roberts, but I run into certain malconstructed arguments so often that I feel compelled to promote a more careful thinking out of them, or at least, how they are presented. Roberts' argument is not malconstructed, but the assumptions leading up to his key points include falsehoods.

I’m not going to explicitly disagree with the various elements of the solutions part of this article (the last parts). But the run-up to that discussion, in my opinion, reifies and supports a number of falsehoods, mainly the dramatic (and untrue) dichotomy between the perfect and wonderful large-plant mostly coal and petroleum sources of energy on one hand with alternatives fraught with All The Problems on the other. Since this VOX piece is a "beginner's guide" I would hope we can stick a little more nuance into beginner's thinking.

I choose to Fisk. Thusly:

“Doing that — using electricity to get around, heat our buildings, and run our factories — will increase demand for power. “

It decreases the demand for power, overall. Internal combustion engines are inefficient compared to electric, to such a degree that burning huge amounts of petroleum or coal in one place to ultimately power electric vehicles in a reasonable size region is more efficient than distributing burnable material to all those vehicles to run them. Electrification is inherently more efficient and lower maintenance.

“That means the electricity grid will have to get bigger,”

Our grid, in the US and generally, in the west, is fully embiggened. Globally, maybe. That depends on if a “big grid” is the best way to deliver power everywhere. It probably isn’t.

[The grid must become] “more sophisticated, more efficient, and more reliable — while it is decarbonizing. ”

This contrasts the improvement of the grid with decarbonizing as though they were opposites, but for most of the expected improvements of the grid, improvements of the grid and decarbonizing are the same actions. They are not in opposition to each other.

“On the other side are those who say that the primary goal should be zero carbon, not 100 percent renewables. They say that, in addition to wind, solar, and the rest of the technologies beloved by climate hawks, we’re also going to need a substantial amount of nuclear power and fossil fuel power with CCS.”

This is a false dichotomy in my opinion. There is uncertainty here, of course. But let’s try this. Let’s try decarbonizing 50% of our current power without nuclear. At that point we will know whether or not to invest trillions into an unpopular solution (and nuclear is unpopular). If we need to, we’ll do it. If we don’t, we won’t. Maybe something in between. But worrying about this now, and using uncertainty to argue one way or another, is a waste of conversational energy.

“(If you shrug and say, “it’s too early to know,” you’re correct, but you’re no fun to dispute with.)”

LOL. But no. Rather, I’m thinking that it is too early to know and, in contrast, you are hiding a pro-nuclear argument in a blanket of uncertainty! Maybe you are not, but this is what such arguments almost always look like. Beware the nuclear argument wearing sheep's clothing. A greenish tinged sheep, yes, but still a sheep.

“The sun is not always shining; the wind is not always blowing.”

Another falsehood. Technically the sun is not always shining on us, true, but as sure as the Earth is spinning, the wind is always blowing. People who say this have never been to the Dakotas.

It does vary in intensity and by region. So does nuclear, by the way. Nuclear plants have to be shut down or slowed down regularly for refueling. When severe storms threaten, nuclear plants are often shut down, and that is not on a schedule. When any big power plant suffers a catastrophe there is a long term and catastrophic break in the grid, as compared to a cloudy day, or even, a broken windmill.

The sun is up during the day, and in may places and for many times, generally everywhere, the demand for power is greater during the day.

Overall, this is a falsehood because it attributes perfection to the traditional sources, especially to Nuclear, and great imperfection to the non-Carbon and non-Nuclear alternatives. That distinction is not nearly as clear and complete as generally stated.

“The fact that they are variable means that they are not dispatchable — the folks operating the power grid cannot turn them on and off as needed.”

Another falsehood. First, you can’t turn a major traditional power plant on or off as needed. Indeed, there are already major storage technologies and variation methodologies at work. There are high demand industries that are asked to increase or decrease their use, on the fly, to meet production variation on large grids. There are pumped storage systems. Etc. The fact is that there is variation and unpredictability in the current big-plant system, it is a problem, and it is a problem that has been quietly addressed. Quietly to the extent that people making comparisons between traditional big-plant electricity and clean energy systems often don’t even know about it.

“As VRE capacity increases, grid operators increasingly have to deal with large spikes in power (say, on a sunny, windy day), sometimes well above 100 percent of demand. “

Yes indeed, and this is the challenge being addressed as we speak. Enlarging grid balancing systems, increasing storage, developing tunable high energy industries, and so on. This is the challenge, it is being met as we speak.

“They also have to deal with large dips in VRE. It happens every day when the sun sets, but variations in VRE supply can also take place over weekly, monthly, seasonal, and even decadal time frames.”

“And finally, grid operators have to deal with rapid ramps, i.e., VRE going from producing almost no energy to producing a ton, or vice versa, over a short period of time. That requires rapid, flexible short-term resources that can ramp up or down in response.”

The article mentions the economic problems. I don’t see those as difficult to solve but they are important, but I've got no comments on that at the moment. Read the article.

“The last 10 to 20 percent of decarbonization is the hardest”

Absolutely. And, know what? The first 25% will be the easiest. Do that now, and we’ll know a LOT more about the next 25% and maybe it won’t seem so hard after all. Maybe a major technological solution will come along before we get to that last 10%, maybe society will change enough that people will simply agree to having occasional reductions in energy availability. But certainly, the greatest difficulty and uncertainty is linked to that last 10%.

Our goal should be to have that problem soon.

“A great deal can be accomplished just by substituting natural gas combined cycle power plants for coal plants.”

Yes, if by “a great deal” you mean the release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Before extolling the virtues of methane, do check into it further. I once thought methane as a bridge was a good idea too, until I learned about what it involves, about leaking methane, etc. No, not really a good idea for the most part.

“Natural gas is cleaner than coal (by roughly half, depending on how you measure methane leakage), but it’s still a fossil fuel.”

My impression is that every time we learn something new about leakage, it is that the leakage is worse than we previously thought.

“If you build out a bunch of natural gas plants to get to 60 percent, then you’re stuck shutting them down to get past 60 percent.”

Well put.

Do read the article, but please, keep in mind that it is unfair (in the context of an argument) to attribute undue perfection to one option while emphasizing uncertain problems with the other. We need to forge ahead into that uncertainty and speed up this whole process. Everybody get to work on this please!

gregladen Fri, 04/07/2017 - 04:36

Tags

You say ". . . will increase demand for power. “

I see your problem with this statement.

I think the author meant will increase the demand for electricity.

If a home is heated using natural gas, and is switched to heating using electricity - this creates a demand for more electricity.

When he means the grid must become bigger - the author means the grid will have to handle a lot more electricity than it is currently handling - if we use electricity only for all cars, heating, etc - that is not currently being handled by the grid and electricity now.

"If a home is heated using natural gas, and is switched to heating using electricity – this creates a demand for more electricity."

If it's switched to a heat pump, it could have more than 100% efficiency EASILY.

If it;s insulated, it may not need any gas heating AT ALL, no need to change it to electricity. If it's not using gas (most of the USA doesn't), then your "if" is once more moot.

Meanwhile, and this is one area that the hot air piece is bogus: the petrol used in the UK was converted to BtUs and that to watts to "work out" what the UK would need. Except that ICEs are less efficient, so the power use would be less when moving to electric cars.

"the author means the grid will have to handle a lot more electricity than it is currently handling"

Only under assumptions that we have to use more electricity.

A claim that remains unproven.

Also, how many electrons are leaked? Now how many gas pipelines have leaked, and how much is lost?

"I think the author meant will increase the demand for electricity.

If a home is heated using natural gas, and is switched to heating using electricity – this creates a demand for more electricity."

I understood his point. I'm saying that switching to electricity reduces the total amount of power required, generally.

Please refer to the reason I wrote this post. I think the leadup to the solutions part of the original article has a number of things that lead to misunderstandings, and the statement about power will tend to do that.

A major reason why renewables get tagged with "storage" is because the energy is otherwise free, really free, and it would be a waste to remove it and dissipate it to a resistor. There's no real saving by shutting a renewable power source OFF.

For fueled sources, they would save a shedload by shutting it down or ony running in the most efficient way, and instead do "storage" by a cold (or spinning) power plant in reserve. There's no point for expensive gas and oil to generate power and convert it to some lossy storage, just shut it down or throttle way back and save on fuel costs.

EXACTLY THE SAME power plant generation held in reserve would work EXACTLY THE SAME with renewables.

"storage" is a shibboleth of nuke fluffers.

yes, - and quite relevant to the predicament, we in the UK find ourselves with our Brexit delusion

I have used the quote from Voltaire in a few online debates recently

"perfect is the enemy of the good"

a wonderful distillation of the Nirvana Fallacy otherwise known as the "perfect solution fallacy"

“Doing that — using electricity to get around, heat our buildings, and run our factories — will increase demand for power. “

While Greg is correct about the inefficiency of thermal vs electric, electricity demand is expected to rise significantly over the coming decades of decarbonisation as new demand is created by shifting transport and heating, thermal manufacturing processes etc. from FFs to electricity.

“That means the electricity grid will have to get bigger,”

Our grid, in the US and generally, in the west, is fully embiggened.

Possibly to misunderstand the unavoidable necessity of adding more long distance transmission capacity to get large-scale W&S to distant centres of demand.

Another falsehood. Technically the sun is not always shining on us, true, but as sure as the Earth is spinning, the wind is always blowing. People who say this have never been to the Dakotas.

Which is why vast wind resources in far away places must be connected to distant customers by long-distance HVDC.

Yes indeed, and this is the challenge being addressed as we speak. Enlarging grid balancing systems, increasing storage, developing tunable high energy industries, and so on. This is the challenge, it is being met as we speak.

“They also have to deal with large dips in VRE. It happens every day when the sun sets, but variations in VRE supply can also take place over weekly, monthly, seasonal, and even decadal time frames.”

Yes indeed, and this is the challenge being addressed as we speak. Enlarging grid balancing systems, increasing storage, developing tunable high energy industries, and so on. This is the challenge, it is being met as we speak.

I wish. Mainly what is happening is that W&S *capacity* is beginning to scale, but utility-scale storage and grid evolution / interconnection and all the other stuff is at a fraction of the required level and shows no sign of moving very fast in the right direction. Possibly because it is expensive and difficult or still R&D as in the case of utility-scale battery technology.

“A great deal can be accomplished just by substituting natural gas combined cycle power plants for coal plants.”

I agree that large-scale investment in new gas-fired plant is a bad idea - but one quite likely to happen. The whole shale gas bonanza is a disaster, really.

(I'm fed up with arguing about nuclear because all you ever get is the anti-nuke brigade twisting it into a 'nukes vs renewables' pissing match when is is actually an argument about the unwisdom of throwing out a proven low-carbon technology right at the beginning of the decarbonisation process. There is a non-trivial possibility that renewables will not deliver the rapid, deep decarbonisation so urgently needed. Binning nuclear now is to bet the world on something that has never been attempted before as if it was a dead certainty. That is a troublingly cavalier attitude to risk.)

"as new demand is created by shifting transport and heating"

But to decarbonise the power grid DOES NOT require shifting transport and heating. Moreover, it can be negated by efficiencies and changing demand.

So your "proposal" is not "the" proposal. It is not a requirement to decarbonise the grid.

All you nuke fluffers get when you BS about nukes is so devastating to your desires that you have to complain about it being "anti-nuke" rather than pro-reality.

Wow

But to decarbonise the power grid DOES NOT require shifting transport and heating. Moreover, it can be negated by efficiencies and changing demand.

This is a pretty important muddle, so let's sort it out.

The object of the exercise is to decarbonise total primary energy (TPE) - that's everything humanity uses.

Electricity is just a *part* of TPE, but it is perhaps the easiest part to address.

Decarbonising transport and heating means moving both away from FFs and onto electricity, but only if electricity generation is already decarbonised.

"The object of the exercise is to decarbonise total primary energy"

Bullshit. the object of this exercise is to decarbonise the electricity grid. THAT is what you're claiming that zebra's proposal cannot do.

THAT is the object of the exercise.

If you wanted to whine and whinge on about removing fossil fueled heating or transport, then you should have not complained that zebra had no proposal on how to decarbonise the grid.

Somehow, even when you're admitting you are wrong, it's suddenly everyone else's fault for taking the words for what they said and not working out what insane dribbling you were entertaining in your noggin to cry and whine about how nukes had to be part of everything.

"but only if electricity generation is already decarbonised."

So decarbonising the grid DOES NOT require replacing total energy expenditure.

Yet still you complain that *EVERYONE ELSE* is wrong for not accepting that your proposal to decarbonise the grid by building out much more power production was necessary and no attempt to decarbonise the grid could be considered a "plan" unless it said how to get more power in the grid.

Because you just cannot accept you were talking bullshit, it has to be someone else's fault.

Decarbonising the grid is part of decarbonising TPE.

Will somebody else please confirm this for Wow?

I'm so tired of his craziness.

"Decarbonising the grid is part of decarbonising TPE. "

Yeah. This does not mean decarbomising TPE is required to decarbonise the grid, BBD. Your insanity dribbling comes out with stuff your lunacy will not comprehend.

It's super ineffective!

Wow

Are you suggesting that we should *not* decarbonise transport and heating?

I'm telling you that decarbonising the grid does NOT require we decarbonise transport and heating.

Something you write out but your insanity brain will not comprehend when it does so.

I’m telling you that decarbonising the grid does NOT require we decarbonise transport and heating.

So we just leave them as they are? Belching CO2?

Or what?

What do we *do*, wow?

"So we just leave them as they are? Belching CO2?"

Where do I say we leave them?

I'm telling you that decarbonising the grid doesn't require replacing them.

Have you comprehended this fact yet? Or still in deep denial

"What do we *do*, wow?"

We decarbonise the grid.

Decarbonising transport and heating means electrifying them.

This increases the demand for electricity and the scale of the challenge of decarbonising the grid.

It's all the same thing.

If California dropped its high speed rail line that it is building, could that pay for transmission lines to the solar and wind areas?

"Decarbonising transport and heating means electrifying them."

Yup, your insanity is not able to comprehend what you're saying, is it, BBD.

AGAIN, this does not mean that decarbonising the grid requires decarbonising transport.

They are NOT the same thing. That's why they have different subjects to the word "decarbononise". One has "the grid" as the thing to be decarbonised, the other has "transport" as the thing to be decarbonised.

Or do you insanely insist that your travel to work is done via electrical conduction of your body through the national grid????

This is hopeless.

Yes, but that's your insanity speaking, again.

Decarbonising the grid will remove not one single internal combustion engine.

If it were the same thing, this would be 100% absolutely by definition impossible.

Since this is not the case (feel free to insist that decarbonising the grid would automatically replace every ICE with an electric engine if you want, but sans that you have accepted in words, but not in your head, that they're not the same thing), they are not the same thing.

What is hopeless is you still want to insist they ARE the same thing, but won't actually admit to yourself you are doing this.

Or move one inch from claims that only exist if they are the exact same thing, and that magic changes ICE to electric motors.

I can give you a plan right now to change your fossil fuel use for transport to 0% right now without a single watt added to the national grid, BBD.

BBD @10, Thanks.
For some the goal may be decarbonizing the grid, but as you point out electricity is only a part of the puzzle, and we should be concentrating on the whole system, not just one highly visible component. Now I would say if your goal is to score political brownie points by claiming "my grid is zero carbon", and don't care about the overall energy system, then switching application like heating and transport to electricity makes the grid transition tougher. But, its a step we need to make, and arguably it is more important to make serious early progress on electrification than it is to reach certain percentage of renewables on the grid early. The goal is afterall a rapid and sustainable decarbonization of the whole economic system.

A point was made that claimed the first 25% is the easy part. But that has been proven (so far) to be false. The technology of renewables is advancing rapidly, and we may easily find that the first ten percent was actually the hardest and most expensive part. Most likely going from 25-75% will turn out to be the least expensive part of the transition, -simply because the economy-of-scale and learning curves for renewables -and storage keep improving the economics.

Uhm, I can tell you how to decarbonise your travel to 0% CO2 without adding a single watt to the demand too.

Oh, by the way, "too" is yet another admission that they're not the same thing, else it would be irrelevant to say "too".

"A point was made that claimed the first 25% is the easy part. But that has been proven (so far) to be false. "

Where? 'cos I'm damn certain the problem has been denial and obstruction, not the tech. See Denmark....

"and don’t care about the overall energy system,"

Uh, the electricity system IS the overall energy system.

Remember: turning your ICE into an electric motor isn't necessary.

>This is hopeless.
How many times do you have to realize this? Just be pessimistic to begin with, and you won't feel the need to say it.

Hopeless is "mike"'s specialty...

Wow, about it getting easier rather than faster:

True in some (many) places obstructionism has been a problem. But the optimization of the technology, which includes the optimization of the manufacturing techniques, and of entire industrial supply chains and the equipment needed to manufacture and install stuff covers a great deal of space. For both wind and solar the learning curve has been steep. Historically for solar panels, the cost of production has declined 21% for every doubling of net installed worldwide capacity. This means that the early stuff was very pricey. Germany's big solar buildout occurred when the price of PV was several times higher than it is today. We will probably soon reach the point where overbuilding solar (which means you have too much capacity and must curtail some of it) will be economically feasible/optimal. The corresponding figure for wind is 14%. The first few off-shore wind farms were very expensive, but now the price has come way down. With renewables the more you've built, the easier it is to build the next increment.

BBD #23:

I feel your pain.

You are absolutely correct, that the goal is to decarbonize the grid and shift all total primary energy (TPE) to the grid.

So heating with natural gas and using gasoline for cars would be replaced by electricity from the grid - which is decarbonized.

That is the goal and I understand that.

I don't think wow does and probably never will.

Omega Centauri

We will probably soon reach the point where overbuilding solar (which means you have too much capacity and must curtail some of it) will be economically feasible/optimal.

Overbuild of solar is pretty much mandatory unless you are close to the equator. The seasonal issue with solar at mid or higher latitudes can only be addressed by overbuild or alternative sources, which, looking ahead, would be wind.

So once you get out of the extratropical latitudes, it is necessary to overbuild the wind resource to compensate for seasonal diminution of the solar resource.

Water heaters is one thing, but electric vs gas stove is a considerable difference.

I just switched. It is very different, but an electric stove is fine. I thought it would be harder to switch than it was.

For the oven, doesn't matter. The electric broiler is way better than the gas broiler, or at least, mine is better than the old one (which was itself modern and well functioning.)

For those who don't know, Wow is a bit of a hothead.
Has a week timeout on co-blog http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/04/02/comments-of-the-week…

We got it from context.

Nope I'm out.

Ethan is only concerned about his best mate being safe, and doesn't give a shit about the blog. I didn't even know it was "a week" as soon as it was apparent he was being a twat and banned me I stopped even going.

"Overbuild of solar is pretty much mandatory"

And EVERY POSSIBLE POWER SOUCE is over built. Because the fucking things stop working at times.

Your idiocy is the blinkered and idiotic insistence that these problems exist only for renewables, becuse you're a nuke fluffer who has no fucking clue what they're talking about, only having the headlines from more authoritative nuke fluffers to go on.

"Wow, about it getting easier rather than faster:"

Go ahead if you want. I didn't. I was talking about it being easier to do the first 25%.

"But the optimization of the technology, which includes the optimization of the manufacturing techniques,"

Uhm, whut? It's pretty damn optimal right now.What is it? 65c per watt now?

" For both wind and solar the learning curve has been steep. "
Nope.

Again, even if mangling this to be nearly acceptable you merely get to the fact that this is 100% identical to what every other industry has. Including coal power.

So this is yet another empty phrase.

It's not a proof that the first 25% is hard not easy like greg says. It's orthogonal.

"The first few off-shore wind farms were very expensive"

Still more profitable than coal power build would have been. And you'll find it wasn't covering 25% of our power generation either.

Excavation of coal is harder. Oil much harder. Has fuck all to do with how easy or hard it is to make 70% of our power production from it, though.

"How hard" is about how hard considered it has to be.

Remember the claims that renewble penetration would be OK up until they're 20% of the mix, after that it becomes harder?

It wasn't based on how hard it was to make production lines.

Was it.

"or alternative sources, which, looking ahead, would be wind. "

So overbuild is not mandatory.

What about efficiencies? Is it impossible to change usage when rolling out solar???

Wow, you think $.65/watt panels are optimal, with the best utility scale farms coming in around a dollar per watt. But we will probably see $.25/watt panels in the near future, and that cost change can be revolutionary, especially if one is considering the possibility of significantly overbuilding.

Wind is similar, its not improving quite as fast as solar, but the newer turbines can get a better capacity factor (fraction of peak capability as a sustained average), and that improves both economics and grid integration issues. Don't underestimate the power of incremental improvement, changes in cost effectiveness can make a huge difference.

So overbuild is not mandatory.

Well, you have to overbuild something. It can be all solar, all wind or you can split it between the two, depending on the wind resource. But you have to overbuild to compensate for seasonality in solar unless you are close to the equator.

What about efficiencies? Is it impossible to change usage when rolling out solar???

Nibbling round the edges of the problem isn't the same as solving it. The potential for efficiencies is marginal compared to the winter drop in solar output, especially the further north you go.

"Wow, you think $.65/watt panels are optimal,"

Do I? I didn't know that. How did you get that from this?

“But the optimization of the technology, which includes the optimization of the manufacturing techniques,”

Uhm, whut? It’s pretty damn optimal right now.What is it? 65c per watt now?

Or did you not see "optimisation of the technology"? Which would be really ironic since that was what YOU said. Ignoring your own words, hmm?

There's only about 65c per watt that can be saved by making manufacture easier and cheaper.

"Well, you have to overbuild something."

Why?

I mean, you have to overbuild power generation, yes, but you blather on about this like its some sort of unique property of purely solar or wind.

When it isn't.

So, why do you have to overbuild?

Because either that's bollocks or it's no different from what we had to do for the current energy system.

Which is fuck all difference therefore ignorable.

"But you have to overbuild to compensate for seasonality in solar "

No you don't, you have to build enough solar to satisfy what you want.

Demand is seasonal too.

Nukes are also seasonal.

Building more of those is not mentioned as "overbuilding". Hell, coal stations are seasonal, since they rely on the same cooling water methods.

Gas too is seasonal: it costs more in winter for the UK to buy it on the market.

“Well, you have to overbuild something.”

Why?

I mean, you have to overbuild power generation, yes, but you blather on about this like its some sort of unique property of purely solar or wind.

Well, the problem is solar at increasing latitude. Short day length in winter knocks output on its head. This is a problem unique to solar as it affects all plant simultaneously and is predictable.

No you don’t, you have to build enough solar to satisfy what you want.

Which means overbuilding solar so that *winter* output is sufficient. Unfortunately, the required overbuild is substantial and there is a near-certainty of curtailment being necessary during summer peak output, which is the sort of thing investors don't like to hear.

Demand is seasonal too.

Yes, in the NH it is high in winter because of increased use of lighting and heating. Decarbonising heating will further increase winter demand.

I see everyone has run away to engage in the same repetitive debate one more time.

Wow, at some point in the past I have in fact included space conditioning and transportation in the competitive market paradigm, perhaps in passing so you missed it.

However, since the usual subjects have lost the battle with respect to the grid, they are trying to change the subject. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked...

BBD, There has already been some solar curtailment in California the past couple of weeks. Sounds, bad, but I think the worst day only about 8% of the total solar energy had to be curtailed. Spring may be a more likely curtailment season than summer. The reason is output is almost as high, while hydropower is at or near peak, and air conditioning demand is low to zero. (Also is California water pumping is a huge consumer, but its a record wet year so that demand is also low). How much curtailment you can economically justify depends strongly upon the cost of adding incremental capacity, that's why continuing the cost improvements of solar and wind is so important.

Also solar thermal with storage is going to become important. A recent bid by Solar Reserve for wait for it "baseline solar power" came in amazingly low. Of course the Atacama desert does have the worlds best solar resource, but its looking like solar thermal with enough storage to provide overnight power is only going to be about twice the cost of daytime PV solar power.

"Well, the problem is solar at increasing latitude."

No, that's not a problem. It's not like continental drift needs to be taken into account over the scale of centuries, is it.

"Short day length in winter "

Long day length in summer.

"Which means overbuilding solar so that *winter* output is sufficient."

No it doesn't, any more than it means overbuilding nuclear because in heatwaves it's insufficient.

"Yes, in the NH it is high in winter because of increased use of lighting and heating. "

Nope. We can insulate. And LED/CFL lights mean lighting is a non problem.

Moreover, it's windier then.

"Decarbonising heating will further increase winter demand"

No it won't.

Another issue is that solar is built to take advantage of high spot prices. It's *profit efficient*. Not production efficient.

zebra

I see everyone has run away to engage in the same repetitive debate one more time.

Could there be an indivisible relationship between the goal and the plan?

“Short day length in winter ”

Long day length in summer.

Wow, this is embarrassing. Go back and re-read the discussion you are commenting on.

Only in your head, BBD.

Because you won't do anything but continue to bleat on and on about it, because you want to slap that dead horse until your arms fall off, because you can't stop from demonising renewables to make nukes look like a sane option.

They aren't.

"Wow, this is embarrassing. "

What? you didn't know about summer days being longer? Yeah, I guess that would be embarrasing to find the brain-fart that threw away that info was done in public.

"Go back and re-read the discussion you are commenting on."

I did. It's some nuke fluffer called "BBD" trying yet again to whine on and on about how renewables are terrible and expensive because they're not nukes.

“Go back and re-read the discussion you are commenting on.”

And I would add that you need to read further than you quoted. you know, the entire frigging post you were commenting on.

Here's a question for all the people yammering about overall energy utilization:

Assume that all commuters in the US had Chevy Volts. What modification of the grid would be required so that they could be charged from wind and solar say 90% of the time? (This would eliminate enormous amounts of CO2.)

Please respect Greg's observation along the lines of "Nirvana Fallacy Is A Fallacy."

zebra #57:

First, the grid would have to be supplied by the amount of electricity used by all these new electric vehicles.

Secondly, in order to ensure that the Volts were charged only with wind and solar, you would have to turn off the 66% of power supplied to the grid (at least in MInnesota) from coal and natural gas and turn off the 20% of power supplied to the grid from nuclear (oh I forgot to turn off the 6% from hydro).

That would only leave about 5% of the power the grid normally supplies, but that should take care of your hypo.

RickA,

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The grid would have to be supplied with the necessary amount generated by wind and solar, of course. But why would that mean "turning off" something else?

zebra #59:

When you plug in your Volt in your garage, in order to ensure you are using wind and solar you have to remove all non-wind and non-solar from the grid in your area.

In Minnesota, my grid is powered 66% by fossil fuel and 20% by nuclear - so we have to turn that 86% off.

Otherwise, your volt is getting 66% of its electricity from fossil fuel and 20% from nuclear.

That violates your hypo.

And I would add that you need to read further than you quoted. you know, the entire frigging post you were commenting on.

See # 7.

"When you plug in your Volt in your garage, in order to ensure you are using wind and solar you have to remove all non-wind and non-solar from the grid in your area."

No you don't. No more than to ensure you're only using nuclear you have to remove non-nuke power from the grid in your area.

"– so we have to turn that 86% off."

No you don't, you have to turn that 14% into 100.

"See # 7."

See? Saw. So?

RickA,

That is the silliest thing I've ever heard, and demonstrates that you have no idea how electricity works. Much like BBD.

There are no "nuclear electrons" or "solar electrons". Sounds like you may be an "electron racist", now that I think about it.

If you would like to try to explain your hypothesis using correct electric circuit terminology, feel free. But it will be embarrassing for you.

zebra

That is the silliest thing I’ve ever heard, and demonstrates that you have no idea how electricity works. Much like BBD.

You keep saying this, but never successfully explaining *why*.

Remember this:

The grid has to balance regionally. Supply must equal demand. Hold this thought.

If you have a large solar resource in the SW and a large wind resouce in the Dakotas, Iowa, Minnesota and Montana, it generates vastly more electricity than there is regional demand. It is supposed to do this because it is supposed to be powering the US - especially the high-demand regions of the East and West Coast.

So how do you get shitloads of electricity from A to B when B is a long way away?

You can't just dump huge extra regional capacity into the regional grid as it exceeds regional demand and the grid breaks. Think about this. Regional balancing is set by regional demand and this prevents large-scale electricity export through the existing grid.

Unless long-distance transmission capacity is added to connect the scaling W&S resource to its biggest customers, who are far away, it will be increasingly unable to deliver electricity to the market. If that happens, the market can't fund it.

"You keep saying this, but never successfully explaining *why*. "

Maybe didn't think it needed to be explained?

Do YOU think it needs to be explained why the electron from a coal fired power station or nuke power station are not different from the electrons from a solar power plant?

"Unless long-distance transmission capacity is added to connect"

Not needed, any more than it's needed for any other power system since the transmission capacity is right there now. It would be more efficient to use HVDC to carry long distances, but it isn't necessary. And HVDC is useful for ANY power generation system, one reason why France has it. Not a big producer of renewable solar and wind, if you remember.

"You can’t just dump huge extra regional capacity into the regional grid as it exceeds regional demand "

Then don't. Do like current generation does when it's unusable and dump it to ground. Job done.

"and the grid breaks."

I think you need to talk to an engineer who works on these things. Unless you're using a private and special meaning for "break", this doesn't happen.

"If that happens, the market can’t fund it."

It funds nuke power, coal power, gas power, hydro power and so on and so forth even though it cannot be transmitted vast distances to the best market to sell, and there are brown-outs and even black-outs occurring.

The market finds it possible to do it now. There's no reason why this would change if we went full 100% renewable, worldwide.

PS you did the "dakotas, sw, blah blah blah" and I pointed out once already that it was bollocks. Don't listen, do you.

BBD,

Now you are cutting and pasting your own nonsense. Doesn't make it any less nonsense.

I posed a simple question:

We would all, I assume, like to remove that CO2 generated on the typical commute where the highways are like parking lots, and ICE are very inefficient and produce local pollution as well as CO2.

So, we give all these commuters something like the Volt, which can cover say 50 miles on a charge, but has its own onboard generator/motor to deal with range for other trips.

If you guys are such experts on how electricity works, tell me what changes would have to be made to the grid so the cars can mostly be charged by wind and solar.

If you think that means building HVDC lines from Austin to Boston, explain why. Not with vague generalities and handwaving though; be specific.

Wow,

One of the most frustrating thing about these discussions is that, as you say, we are doing all the things that I suggest right now. All the issues anyone wants to raise have established engineering solutions; the only difference is scale for various paramenters and making the rules universal.

But these people ignore that and want to bring up vaporware like Thorium and SMR, and projects that they can't explain how to get built in the US like government-owned HVDC lines.

Childish fantasists, to be sure.

If you think that means building HVDC lines from Austin to Boston, explain why. Not with vague generalities and handwaving though; be specific..

I was specific at #65.

If you guys are such experts on how electricity works, tell me what changes would have to be made to the grid so the cars can mostly be charged by wind and solar.

I think the underlying assumption in your position is that the US can *always* meet local demand anywhere with local W&S. But this isn't correct.

That's why in order to achieve the goal of decarbonising the grid as a necessary component of decarbonising TPE, the plan requires major grid upgrades.

It's difficult to see how localism can ever fund the necessary increase in long-distance transmission capacity, never mind overcome the morass of legal and technical inter-state issues that must be resolved. Hence the need for government intervention to make the plan work and so achieve the goal.

Specifically, you made the baseless claim it was needed. Not why it was needed.

"I think the underlying assumption in your position is that the US can *always* meet local demand anywhere with local W&S. But this isn’t correct. "

It isn't necessary. It doesn't do so now 100%, yet it still works.

"the goal of decarbonising the grid as a necessary component of decarbonising TPE"

The conversation is decarbonising the grid. Not doing that means there's no way to do the second. Do the first first.

"The plan requires major grid upgrades."

No more than it needed major grid upgrades when A/C was widespread. Or refrigeration. Or lighting.

But there's no need for "major grid upgrades" if there's no extra energy use. It could be LOWER energy use.

Your whining is based on the assertion that it MUST be more power, when that's the pointless insistence of some mythological insistence that today is what we must have to do.

We're already changing what we're using the grid for and what we're using ON the grid.

Moreover, the massive use of electric cars gives a massive storage system "ready built". Yet more reason why your complaints about wind and solar are meaningless burbling.

"It’s difficult to see how localism can ever fund the necessary increase in long-distance transmission capacity"

Then don't insist it is necessary to increase long distance transmission capacity.

Job done.

You really do not want to think, do you.

" Hence the need for government intervention to make the plan work and so achieve the goal."

So we're back to "the plan". No that is YOUR plan. Based on unecessary insistence that wehave to increase power use when we don't, that we need storage when we don't, that we have problems that are new when they already happen with any other source of power we've used.

All to cry FUD and alarmism about not using nuke power...

Zebra

Okay, how about this bridge attempt:

You summarised your position neatly on another thread, #30:

That’s why I propose that we have a market where the grid operator is regulated as a common carrier, prohibited from generating or even retailing.

You buy from the generator, so that there is a level playing field for supplying the actual function (transportation, HVACR, lighting, whatever) that you are purchasing.

I fully agree that these are necessary conditions for an energy transition to happen but disagree that they are sufficient.

BBD,

Answer the question.

If you can't do the simple math for a simple problem like that, you are simply a pretentious fool, and nobody cares about your "disagreement".

Wow has, in his somewhat incoherent ranty way, pointed out your various failings on the basic physical facts. That should worry you.

If you can't articulate the issues involved in charging an EV, what business have you advising us about the entire energy paradigm of the USA?

If you can’t do the simple math for a simple problem like that, you are simply a pretentious fool, and nobody cares about your “disagreement”.

Why not set out your answer to this simple mathematical problem?

Then the thread would know what you are talking about.

Answer the question.

And if I frame #71 as a question, what would be your answer?

I fully agree that these are necessary conditions for an energy transition to happen but disagree that they are sufficient.

Why am I mistaken?

Note that current mini-split hvac systems (ductless) have better performance in cold climates than ducted systems. (Partly because they have inverter compressors. Work is on going on build systems that have a cop of 2.5 at 0f. I.E. produce 2.5 times the heat as the electricity coming in. So assume an electric conversion efficiency of 50% (best gas turbine combined cycle plants run up to 60% now). And a assume a 90% gas furnace. So the heat pump puts out about 1.38 times the heat at 0 F of a northern gas furnace, for an equivalent use of gas. The units seem to beat out furnaces down to about -15f or so. Work is on going to produce better performance including by the government of Canada.
So it looks like today minisplit systems with some gas backup could work in the north country.

BBD, you have spent months dancing around and denying zebra's position, it's hardly surprising he wants to get closure on his position before chasing after another dog whistle from you.

Zebra, #71 was a different style, it was trying to find another way around, so at least attempting to break the circle. Accept that the conversation may be able to move on, but ask that first some closure on your statements and BBD's denial of them even existing, be made. Otherwise there's no point to following this new thread since if it doesn't go BBD's way it is patently clear that it will be merely shunted into the weeds and anything against what BBD believes to be the One True Way To Think is just plain nonexistent nonsense.

"I fully agree that these are necessary conditions for an energy transition to happen but disagree that they are sufficient. "

Why? Wind is the cheapest production system, therefore it would win out in a free market. SPV is fairly cheap and can be rolled out down to the personal level, it's just that there's no point, since you can't use it without your electricity suppliers' consent.

And if externalities are added in, SPV is cheaper than coal.

So why would not making it a properly and genuinely open free market not work? It currently IS working, no new coal, coal closing down, massive buildout worldwide of new solar and wind.

Certainly SEEMS to be working, even with the interference of lobbied government propping up the fossil fuel industries.

So why do you claim it insufficient?

Building HVDC won't build any solar or wind power. Nationalising the grid won't build any solar or wind power.

If zebra has to say how to make solar and wind be built and all the fossil fuel power providers shut down, then you haven't done this either, and it's hypocrisy to whine about zebra not doing what you aren't doing either.

"So it looks like today minisplit systems with some gas backup could work in the north country."

And that is with houses that aren't designed to be properly insulated. Improve the house building so it's built to a quality not to a price point, and how much gas backup is needed?

Wow,

I appreciate your effort at 76, but you know BBD is not going to do any math or even admit that he can't.

Now, even RickA, despite his issues with electron miscegenation, has acknowledged that something equivalent to a carbon tax would be necessary to get people to buy nuclear (his favorite) rather than natural gas generated electricity.

The only issue at hand is, as I said in my very first comment I believe, what the mix is. And you have covered most of the questions, as I said above.

You have even (reluctantly) acknowledged that there could be nuclear in there for some reason. I would even argue that there will never be the development of SMR or any other current nuclear vaporware unless there is a competitive market.

Anyway, I will not hold my breath waiting for technologically sound arguments from the usual suspects. I may make some other comment later with reference to Lyle's heat pump information.

The problem with nukes isn't "they're nukes", but "they're too fucking dangerous in the hands of the people who will be running them".

if someone gets a tech out that makes nukes safe enough for people to build and operate one under their own arse and where their children live, then it's going to be safe indeed.

That isn't the only way for them to be safe, but without any actual tech, it's the use case scenario that will self evidently show it is safe.

Thorium has been done for 50-80 years, and still not managed to be a better solution. Pebble bed reactors are still unwanted because of the risks and costs.

And given we need to retire a lot of old generation, spending the time and money needed to build up nuke power when siting it for today's climate is liable to be unusable for the climate when it's still required to operate to be financially successful, is not merely foolish, it retards the only options we have left.

Willing denial and political lobbying have ensured that, to safeguard the short term profits, the long term result we have today is that nukes cannot afford to be part of the solution.

After we've broken the back of the problem? Maybe we'll have time to look elsewhere (and better information on what needs to be changed in a mostly or entirely renewable power world, if indeed anything "needs" to be changed). But building a lot of nuke stations, unless they can be sited a long way from coasts and unusable as a terror threat, we have to wait until the climate and the political scene resulting from the changes settle down before we can look seriously again and rolling new nukes out, even if they're practically safe in design by then.

Wow,

The market will decide.

Right now, they can't even get a couple of pre-approved, very heavily subsidized, AP1000 they designed themselves, built without going bankrupt.

Maybe, with a more open market, someone may leapfrog the current kluge-heavy design paradigm. It will not happen overnight to be sure-- more likely as the "needs" are identified, as you say.

The California Council on Science and Technology generated a report: “California's Energy Future: The View to 2050”- See more at: http://ccst.us/publications/2011/2011energy.php#sthash.Dv3zHG1D.dpuf....... had this to say about the amount of electricity that would be needed to run the society:

…..”Aggressive new efficiency measures could reduce the demand for electricity by about a third, and for fuel by half. Incentives to electrify transportation and heat production would increase the requirement for electricity, but cut fuel demand by yet another third. Even with these measures, by 2050 California would need about twice as much electricity as we use today and still nearly 70 percent of the fuel consumed today…..:

....."The total commitment necessary to achieve this accelerated pace will require strong societal and policy backing because there are less than 40 years to make a nearly total change-over to the required technology. Essentially, in this time period, every existing building will either be retrofit to higher efficiency standards or replaced."

Mark, that is an interesting report but it is years old. Just sayin'.

More to the point, in addition to being dated, it uses the usual sleight-of-hand language to confuse and deceive.

Over half of US commutes are under 10 miles, and only 8% are over 35.

So, if all those California commuters were driving Chevy Volts, and they all had solar panels on their houses, it would essentially zero out that particular contribution of CO2 and pollution.

Instead of reporting this, that part of the system is folded in to "increased electricity demand". But obviously, there is no "firming up" problem because the vehicles can sit plugged in something like 20 hours out of 24. The gasoline that doesn't get burned is pure "profit" in the CO2 accounting.

If you need 24/7/365 electricity, buy it from the local nuclear plant, or the local "clean coal" plant. If there isn't one, form a co-op with fellow industrial process businesses and build one for your own use.

It's just that simple. Don't expect taxpayers to pick up the tab.

Greg and Zebra,

It’s been a couple of years since I reread the CCST report as I read it after attending a CARB meeting discussing the proposed (at the time) 33%RES. I was a bit worried about what might happen to the PV system I put in place back in 2006. I am still not sure how the powers that be account for our system (6.12 kW). Sooner or later I will need to figure this out as I hate to think it might become a stranded asset.

Our rate structure had to be eliminated last year as we have run into some grid integration issues out here in CA as noted here:

1)https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30692#tab1
2)https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2017/04/03/missing-money/

3)http://www.cleanenergylawreport.com/energy-regulatory/caiso-expects-it-…

I haven’t read the Jenkins-Thernstrom paper referenced below in detail. Their estimate of electrical power demand growth seems a tad high to me (those of us who live out in the country will be moving to biomass for our winter heating needs……I don’t know if their analysis notes this choice or not) :

1)http://innovationreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/EIRP-Deep-Decarb…
“…….The ninth study reviewed, Jacobson et al. (2014), considers a scenario where 100% of California end-use energy demand is met by electricity or hydrogen produced by electricity. In that case, electricity demand grows more than five-fold (+465%) by 2050…..”

Zebra

I appreciate your effort at 76, but you know BBD is not going to do any math or even admit that he can’t.

If you have a point, make it. Show the numbers. Otherwise, there is nothing to discuss.

Stop stalling or people might think you were bluffing.

More to the point, in addition to being dated, it uses the usual sleight-of-hand language to confuse and deceive.

Exactly the same paranoid mindset as the deniers who see climate change as a vast liberal conspiracy.

Don’t expect taxpayers to pick up the tab.

And that sounds rather familiar too. Interesting.

Instead of reporting this, that part of the system is folded in to “increased electricity demand”.

But unless that increased demand is met 100% by zero-carbon generation, all you have done is *move* the source of CO2 and particulate emissions from cars to an increase in FF capacity. It does very little to advance the decarbonisation process. It's PR, and it's sales for the EV companies, but that is it.

Right, back to your mistaken notions about how the grid works. Here is a SciAm article that explains what you need to know. You will notice that the subtitle refers to a 'plan'.

Here are a few excerpts to give you the general flavour:

In some places, wind power, still in its infancy, is already running up against the grid’s limits. “Most of the potential for renewable resources tends to be in places where we don’t have robust existing transmission infrastructure,” Van Wiele says. Instead, for decades electric companies have built coal, nuclear, natural gas and oil-fired generators close to customers.

That strategy worked reasonably well until recently, when 28 state governments set “renewable portfolio standards” requiring their utilities to supply a certain portion of their electricity using renewables, such as 20 percent by 2020 or even sooner. But as Kurt E. Yeager, former president of the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, Calif., points out, such standards “aren’t worth the paper they’re written on until we have a power system, a grid, that is capable of assimilating that intermittent energy without having to build large quantities of backup power, fossil-fueled, to enable it.”

And:

Even before the emphasis on climate change, reasons were mounting to remake the grid. Chief among them are bottlenecks that stifle the flow of power.

North America is actually covered by four regional grids (three of which serve the U.S.). The largest is the Eastern Interconnection, an extensive complex of transmission lines that stretches from Halifax to New Orleans, with substations that step down the high-voltage electricity to lower levels so that it can be distributed locally along smaller wires. West of the Rockies is the Western Interconnection, from British Columbia to San Diego and a small slice of Mexico. Texas, in an echo of its history as an independent republic, comprises its own grid, now called the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. And Quebec, with its separatist undercurrent, also has its own grid. The high-voltage transmission systems in the four regions comprise about 200,000 miles of power lines, divided among a staggering 500 owners, that carry current from more than 10,000 power plants run by about 6,000 investor-owned utilities, public power systems and co-ops.

Even before the emphasis on climate change, reasons were mounting to remake the grid. Chief among them are bottlenecks that stifle the flow of power.

North America is actually covered by four regional grids (three of which serve the U.S.). The largest is the Eastern Interconnection, an extensive complex of transmission lines that stretches from Halifax to New Orleans, with substations that step down the high-voltage electricity to lower levels so that it can be distributed locally along smaller wires. West of the Rockies is the Western Interconnection, from British Columbia to San Diego and a small slice of Mexico. Texas, in an echo of its history as an independent republic, comprises its own grid, now called the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. And Quebec, with its separatist undercurrent, also has its own grid. The high-voltage transmission systems in the four regions comprise about 200,000 miles of power lines, divided among a staggering 500 owners, that carry current from more than 10,000 power plants run by about 6,000 investor-owned utilities, public power systems and co-ops.

And:

Political Muscle Needed
The concept of a national energy grid is not far-fetched. Indeed, the U.S. already has one that is highly successful in moving resources vast distances, notably from the Gulf of Mexico to New York and New England. But it is for natural gas, not electricity. And it exists because in the 1940s Congress created a system of national regulation for natural gas. Electricity was left to be regulated state by state and sometimes town by town.

As a result, says Andrew Karsner, a former assistant secretary of energy for renewables and efficiency, the country has “Btu liquidity” but not “electron liquidity.” Scrapping feudal transmission regulations for similar national rules would require forceful leadership from Washington. The first step, Karsner notes, is making transmission reform a priority. “Stop the blah-blah” dithering among elected officials, he says.

And so on. You will (finally) get the picture and (finally) realise why your conception of the US grid, and the notion that it balances across its entirety is simply wrong. In fact it is impossible to increase inputs in one region to meet demand in another. So your proposal is dependent on something that does not exist.

zebra:

So, if all those California commuters were driving Chevy Volts, and they all had solar panels on their houses, it would essentially zero out that particular contribution of CO2 and pollution.

BBD:

But unless that increased demand is met 100% by zero-carbon generation, all you have done is *move* the source of CO2 and particulate emissions from cars to an increase in FF capacity. It does very little to advance the decarbonisation process. It’s PR, and it’s sales for the EV companies, but that is it.

Sorry Wow, but "mad dogs and Englishmen" comes to mind. Maybe some member of the royal family will talk to him to prevent further embarrassment for your fair isle?

Zebra

Ignoring evidence is called 'denialism'. When it is done as you have just done it here, it is called 'shut-eyed denialism'.

* * *

Now, explain why what I said at #86 about moving CO2 around is incorrect. Snark is just noise. Behave like an adult and make your point. See, eg. #87.

So, if all those California commuters were driving Chevy Volts, and they all had solar panels on their houses, it would essentially zero out that particular contribution of CO2 and pollution.

The localism fallacy, again.

What happens in winter when SPV output is minimal and wind is having to fill the capacity gap left by solar? What happens regionally if you get two days of consecutive low windspeed? How soon before nobody comes to work? What happens when a heavily depleted regional EV fleet tries to recharge its batteries simultaneously?

Mark #85,

Do you have a point? If so, could you explain it, and how it relates to what I said about EV or industrial users?

It sounds from your references that what you need out there is exactly what I suggested-- more Chevy Volts, to be charged during the periods when solar production is highest. Win-win.

But sooner or later, you're gonna need a bigger grid.

"But sooner or later, you’re gonna need a bigger grid."

Why?

"If you have a point, make it. Show the numbers. "

When did you show numbers? Lotsa bullshit and lotsa demands off you, but you don't deem it necessary to work to your own demanding requirements yourself.

Again, denier tactics.

"What happens in winter when SPV output is minimal and wind is having to fill the capacity gap left by solar? "

Um, wind is filling the gap left by solar.

Duh.

"What happens regionally if you get two days of consecutive low windspeed?"

The power is replaced by solar. Duh.

"How soon before nobody comes to work?"

Never.

"What happens when a heavily depleted regional EV fleet tries to recharge its batteries simultaneously?"

They won't be able to.Just like when every car wants to fill up with gas simultaneously. There's only so much capacity to refill.

Quite why you ask these dumbass questions when they're merely the current systems' problems written as if they were unique to solar and wind can only be laid at the feed of your nuke fluffing idiocy, BBD.

"But unless that increased demand is met 100% by zero-carbon generation,.... It does very little to advance the decarbonisation process"

Wrong, dumbass.

If you meet 50% of the demand for powering transport you decarbonise 50% of the demand for transport.

Fucking idiot.

Um, wind is filling the gap left by solar.

Duh.

Over 48 hours of low regional windspeed? How? (Reading comp again, Wow).

But we are saved, thanks to all those spanking new HVDC lines which only big money and big politics are likely to get constructed.

The future's going to be hard on the optimists who thought a panel on the roof and a battery in the garage was going to save the world, kill the monopolies and keep taxes low.

"Over 48 hours of low regional windspeed? "

What 48 hours of low regional windspeed? There is none.

"thanks to all those spanking new HVDC lines"

They're quite old, actually, they've been there for years.

"the optimists who thought a panel on the roof and a battery in the garage was going to save the world"

That is a null set of people, BBD. A fiction of your own smug stupidity.

And you need to work on your reading comprehension, dumbass:

“What happens in winter when SPV output is minimal and wind is having to fill the capacity gap left by solar? ”

Um, wind is filling the gap left by solar.

Duh.

That was all that was written. "two days of consecutive low windspeed? " came after. And no such two days happened.

Hey, maybe you can show up those smug fossil fuel people here, BBD.

What do you do when you can't get enough coal for two days to run your coal fired power stations?

Hmmm?

And lets stick it to the nuke people too: What do you do when a design flaw is found and the entire fleet has to be taken offline for emergency repairs?

Oh, if only those simpletons knew that having a "dispatchable" power supply was as simple as "we have to fuel it" to be secure and constant!

While waiting to see if Mark, who might offer some hard data on his solar installation, gets back, let's further consider his references.

At this point, solar installations are not producing an excess physically during the midday period, although there are projections that this will eventually occur.

What does it mean? Well, production increase for that period will be outpacing the growth in demand. This would be good news in a market functioning as I have suggested.

In my market, electricity should go down in price during this period. Then, as demand increases towards evening, the price should increase The effect would be to encourage people to buy Chevy Volts and Tesla House Batteries.

If you have a house battery, you can store that cheap electricity. If you need less than you have stored, you can sell it back to other users at the higher price.

If lots and lots of houses have solar panels, and plug-in vehicles, and house batteries, guess what you have:

Yep... Grid. Level. Storage.

So, we eliminate the CO2 produced by ICE commuting. And, we eliminate the CO2 equivalent to what we have stored that would otherwise be burned in the evening.

This is a very big step. It requires nothing but existing hardware and software, and creates lots of local jobs. Win-win.

And, as I said earlier, any consumer for whom this doesn't work is free to buy from a nuclear plant or "clean FF" plant or chip in to build their own if such is not available. Still a win-win.

Zebra,

Sorry for the delay in responding. Our plans yesterday had to be modified due to an unexpected trip to the vet and way to many hours icing my back.

Our PV system generates between 30 and 36 kWh a day during sunny spring, summer and early fall days. In the winter if we have a sunny day and all the snow and ice has melted off the panels we will generate between 15 and 24 kWh. This year has been a bit wet, make that a lot wet, in CA so our average output is lower than normal. When I designed the system I wanted it to generate enough power to meet 55% of our load over a calendar year. If you want any other details let me know.

One of the geeks, experts, at CASIO (the folks who run the grid in CA) indicated that CA could end up with a higher fuel burn rate (ie more co2 released) under a couple of scenarios as we move from <20% RES to the 33% RES. Lots of efforts have been initiated to mitigate the mismatch of supply with demand over the years. Some integration challenges have delayed the use of newer forms of energy storage. The state has a lot of pumped hydro storage capacity which will be very helpful this calendar year.

Alice (Energy Skeptic blog) discussed energy storage projects in CA last year:

http://energyskeptic.com/2016/how-is-californias-ab2514-experiment-with…

The over generation challenge is tracked by CASIO these days on their web site. As expected April 9th was a bad day for the amount of power curtailed. http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html

A local public utility is implementing a plan to encourage their residential customers to purchase EV’s. They, SMUD, are offering two years of free electricity to customers who purchase an EV. The management of SMUD is likely trying to figure out how the recent announcement of the closure of the largest industrial customer (Aerojet) in their district is going to affect their operations. The can likely sell their soon to be excess capacity of hydropower to my service provider (PG&E).

So you're just telling us what your current experience is, as a sort of example.

"indicated that CA could end up with a higher fuel burn rate (ie more co2 released) under a couple of scenarios as we move from <20% RES to the 33% RES"

Yeah, probably wrong there.

For example, pretending that outage from wind lulls or heavy cloud happen too quickly for efficient modern large scale power to be brought back online and being replaced by inefficient peaking plants.

'cept we have weather forecasts that are pretty damn accurate to three days or more for that sort of thing.

And probably yet again refusing to acknowledge that the calories from petrol burnt cannot be equated to the amount of kWh from electrical sources, along with heat pumps
being much more efficient.

And "forgetting" that LEDs are rolling out and reduce lighting, and better house design (or even for the USA not using that goddamned stupid tumble drier when the goddamned sun is out) would reduce the use for electrical heating.

And not forgetting that with the energy being sapped by SPV, you will have lower cooling costs in summer when it's all paneled up..

Likely the paper is just the same blowhard alarmism from nuke fluffers who want to prop their "low CO2" option up with a panic to decarbonise.

I would also point out to you that, though the overall output of SPV is lower in full cloud, the fact that it is diffuse when it gets through means that the power curve is a lot flatter.

And, lastly, when there's enough SPV to make it unworkable to expose the highest profits over the best match to load, some places will cant their panels to morningside to make use of higher production during morning peak, while others will choose the later period. Currently it just reduces the power produced at highest profitability times, so most places (not all) optimise to get the maximum value per kWh as opposed to making supply more consistent.

That, again, is one method by which zebra's free market approach *may* produce correct outputs: when it's all SPV and wind, prices will increase where supply is lacking and people will change their panel alignment to maximise power at those times.

Free markets are prone to corruption and incapable of fixing it, because there's no mechanism for a free market to avoid the benefits of monopolisation being taken advantage of, but since corruption of some sort is always going to be a problem when money and/or power is involved, you merely choose which forms of corruption you will have to work against and avoid, rather than some mythic option that is incorruptible.

Wow,

I thought you were going to maintain the terminology discipline you have exhibited in the past, but...

Your final paragraph uses "free market" when you should be saying "laissez faire capitalism". Of course the regulator/government can be corrupt, but if it isn't, anti-trust legislation will be enforced. And think about how difficult it would be to create collusion with hundreds of thousands of solar-installed houses, each an entrepreneurial enterprise.

Mark,

Thanks; I'm just trying to get people to see some practical numbers rather than broad generalizations that distort how we understand the issues.

So, I guess the main question I would still have is what were your zero-output time periods? Days, weeks?

Also, nice to hear that the synergy I keep touting is happening, with electricity suppliers pushing the EV.

"Your final paragraph uses “free market” when you should be saying “laissez faire capitalism”."

There isn't any difference, except the latter insists that complete anarchy is fine.

Free markets do not handle control of the free market, it's not even in the paradigm. Government or some other collective needs to externally deal with free markets *to keep them free*, because the free market itself has no power to do so, at least scaled beyond the local commune level, that level at which communism works just as well as free markets, because there's a very direct link between everyone, customer and supplier alike.

So in what the market can deal with, there's no difference.

Laissez faire is only the negation of accepting this and "believing" without any evidence, and usually with the ret-con idea that the "reason" why the laissez faire anarchy has never worked is because it wasn't "laissez faire" enough. When the problem is that laissez faire is just incapable of working.

Laissez faire is free markets, but a refusal to allow any control.

Free market either accepts there has to be supra-market control because the free market itself cannot handle many things (including externalities), or in its laissez faire clothing, insists that it somehow magically will be no problem if it's left completely alone.

But the free market is still the free market in both views. And it still cannot deal with corruption, since there's no way to correct it in a large market, since there's no power in the free market to do so.

The collusion won't be between the thousands of independents, it'll be in the attempts of middle men to insert themselves. It'll be in the biggest suppliers trying to take over the grid and own it (see AT&T or any cable company going into internet, or indeed ISPs going into cable...).

The hundreds of thousands of individuals selling their power won't have the tools to make the educated choice because of corruption, and since the market won't fix what it can't see (remember, the scores of big players may see the problem, but they have the manpower and knowledge to avoid it, the common man won't have either, but won't even know it's as big a problem as it is, since they only interact with a small section of the market), so government will still have to work to break down information barriers, break up cliques and prosecute both anti-trust and fraud.

laissez faire doctrine would insist that government should not do any of that, and that any that turns up is automatically insisted to be BECAUSE of government interference.

But they too operate the free market.

They just insist for dogmatic reasons of belief and unsupported faith that government should do nothing about it.

Of course some, most or maybe all of them know that it's hogwash and merely want, like many libertarians, the power do be unrestricted themselves, not an uncoerced society free to act as they will.

And they, because they use the free market are why those who accept that no free market can deal with some things and that government must involve itself in weeding out and compelling freedom in the market to keep it free are tarred with the same brush.

My use of free market was 100% correct and accurate. Laissez faire is an add-on to control the free market, though in the nihilistic sense that there should be no control or compensation of corrupting influence.

This might be the moment for another of those periodic reminders not to confuse the domestic sector with the electricity market as a whole. Roughly speaking, domestic demand is ~30% of the total market, so it is important to keep things in perspective.

What happens in terms of domestic efficiency and storage and rooftop SPV is all good, of course, but it doesn't by itself lead to the necessary pace and depth of decarbonisation required to avoid severe climate impacts.

The danger of blurring the distinction between the domestic sector and the market as a whole is complacency. One might begin to imagine that decarbonisation on the necessary scale is self-propelling and even a bit easy. This provides politicians now and in the future with a perfect opportunity to mouth platitudes and do nothing.

"Roughly speaking, domestic demand is ~30% of the total market,"

Remember when you were saying about all the heating and lighting and transport?

"but it doesn’t by itself lead to ..."

Nobody other than you says otherwise. But your stuff about commuter drives is 100% solved (well 99% ish if you insist) with home solar.

"One might begin to imagine that decarbonisation on the necessary scale is self-propelling and even a bit easy"

You might. Sane people, not so much.

You pretend that there are these problems AS IF THEY WERE UNIQUE TO RENEWABLES.

They are not.

They are problems *we have today*.

What happened when both Didcot AND Sizewell went offline for a good several months?

I'll tell you what didn't happen: nobody then went shouting about how the current grid system was broken because of silly people thinking nukes and coal were the answer.

What DID happen is the industries who fucked up blamed renewables for it, because they thought that people weren't buying replacement nuke and coal power for these events.

What we're doing is making your alarmist claims and clamour properly aligned with reality, where these problems are already ones we have and ones we will have whatever solution we have, and whose answers are already there, without anyone crying about how hard it all would be to implement the current system.

"This provides politicians now and in the future with a perfect opportunity to mouth platitudes and do nothing."

No, shouting about how things will be too hard if we change gives them an excuse.

Denial the problem exists gives them an excuse.

And corruption from market leaders gives them reason to find one.

Pretending that these problems are unique to wind and solar gives them excuses to fund big expensive projects that will have huge companies running it who will have plenty of non-voting directorship jobs for anyone with the "wisdom" to help them make more cash. All the while pointing to the "problems" with wind and solar, and eliding the fact that they exist for all methods just as validly, to excuse them waiting until "the more inclusive moderate position" of wasting money on white elephants for the pork produces something better.

The situation is dire enough with enough wasted time so far that we don't have a choice, and as we build more and more renewables in different places we will find how much these problems exist, and the ways that will solve them, and the fall-back when all actions that the market will let you undertake are, because one-in-a-million chances MIGHT crop up, still possibly insufficient to the task.

You know, like a massive fire at Didcot.

Or Fukushima.

They happened, and nobody was going to build a 100% replacement to keep for all that time mothballed just in case it fucked up, but they did fuck up and stop.

What did we do?

We dealt with it, even if badly, because it just wasn't feasible to plan for a backup for the remote chances, and even if it's not the best solution, life will still go on, and we'll manage the crisis as we have to manage every other one that turns up.

Your fearmongering merely gives yet more ammo to pause doing anything for those who would prefer to let someone else carry the can.

Also I take it that the existence of all this grid storage is invalid because it's a homeowner car batteries, right?

Or does solving the energy problems mean energy problems are being solved, no matter which arbitrary boundaries it falls in? Most would agree to that, but you seem to want to demarcate off certain areas for "not confusion" because of some ephemeral worry that delay will result if we stop worrying about what will go wrong and start doing something then find out what arises.

>domestic demand is ~30% of the total market

The discussion is focused on the US, so now domestic demand is about 5% of the global market, and the US is about 15% of global.

Remember when you were saying about all the heating and lighting and transport?

No. Link and full quote please.

Your fearmongering

*What* 'fearmongering'?

Pointing out that people confuse the domestic sector with the whole market isn't 'fearmongering'. Pointing out that improvements in efficiency, storage and personal generation in the domestic sector fall a very long way short of decarbonising the electricity market isn't 'fearmongering'.

You are *such* a troll.

"No."

Ah, so you're a moron, a dumbass, or a liar.

Well done.

"*What* ‘fearmongering’?"

Yeah, more moronic denial.

Ever wonder why some call you denier?

Oooh, ooh, I know, what will you do if I show you your words? Will you accept the charge and fuck off forever or will you weasel out after I've done work, hmmm?

Come on, give me some pay for the work done you want to be done to punish me for not obeying your exhortations and ridiculous rhetoric.

Wow,

"car batteries"

Tesla is selling house batteries and "grid" batteries specifically designed for time-of-day load shifting.

The larger ones sound like they would take care of much of the commercial load that is supposedly a "problem" in the evening. Walmart has vast amounts of surface area, on the roof and in the parking lots, that could be covered with solar panels, and to locate the battery assembly. And that's another large chunk of CO2 that can be eliminated.

I was wondering if you had noticed a rather strange thing about how this conversation has gone:

I jumped in originally to chide you and BBD for having the same old nuclear v renewables debate, and offered my "let the market decide" approach.

But now I have, multiple times, said that nuclear was an option for industrial users with 24/7 process applications. Have you noticed that not one of the nuclear advocates has jumped in to applaud that?

Somehow, the great defenders of nuclear have stopped liking it so much when it is properly matched with a compatible load, perhaps located where there would be less controversy. Huh!

Almost makes one think that it really isn't what you describe as nuke-fluffing, but delay-delay-delay. Just sayin'.

No, Greg doesn't accept nuke fluffing, so they don't do it because of that is just as supported.

But now I have, multiple times, said that nuclear was an option for industrial users with 24/7 process applications. Have you noticed that not one of the nuclear advocates has jumped in to applaud that?

That's because Wow goes so absolutely batshit at the mention of the n-word that it is easier to discuss renewables-only approaches to decarbonisation.

And you are still locked in the domestic demand bubble and ignoring the marginal effect of domestic generation and storage on total market demand.

I jumped in originally to chide you and BBD for having the same old nuclear v renewables debate, and offered my “let the market decide” approach.

That's wow, zebra. *He* has that argument with an imaginary version of me that exists only in his head. I have pointed this out to you before.

I know it is very difficult to have a conversation with a lunatic in the room roaring and flinging shit, but even so, I would hope you appreciate the difference between my position (use everything) and wow's (rabidly anti-nuclear).

"That’s because Wow goes so absolutely batshit at the mention of the n-word"

Yeah, that's yet more of your insanity talking, dumbass.

"That’s wow, zebra. *He* "

"He"? Again, why do you say "he"?

"has that argument with an imaginary version of me "

Nope, I've got the one with the real you. Your insanity, however, cannot visit the real world when it comes to nukes. You just cannot think at all when it comes to that. Your brain dribbles off for a hangover cure while you rabidly shout and scream about how bad it will be if we use renewables, yet ignore that your alarmism is the scenario we have to see every week with the current and previous energy systems.

Because, sans ability to argue logic, you have to scare the shit out of people who dare think that maybe it can be 100% renewables.

You just, for some insane reason, can't handle the idea of a 100% renewable future.

"I know it is very difficult to have a conversation with a lunatic in the room roaring and flinging shit,"

Yes, we have to keep ducking the crap you fling.

“He”? Again, why do you say “he”?

Do you wish to be referred to as 'she' in future, Wow? I will, of course, do as you wish.

That is not an answer to the question.

You love avoiding answering, don't you, dumbass?

Why did you say "He"?

"Do you wish to be referred to as ‘she’ in future"

Nothing to do with what I wish, only with what motivates you to assign a gender without evidence.

Wow

Why did you say “He”?

Because you are so aggressive.

Do you wish to be referred to as he or she in future?

So you presume male because they're strong or not female because they're meek?

So you presume male because they’re strong or not female because they’re meek?

Women are meek? Who told you that?

The reason I assumed that you are a bloke is because you act like one. And you know it, so stop pissing around.

Still not an answer, dumbass.

So you presume male because they’re strong or not female because they’re meek?

Or is it that you're taking the first option? Because you gave that as your "reason", but this needs checking to see if you weren't just blowing smoke again. Or lying. You do that.

"because you act like one."

So women aren't agressive, then?

I know dean claimed it was ignorance of statistics by me, when he really meant social science, but women aren't as aggressive is another point that signifies you are male.

Hey, don't sell yourself short, "mike", you're ignorant about a lot of things.

Remember, you almost certainly have more than the average number of legs, and eyes and even fingers and toes!

The thing about questioning why people make the presumption about gender when there's neither need nor evidence for it is that they so very rarely have any explanation for it, indicating at the very least that even they don't look at their own thought processes (such as they are) and actively refrain from doing so.

I've used both evidence based assertions for the conclusion AND also used one of probably several "I have no evidence" claims for it, but nobody else ever seems to manage to even bring up an "I have no evidence" and an open and self-regarding assessment of what it meant by presuming the gender. It's all been highly defensive and made as if there were some imperative to their assumption, rather than just plain assumption.

People tend to hold to the idea that they are rational and don't question it anywhere near enough. Meanwhile make the assumption others are IRrational.

Much like the idea of free well. As one author put it, when they see someone else do something unexpected, they go "Frank is acting out of character", and not "Frank is exercising his free will today!". They assume themselves free will but want others to be automata and predictable.

Women have more legs than average.

So if you think it likely I have more than the average number of legs, then you will conclude I'm female?

The problem of your conversion to statistical likelyhood (completely at odds with your climate denial, by the way, which rather supports the contention that your stats ref is merely a facade behind which your misogyny hides) is that you propose "Is" from "likely". Moreover, it's just the same bullshit that early white assholes made the assumption that they were superior to blacks, by appealing to some statistical average that they didn't even bother to check and brought "is" from "might be". They looked at the average lifespan, saw they had a longer one and then assumed they were better.

They looked at the brain case size, then looked at ALL AFRICAN HUMANS, which are far FAR more varied than out-of-africa humans genetically, and concluded that they were dumber because their brain could not be as large on average.

They were abusing stats and not caring because they WANTED to believe their racism was scientifically sound rather than their own blind prejudice.

You have made no statistical analysis. Not of the amount of aggression from me, not of the amount of aggression the spectrum of men have, and compared it to the results for a population of women, not made any calculation as to the likelihood, then compared that to the number of women who you have encountered.

If it's 5% possible and you've talked to more than 20 women, there's one who is as "aggressive" as the one you proclaim me to be.

But remember too that this assertion "aggressive" is merely a paint job on what you don't want to accept and wish to paint to conform to what you'd like to be there.

"No you're talking bollocks" is refutation, not aggression, dumbasses.

>If it’s 5% possible and you’ve talked to more than 20 women, there’s one who is as “aggressive” as the one you proclaim me to be.

And 19 who are not...

>So if you think it likely I have more than the average number of legs, then you will conclude I’m female?

If there's a big difference between men and women on that score, then sure. But of course there is no such difference, except maybe on the less than average side.

"If there’s a big difference between men and women on that score"

If you don't know whether there is or not, you have no evidence to back your assertion, despite it being the only claim in support of your assertion you have given.

Since you do not know if the stats support you and asked that question, then you made your statement out of ignorance and bigotry, not evidence.

>If you don’t know whether there is or not, you have no evidence to back your assertion,

This is a correct statement, since 'if A then B' is only wrong when A is true and B is false.

>Since you do not know if the stats support you
Wrong.

"This is a correct statement"

What a lame-ass way of saying "Yeah, I was wrong".

">Since you do not know if the stats support you
Wrong."

WRONG.

Even you said that it was a correct statement "you have no evidence to back your assertion"

Fucking idiot.

No, I said your full statement was correct, and gave the reason. Learn the rules of logic.

Getting back to the topic, a brief review:

In the competitive market paradigm, we have the opportunity to best match the energy source to the end use.

Electrification of personal (and probably much commercial) transportation; batteries charged with low-price intermittent renewables.

Stationary electricity (residential and commercial) provided by renewables with on-site time-of-day-shifting battery storage.

Industrial applications requiring 24/7 electricity supplied by dedicated nuclear generation, whether large-scale or localized.

Reduction of consumption through more efficient technology, and further storage in the form of thermal energy for space conditioning.

These are the likely outcomes once the costs of CO2 are internalized and anti-competitive structures are eliminated.

And again, remember Greg's admonition-- the Nirvana Fallacy is a Fallacy.

To Zebra (#106),

“So, I guess the main question I would still have is what were your zero-output time periods? Days, weeks?”

The worst output time block for our system was during a winter storm. We had zero output from the system for 4 days. It took 3 days for the snow and ice to melt off the panels. The variability in output for our PV system, for representative months matching the seasons, is noted below. In the winter our output can be 1, or 2, kWh/day for a few days in a row.

January
Average kWh/month= 483
Standard Deviation= 113
Coefficient of Variation=23.5%
% demand from PV=37%
Capacity Factor(avg)= 12.5

April
Average kWh/month= 867
Standard Deviation= 69
Coefficient of Variation= 8%
% demand from PV= 82%
Capacity Factor(avg)= 22.3

July
Average kWh/month= 1029
Standard Deviation= 47
Coefficient of Variation=4.5%
% demand from PV=70%
Capacity Factor(avg)= 26.5

October
Average kWh/month= 760
Standard Deviation= 35
Coefficient of Variation= 5%
% demand from PV=50%
Capacity Factor(avg)=18.6

Our system was installed in the days before internet conductivity for inverters. The meter from our service provider is Smart in that it collects usage (kWh) into different time bins that match up to our TOU rate schedule, but it does not have conductivity (internet) either. I have daily records in written format. I transfer the data to an electronic file that I summarizes into monthly data.

Sorry for the really long delay in answering your question………….. There is a lot of daily data, binned into 24 intervals, available at the CASIO web link noted in an earlier comment. I used that data base a few months ago to get a feel if the utility scale PV generators in the state have a smaller hour variability (over at least 30 days) than the CSP facilities feeding the CA grid. We have a lot more utility scale PV spread throughout the state then CSP facilities which may be why CSP’s Coefficient of variation for any particular hours generation was much larger than the variation in output from the PV generation sites.

" It took 3 days for the snow and ice to melt off the panels"

Last winter there were several streets and even entire (OK, small, but still the entire village) out of power completely for as long as that because of winter storms taking out the electric lines.

So having even a worldwide grid and massive nuke or coal or gas providing "dependable" power doesn't solve that problem of a few days out of power when there's been a storm.

Mark,

Thanks, great info. Getting 37% during January is a nice example of why Nirvana Fallacy is a Fallacy.

That;s 37% of max, though, not 37% of demand.

And as I said before, with the current mix there's no financial incentive to work to even out supply because it's more profitable at the moment to steal the old systems' lunch and sell peak power at peak price times than to supply what's wanted.

Wow,

He said "37% of demand".

He sized it to produce what he'd used in the summer, it's the second post he made (IIRC, but you can pop back and see it),so, to an extent, yes, it's not "max", but the "maximum he'd bought to supply".

The point is somewhat along the lines of what you'd ended on, regarding the perfection fallacy.

We don't have a perfect one now.

My addition was that we won't see the problems in what we currently see, since the system is built in the ecosystem we currently have, and not in one where it's carbon free.

It's why your idea of an open (as opposed to free, given the political implications of that term) market might work. It is probably why nukes *won't* work, since they're not able to adapt, even as a project, because of the timelines and the sunk costs at the beginning, which is IMO why BBD is so set against it being declared unworkable: nukes work if they're backed up by a non-profit paradigm and/or government edict.

But an open market will, potentially, be able to move to either fill an emergent gap or avoid an opening pitfall. Kinda sucks to be the one who fell in where nobody knew there was a problem, mind, but that's a societal thing to discuss outside energy production paradigms.

But go back and look at the figures.

Winter, half the power usage, half the "capacity factor", but still gives "demand from PV" as half the summer.

It's "demand from PV" compared to nominal spec, not usage. Else one of those figures at least is out by a factor of two.

I would presume it's from the wording of his supplier and a lack of either thinking it through or not considering it as potentially confusing that leaves the wording as it is.

Or, possibly, that there is no mention of the demand of power he has for each month, in which case he looks to be using as much in winter as summer, which for his location shows he's wastefully profligate and he can fix most of his problems by not throwing money away in wasted power.

Mark,

Thanks, great info. Getting 37% during January is a nice example of why Nirvana Fallacy is a Fallacy.

It's a perfect example of why you are going to need a bigger grid.

And you are *still* muddling up the domestic sector with the total market. This is 37% of 30%, not 37% of 100%.

But go on wittering on about supposed Nirvana fallacies and pretending that there is no difference between necessary and sufficient.

See earlier post, BBD. Read it first before making such stupid claims. Because if you haven't read them, the post you just did wasn't stupid, just uninformed, but if you had read it, then that was definitely stupid.

We currently need a grid that supplies twice the power we use, because we only produce 50-ish percent of the capability. And renewables are cheaper, so even if you have to build more MW (which we don't, at least it's not provably necessary, merely a possible requirement), it will still be cheaper to build and run than other ideas.

"This is 37% of 30%,"

That is 37% of what was built up to provide. And with 12-year-old tech, in a process that is still improving efficiency at Moore's Law rates.

Moreover, that's 37% of a system built not to be a sole replacement, for a person who either got that figure wrong (see my previous post, remember) or is dumping a shitload of unnecessary power out, therefore could dump that 37% to 74% no problem.

Not forgetting that ice on his roof from a storm is equivalent to a downed line or fubar'd station transformer, both of which have seen streets and even whole areas without power for days.

Ask the USians in Tornado Ally what that feels like. Local generation there is done because it's needed, not because they're wanting to replace their power use.

"But go on wittering on about supposed Nirvana fallacies "

You're doing it right there, dumbass.

"Oh, it's not perfect, so it's really really BAAAAADDDD!!!!!".

Wow, the fuckwit's fuckwit.

Buddy, bloody dumbass.

Bullshit, Bollocks and Denial.

So. Germany. 85% power production from renwables. Near 20 years earlier than planned.

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

Apparently that 20% figure that was bandied about, what, 2011? thereabouts anyway, for safe renewable penetration looks to have been a *tad* off.

And when its dark / winter? And low wind conditions?

Where does the energy come from then?

A total alternative reserve equal to the total national demand.

What might provide such a reserve? You are adamant that no backup is required, so presumably, unicorn farts.

These kinds of headlines are misleading and dangerous. They create an entirely false impression that there is some sort of meaningful energy transition actually underway.

Fake news for useful idiots.

BBD and Wow,

It appears that the German government would like to evaluate ways to improve the ability of their forecaster to match supply with demand:

RTE Day-ahead Load Forecasting Competition 2017:

http://blog.drhongtao.com/

….”In this context of increasing flexibility and market rule harmonisation at the European level, RTE wants to conduct a review of current forecasting methods and assess the performance of new dynamic and adaptive approaches brought by Data Science.

The first challenge will focus on the deterministic short-term forecast of national and 12 regional electricity demands, a second one will focus on a forecast with associated uncertainty.

RTE will launch its first international public challenge in Data Science mid-May, running till mid-July. The second challenge will take place during winter 2017-2018.”

I wonder if Dr. Hansen is following how RTE is doing. I’d like to know if he still feels the current approach to addressing things might be a bit off target:

http://energyskeptic.com/2013/james-hansen-says-belief-in-renewable-ene…

What about it?

Tell me, what % of energy was the renewable system currently built out supposed to handle?

Something under 40%.

Now, tell me, what happens when your nuke plant blows up?

What happens when your smokestack for the coal generator cracks and falls?

What happens when your transformer station is set aflame?

JAQing off really doesn't do anything other than show desperation.

Oh, and Germany has night. And it has winter too.

So what happened was they managed just fine.

"These kinds of headlines are misleading and dangerous"

Nope. Unless you mean "leading away from the narrative I prefer" and "dangerous to my ideology".

OK, so what does your text have to do with your link?

You DO know why appeal to authority is a fallacy, right? That anyone can be wrong and that saying "this person is an expert" is a shorthand for those who cannot work with the information that this expert had to hand to arrive at their conclusion that this issue HAS been looked at, but that if you can, you will and should always point to the data and information that led that expert to their conclusion, because it's the validity of the data and its support or not for the conclusion that actually shows the conclusion is right or wrong.

Dr Wakefield is, or rather was, a real doctor.

His ability to discern the truth from the facts in evidence was 100% supported.

He lied and faked however.

Hence if your audience can handle the data, you show them the data. If they can't, then your claim to mercury leading to autism based on Dr Wakefield's career choice is an appeal to authority.

Of course, if he'd been right, the appeal would have been immaterial as to whether mercury causes autism. The appeal is, really, orthogonal to the claim's veracity. It can only ever be used if you point to where that authority got THEIR data and information from. And then argument can ignore who said it, and move into what proves it.

Here's what a blip in wind and solar looks like (this is the April 30 blip when German electricity generation peaked at 85% renewables between 1300 - 1500hrs.

And this is what a coal power blip looks like

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2014/oct…

And one power station is so big that the HVDC links need to be massively upgraded so that we can cope with its intermittency.

Strange how this is not a problem for the fluffers....

“These kinds of headlines are misleading and dangerous”

Nope. Unless you mean “leading away from the narrative I prefer” and “dangerous to my ideology”.

No, I meant what I said. Energy industry misinformation is dangerous whenever it is used to lull the public into believing that:

a/ GW isn't really a problem

or:

b/ It's all going to be okay because renewables

But it's all energy industry misinformation and it's all pernicious. Useful idiots on both sides dance to their respective pipers. All will end up in the river in due course.

Also is your complaint that they saved so much cost of unburnt fuel? Is not burning coal a problem?

"No, I meant what I said. "

OK, so what you said was intentionally meaningless.

"b/ It’s all going to be okay because renewables"

Ah, that would be the same number of people who are leftists and proclaim we need a NWO to control the planet, as many deniers proclaim.

I.e. nobody.

“These kinds of headlines are misleading"

So what was misleading???? Be specific and back it up with reality, not your imaginings.

Classic useful idiocy from Carrington, who tries on a feeble false equivalence between a fire at a single power station and the national-scale variability in wind during anticyclonic conditions or solar during night / widespread cloud / winter. It's just stupid. Yet it gets published, along with the crap by deniers in the right wing press. It's all misinformation.

“These kinds of headlines are misleading”

- It was the May Day holiday long weekend: industrial demand was unusually low.

- It was a blip - a day - when unusually windy and sunny weather coincided.

- Electricity is not total primary energy and it's not okay to blur that distinction.

You don't understand this stuff well enough to argue about it Wow.

Ah, classic denial form nuke fluffer. Can't argue the case, argues the speaker.

So useful, that fluffer. Earns every penny he does!

"– It was the May Day holiday long weekend:"

So what is misleading? The headline said they got 85% from renewables. Whether it was May day or not. The headline didn't say "On a heavy load day...".

Remember, I asked for reality, not your imaginations.

"– It was a blip – a day "

So what is misleading? They got 85%. The headline didn't say "For a full year!"

I want reality, not what you imagined.

"– Electricity is not total primary energy "

So where did the headline say all total primary energy? And how does running a solar panel produce Natural gas for burning????

I wanted reality, not your shibboleth imagingings.

What was misleading?

Is it not misleading to claim that 85% of demand is misleading?

Is it not misleading to complain that there are winters and nights when the discussion is about how much electricity was produced compare to the demand?

Is it not misleading to complain about things that were not claimed in the goddamned report itself???

Is it not misleading to harp on about intermittency when every source is intermittent?

Is it not misleading to complain about Carrington for being himself and ignoring that Didcot DID go titsup and produce NO POWER while the renewables continued going? The facts wouldn't change if it were Coco the Clown or even Trumpanzee saying it.

Is it not misleading to claim it's misleading when you have to pretend things not there to be misled about?

Is it not misleading to complain about misleading people when you're busy doing just that?

So to protect against another didcot burning down, we have to build two. And admit to building two of everything in case that one thing burns down. And in case we can't get coal, we have to plant enough trees that we can use charcoal from the trees permanently, else we would have potentially a lack of power from coal imports being blocked.

And to hold up against uranium being unavailable, we have to relocate the UK to some place with a lot of uranium resources we can mine for the next 10,000 years, because we might be blockaded from having nuclear fuel!

Indeed if we forested enough to supply our energy needs through charcoal

a) it's carbon neutral
b) the mass of trees would draw down some of the carbon

Meaning it's far better to do that than bother with nuclear energy, because we can be embargoed imports but we can't be embargoed the trees growing on our land.

So we find our perfect BBD solution: Charcoal power!

Is it not misleading to harp on about intermittency when every source is intermittent?

The Carrington lie again, despite debunking just upthread. You aren't even a useful idiot.

What lie? Are you saying Carrington doesn't exist? Or that Didcot never was on fire????

WHAT debunking? Debunking WHAT? EVERY SOURCE IS INTERMITTENT.

You're not even a dumbass. Dumbasses are looking at you all ;-^ and wondering what is wrong with your head.

Oooh! Oooh! I think I got it, you think that being a power station that produces power by burning stuff, that when it was on fire it was producing EVEN MORE POWAH!

Amirite?

Hey, when we run out of gas because Russia turns off the supply to Europe, what do you do, hmm?

What do you do when there's a huge lull in the weather, it's night time, we have no gas supply? Have you built up enough extra nuke power to cover all that loss? If not, then you have to include in the cost of nuke power the cost of supplying 100% of total primary power production entirely by nukes with over-build!

But what happens when you discover a design flaw in the station? You therefore need to build an entire second replication of that overbuilt programme with a completey different design in the

(fucking touch sensitive laptop mouse equivalent)... You therefore need to build an entire second replication of that overbuilt programme with a completely different design in the hope that the design flaw is not common to both designs! But what if it IS in both!?!?!?! OMG! We need four, completely new designs of enough nuke power to supply all primary production, else BBD will insist it is misleading!!!!

Of course, coal power will also need to be replicated 400% of maximum demand in three different designs in case we find that imports of uranium are blocked.

We wouldn't want to be "misleading" BBD, would we!

Oh, and NOBODY say anything about whether anything we do to mitigate or counter AGW or CO2 levels because it would be misleading to imply that there is no problem because we've found a way to stop it. m'kay. That's just misleading the poor retard.

We wouldn’t want to be “misleading” BBD, would we!

Of course not. But it was you who brought up the misleading news splash about '85%' blah. So, look at the mirror instead of berating me. Ditto on parroting Carrington's nonsense. Neophyte / useful idiot errors both.

"But it was you who brought up the misleading news splash about ‘85%’ "

But you haven't actually found anything misleading about it. You've imagined what you want to whine about. You're the one misleading people, dumbass.

"Ditto on parroting Carrington’s nonsense."

Ah, so you DO claim that Didcot never burned down!

Welp, you're a lying sack of dick-covers, then dumdum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-35641766

Oooh, but maybe the BBC is ALSO misleading people!!!!!

THEY'RE ALL IN ON THE CONSPIRACY!!!!!111!!!!ONEONE!!1!!

INCLUDING the owners!

Oh, and so as not to mislead anyone, care to show us a month where there was zero wind across the entire UK, with 8 Octas of cloud cover?

You wouldn't want to compare a local, temporary weather event changing a small area's output slightly with a nationwide synoptic scale long term failure, would you?

Heck, I'll let you off and allow you to pick another country. How about USA?

A good energy storage method is to use compressed air to run gas turbines.

Normally gas turbines use a substantial fraction of the power they produce to compress air to operate the turbine. The compressed air is heated by burning natural gas, then the hot air plus combustion products are expanded, and the net power (expansion power minus compression power) is used to generate electricity.

It is a relatively minor modification to run compressors with electricity and store that compressed air underground and then use that compressed air during periods of peak energy demand. This is a way to shift off-peak power to peak power. There are some losses, but the price differential between peak and off-peak are so large that it would be worth doing.

Those natural gas powered turbines can also be made carbon-free by sequestering the CO2 they produce.

This would be a lot cheaper and more effective than the "moving rocks uphill idea" (which is going to be too expensive).

Oh, and so as not to mislead anyone, care to show us a month where there was zero wind across the entire UK, with 8 Octas of cloud cover?

Demand for impossible (and irrelevant) standard of proof.

We were talking about Germany, which is bigger than the UK, and the data are available. Here's Sunday 15 Jan - Sunday 22 Jan this year.

Solar is at its seasonal low end, but Mon Tue Wed were very low so cloudy over most of Germany. A bit less cloud on Thurs, Fri, and a bit less on Sat, Sun but solar low all week.

Wind - very low, all week.

You can see coal and gas doing the heavy lifting, with pumped hydro for peaking. But the coal and gas have to go. According to you we aren't allowed backup and we aren't allowed HVDC interconnections.

So, what next?

"Demand for impossible "

Yes, that, for any sane human intellect, would have been obvious as to why I asked. To point out that you demand impossible perfection or you'll whinge like holy shit that some corner case is imperfect, therefore misleading to even discuss the overall process.

But I get it, you're not a sane human.

Much like "dick" and his "CO2 sensitivity is only measured in doublings from 280ppm!!

"We were talking about Germany,"

YOU were not in 162

But I comprehend: NOOOOO! LOOK! SQUIRREL!!!!

All you have left with your arse in tatters.

"We were talking about Germany, which is bigger than the UK, and the data are available. "

Ah, so misleading. Talking about data as if it proves the headline wrong when it shows the headline was correct and factually accurate.

So sad. So misleading of you dumdum.

None of that sad and pathetic bullshit disavows the FACT that Germany got 85% of its electrical power from renewables as reported here:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

Dang, that reality just won't play ball with your insanity bubble,will it, bubbles.

No, the fact it was sized to cover a much smaller fraction of demand is, to you, a failure because it doesn't cover a much higher than designed load for all time.

Tell us the last time any "conventional" power supply supplied more than twice the rated load for any time at all.

And explain why, if doing so with renewables for any time at all is a failure, why conventional power sources aren't a worse failure?

Dai, we already have GW of backup. In other power stations and sources that are left untapped.

Why must they be scrapped or not used in a totally renewable future?

And if the use of non-renewable for the rare occasion where there's insufficient supply to demand, why isn't the cost of renewables added to the cost of conventional systems when the renewables are used to shore up "conventional" sources when they flatline?

Ignore the data. Avoid the question. Rant on.

" According to you we aren’t allowed backup "

Oh dear, more hallucinatory babbling from the local dumbass.

According to you only renewables have problems, all other sources of power are perfect.

And before you whine and whinge and demand I show where you said that, look above at the quote of you I made, you ignorant fucknut.

Ignore the data, ignore the facts, ignore the reality, just keep complaining about imaginary problems and claims, dumbass.

Oh, and what's this "we" bit, dumdum?

Weren't WE talking about GERMANY????

We're not germans.

Oh, dear, your squirrel is nailed to the tree for all to see as stuffed.

Rebuttal of "We're talking about X" when you yourself will include Non-X in your talking points is no rebuttal but blatantly obvious distraction tactics.

According to you only renewables have problems, all other sources of power are perfect.

Nope, you made that up.

And before you whine and whinge and demand I show where you said that, look above at the quote of you I made, you ignorant fucknut.

Well, you were exactly as incompetent as I suspected, dumdum.

Shall we count what you made up, dumdum?

"the headline is misleading"
"Carrington is wrong about Didcot catching fire"
"according to [me] we aren't allowed backup"
"WE were talking about GERMANY"

And others that really don't need adding to the list. It's long enough to prove the point.

You are a useless idiot.

Usain Bolt does not set new world record for the 100m, says BBD! "Misleading because he walked to the starting line" claims internet idiot!

Dumdum, if we take all your gloomongering as valid, so what?

If the UK is open to a remote risk of being becalmed by a nationwide lack of all wind power for weeks in midwinter, so what? Instead of content free and effectless whining, what then?

Dumdum, if we take all your gloomongering as valid, so what?

If the UK is open to a remote risk of being becalmed by a nationwide lack of all wind power for weeks in midwinter, so what? Instead of content free and effectless whining, what then?

It's not a remote risk - like Germany, it happens once or twice a year.

As for what then? that was what I asked you. Given your antipathy to backup and HVDC interconnectors.

So?

BBD, how much value do you think there is in having hybrid cars and electrics used as grid storage, to give back to the grid?

"It’s not a remote risk"

So what? If it happens every year, so what?

"As for what then? that was what I asked you."

That's what I'm asking YOU. So what?

We'll cope is what I say. I've said it MANY times before. You never fucking listened, preferring to shout and scream at imaginary problems instead.

What do you say? If it happens, so what?

" Given your antipathy to backup and HVDC interconnectors. "

Oh, another claim you made up, dumdum.

And completely ignorant of the question. So what? Are you saying we use the HVDC connection to Europe?

I've said that. Yet here you are, still complaining.

Dumdum, if we don't have generation capacity to supply enough power, we won't have sufficient power.

So I've answered it.

So what?

#60
"When you plug in your Volt in your garage, ... "
The sheer normality that Americans consider their wealth
with never ceases to surprise. I think thats part of the energy
issue.
A bloody house especially made for a bloody motorcar!!!
Thats some high level living right there.
Maybe if you all toned down the living like a millionaire thing a
bit.

Well, currently you have "your" car and you pay for "your petrol" so you don't want "your stuff" used by someone else, therefore you put it in a locked room so people can't use your car or take your petrol.

But if we have widespread EV charging and the cost of your commute charge is paid for by making your EV available when not driven for the grid power system, then it's not "your electricity" you're using, so no need to keep it locked away and only using "your" electricity.

And when they're mostly self-driving cars, why would you have a car at all?

And if you need a longer range, you rent a car. Or take public transport.

#195
"But if we have widespread EV charging"

Mmmm yes. I was reading that India has
plans to push this in a very big way. And
quickly.

#105 MikeN

BBD, how much value do you think there is in having hybrid cars and electrics used as grid storage, to give back to the grid?

Buys you about 12 hours. So massively over-hyped and misrepresented as a hedge against more than brief periods of low W&S output when W&S are major components of the energy mix.

Oh, another claim you made up, dumdum.

You spent an entire, very long thread backing up the idiot zebra against me on exactly this point.

So either you are a brazen liar (and you are, and we know it from past experience) or you are so utterly confused you don't even know what you are arguing for and against. Or maybe a bit of both.

So what? If it happens every year, so what?

You get a national-scale blackout that lasts for several days.

"Buys you about 12 hours."

So?

"You spent an entire, very long thread backing up the idiot zebra against me on exactly this point."

And yet another claim you made up, dumdum.

"You get a national-scale blackout that lasts for several days."

So?

All I'm hearing is you complaining.

Got anything else?

Have you saying we'll have blackouts if we don't generate enough electricity to meet demand.

OK.

So what?

And yet another claim you made up, dumdum.

Lying again. You will say anything at all. It's sickening.

Dumdum, if we don’t have generation capacity to supply enough power, we won’t have sufficient power.

So I’ve answered it.

So what?

How can anyone be this stupid?

It's a national catastrophe. Everything stops working. Industrial output ceases. Electrified transport cannot charge so nobody can travel anywhere except on foot. Backup generators run out of fuel. People die.

We’ll cope is what I say.

Talk is cheap.

” According to you we aren’t allowed backup ”

Oh dear, more hallucinatory babbling from the local dumbass.

You are a shameless liar. You *always* argue that there is no need for backup for renewables. And now, confronted with your own idiocy, you start lying, as you always do when cornered.

Have you saying we’ll have blackouts if we don’t generate enough electricity to meet demand.

OK.

So what?

The electorate will NEVER forgive this. Bigger energy bills and disastrous national blackouts are political toxin. If you want to make absolutely sure that renewable are a dead end and we end up with gas and nuclear, that is the attitude to take.

"Lying again."

Another claim you made up, dumdum.

"It’s a national catastrophe."

OK, so a nation wide blackout is a catastrophe.

So what? All I see is you complaining still.

"Everything stops working. Industrial output ceases. "

Well, you've not demonstrated that, but why bother so far. OK, when we have a nationwide blackout, everything stops working, and industrial output ceases.

So what?

"Talk is cheap. "

And?

"You *always* argue that there is no need for backup for renewables"

Oh dear, we have yet another made up claim from you dumdum.

So we still have you telling us that if we don't produce enough energy to meet demand, we will have blackouts and they are bad.

So?

"The electorate will NEVER forgive this. "

And so what?

1. Power generation may be insufficient to demand
2. If that happens, we will have blackouts
3. Blackouts are bad
4. Electorates will never forgive that happening

Therefore?

BBD, I think the deal with the electric car storage, is that they shift production from peak to non peak. I always felt it was a religious zeal than any real value. It is one thing to promote electric cars, but I didn't get why people are so excited about selling back to the grid.

"Mike", why are you against selling electricity?

BBD, I think the deal with the electric car storage, is that they shift production from peak to non peak.

The idea is that they provide a storage mechanism for excess renewables generation (above demand) which can 'later' be fed back into the grid when renewables generation is lower than demand. The obvious application is solar. It all works fine until you get a week like 15 - 22 Jan 2017 in Germany when both wind and solar output is extremely low. Then you end up with a national fleet of EVs with flat batteries and no vehicle-to-grid reserve either.

“The electorate will NEVER forgive this. ”

And so what?

You remove the policy space for renewables expansion. It's dead in the water, overnight.

BBD,

Thanks for keeping the lights on.

It sounds like you have read a few of Carl Sagans works-

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/12/19/carl-sagans-two-warnings…

"when both wind and solar output is extremely low"

And demand low too.

"Then you end up with a national fleet of EVs with flat batteries and no vehicle-to-grid reserve either."

But That never happened in Germany 15-22 Jan 2017. They didn't have a national fleet of EVs with flat batteries and no vehicle to grid reserve. The carried on without a qualm.

So clearly your claim is not one of reality.

Again.

Oh dear, we have yet another made up claim from you dumdum.

Nope, your standard rant is that there's no need to back up renewables. You want me to produce a long list of quotes as I have done in the past when you lie like this?

So we still have you telling us that if we don’t produce enough energy to meet demand, we will have blackouts and they are bad.

Yes, Wow. Well done!

"You remove the policy space for renewables expansion."

So your suggestion is that if there can be blackouts, we must abandon any use of that power source.

"It’s dead in the water, overnight."

So that is your suggestion? We dump renewables overnight and scrap it all? Or just let it age and be removed?

"your standard rant is that there’s no need to back up renewables."

And yet another made up claim from your dumdum.

"You want me to produce a long list of quotes"

Go ahead.

" as I have done in the past "

Yet more made up claims from you, dumdum.

"when you lie like this?"

Goodness! Three made up claims in one sentence!

"Yes, Wow. Well done!"

OK, so what?

“when both wind and solar output is extremely low”

And demand low too.

No, another of your standard mistakes that you keep repeating.

W&S typically flatline simultaneously in winter in N Europe - when demand is highest.

I recall correcting you on this several times in the past.

" And demand low too.

No,"

Yes.

"another of your standard mistakes that you keep repeating."

And another claim from you you made up.

"W&S typically flatline simultaneously in winter in N Europe – when demand is highest."

So you keep saying. Has nothing to do with 15-22nd Jan 2017 in Germany.

"I recall correcting you on this several times in the past."

Well, yes, your hallucinatory recollections are well noted, dumdum.

But, so far we have your idea is that we drop renewables overnight.

Right. What next?

But That never happened in Germany 15-22 Jan 2017. They didn’t have a national fleet of EVs with flat batteries and no vehicle to grid reserve. The carried on without a qualm.

So clearly your claim is not one of reality.

Again.

WHAT?!

You nutter. There's no national EV fleet YET in Germany. No national VtG infrastructure YET in Germany.

Lunatic.

But, so far we have your idea is that we drop renewables overnight.

No, nutter. That's what will happen if lunatics like you get your way and renewables are built out without adequate hedge against intermittency.

Enough of this madness. It's Saturday afternoon FFS.

"There’s no national EV fleet YET in Germany. "

So you admit your claim that there would be was based on fiction, dumdum. Yet somehow I'm the nutter?!??!?

OK, so you've imagined that the fleet that never existed is out of power at a time that actually happened. I remain unimpressed at the idea of a nonexistent fleet being out of power, since it was always out of power. And existence.

So, we have from you

1. Power generation may be insufficient to demand
2. If that happens, we will have blackouts
3. Blackouts are bad
4. Electorates will never forgive that happening
5. Blackouts will happen if there's not enough storage.

Therefore?

"That’s what will happen if lunatics like you get your way"

No, I asked YOU: So what?

I didn't ask you to answer FOR me.

"lunatic."

And another empty and false claim from you dumdum.

Unless you were signing off...?

But, hey, maybe this works on dumdum here.

Lunatics like you are why nuke fluffing has gotten nowhere and all the arguments you and your ilk make against renewables is the maniac frothing of the eminently ignorable lunatic fringe and serves only to show how vacant and ignorant nuke fluffers like you are.

We have from you:

Which so far is all Captain Obvious stuff.

You've also tried to claim that people will run to nuke and gas power. Except

1) Power generation may be insufficient to supply the demand
2) They will have blackouts.
3) Blackouts are bad.
4) Electorate will never forgive this
5) Blackouts will happen if there's not enough storage

So they will run to...? Coal? But if that is insufficient to demand.......

So they will run to...? And when that has blackouts, where next?

“W&S typically flatline simultaneously in winter in N Europe – when demand is highest.”

So you keep saying. Has nothing to do with 15-22nd Jan 2017 in Germany.

Yup, total insanity.

W&S output was *extremely* low all the week of 15 - 22nd Jan in Germany. This is a perfect example of W&S dropping out for days at a time during... N European winter. Just. Like. I. Said.

Wow, you have completely lost the plot. And I do mean completely.

1. Power generation may be insufficient to demand
2. If that happens, we will have blackouts
3. Blackouts are bad
4. Electorates will never forgive that happening
5. Blackouts will happen if there’s not enough storage.

Therefore?

Very large scale investment in HVDC grid interconnections and massive utility-scale storage (which may not even be possible given cost, technology and engineering constraints). No more rubbish about ; 'cheap' renewables or fantasy free market energy transitions painlessly wafted in by invisible hands. No more complacency. No more lies.

The challenges posed by the necessary energy transition are staggering, humbling and may not be surmountable. Tell the public the truth or store up the most ruinous, toxic political blowback you can imagine when all the puffery and rhetoric fall flat and the lights go out.

"Yup, total insanity. "

So stop being nuts, then.

"W&S output was *extremely* low all the week of 15 – 22nd Jan in Germany. "

Yes.

"This is a perfect example of W&S dropping out for days at a time during… N European winter. Just. Like. I. Said. "

Nope, you said:

“when both wind and solar output is extremely low”

And demand low too.

No, another of your standard mistakes that you keep repeating.

W&S typically flatline simultaneously in winter in N Europe – when demand is highest.

What W&S typically do and when demand is typically highest does NOT mean "No" to "and demand low".

But you cannot comprehend logic, can you dumdum.

"Wow, you have completely lost the plot. And I do mean completely."

Yes, because you keep bleating on in a neverending cascade of avoidance.

Try being coherent.

You'll be followed then.

"Very large scale investment in HVDC grid interconnections and massive utility-scale storage "

We already have that. So we're done?

"which may not even be possible given cost, technology and engineering constraints"

Uh, we already have that. Seems to be no problem with historical costs, technology and engineering constraints.

"No more rubbish about ; ‘cheap’ renewables"

Renewables ARE cheap, though.

That's a fact.

They're cheaper than conventional. Coal is more expensive than either if you add the externalities of coal into the cost.

And both require very large investment in HVDC (it's why we have it) and massive utility-scale storage (which is why we have that too).

"Tell the public the truth"

WHAT truth???? Not lied once.

Unlike you, with your massive lies of omission and avoidance.

"the lights go out."

That's never happened any other time the lights went out.

You DO know we have massive blackouts, right? Already.

"Thanks for keeping the lights on. "

How? The lights may be "on" in there, but there's nobody home.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_Reserve_Service

VERY misleading of you to pretend that this doesn't exist.

How about this elsewhere in the world?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_energy_storage_projects

Pretending that there needs to be this new stuff built up is just one of the many reasons why your insanity is laughably moronic, dumdum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_outages

Care to tell us all where people ran to when the lights went off, dumdum?

For your whining and whinging and constant complaining about others lying because they're not agreeing with your insane dribblings you really should avoid fucking lying to people, you retard.

All it does is prime people to ignore your raving lunacy even if you happened on some wild and whacky coincidence be right.

And who knew (obviously not you, you trump of the electrical argument) that power would be expensive to build:

...putting cables through a tunnel measuring about 22km under Morecambe Bay to avoid the south part of the national park at a cost of £1.2 billion; removing many of the existing pylons owned by Electricity North West (ENW) and replacing them with fewer, taller pylons of its own operating at a greater voltage; and replacing the low voltage line in the area around the Hadrian's Wall UNESCO World Heritage Site with underground cables.M

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-UK-National-Grid-updates-plans-for…

"Oh noes, building stuff is expensive!!!!!!".

You retard.

Yet still we get back to this fact: Renewables penetrated stably far further into the actual generation characteristcs of a grid and far faster than the moronic herds of nuke fluffers like dumdum here thought.

Which is why THIS link:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

got the shitstorming baboon so riled up. His fave Nuke and Gas aren't winning, so he has to drag every other option into the same boat, even if it doesn't damn well go in there.

And we're all still waiting on those quotes you were to supply, dumdum.

And, hey, if germany were so badly off for power, why the hell was there exports in Jan, dumdum?

Misleading to claim that Germany is in trouble with wind and solar when there's exports going on. Misleading to whine and whinge and bitch and moan about wind and solar when the graph you supplied indicates that the renewables were doing fine producing power. Misleading to complain about wind and solar as if they were the only renewables.

But that's how you fluff for the nuke industry, isn't it, dumdum.

Lie about renewables to fit your agenda of denial of a reality you don't wish to confront.

Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2017&source=all-sources&wee…

Click off Oil, Coal, Uranium, Gas. About 35% of demand supplied by renewables.

And it's not even designed to do that yet.

Lie about renewables to fit your agenda of denial of a reality you don’t wish to confront.

Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2017&source=all-sources&wee…

Click off Oil, Coal, Uranium, Gas. About 35% of demand supplied by renewables.

And it’s not even designed to do that yet.

W&S daytime generation peaks were between ~5GW - 12GW that week. Weekday peak total was ~80GW.

So W&S was contributing between 6% and 15%, not 35%.

Aaand you're still misleading, dumdum.

"So W&S was contributing between 6% and 15%, not 35%."

Wrong.

Exports were 2-10GW. Take that off the 60-80GW average. Renewables produced 12-24GW.

So again you're a lying toerag on a subject you desperately need renewables to be shit or your love for nuke and gas power will remain buried.

AAaaaaawww.

So, renwewables were producing about 35%. Not 6% not 15%.

Oh, you could put "about 30" if you like. Still a long way higher than your claim of no more than 15.

Renewables produced 12-24GW.

When?

Wind and solar, 15 - 22 Jan

Minimum W&S was 16/01 5.5GW at 12:00

Max W&S was 19/01 11.77 GW at 1:00

Your numbers: 12 - 24 GW

Data: 5.5 - 11.7GW

This is the problem.

" Renewables produced 12-24GW.

When?"

Jan 2017, dumbass, in Germany.

Too dumb to read?

This is the problem with you. You don't know what you're talking about, so you avoid talking about it.

So your problem is

a) Need HVDC.
- Already have HVDC
b) Need grid storage
- Already have grid storage
c) It will cost money
- Already costs money
d) Blackouts
- Already happen
e) No clue
- Can't help. Sorry.

Tell us all what energy future doesn't benefit from HVDC?

You got nothing, dumbass.

Tell us all what energy future doesn't require grid storage?

You still got nothing, dumdum.

Tell us all what energy future won't result in blackouts when buildout is insufficient?

Still complaining about what every option has.

Tell us what BETTER system would be made that makes ANY power grid system NOT have the above problems?

If you can't, then your complaints are that

a) it costs money

Yeah, really don't know why this is a problem if we go renewables.

Too dumb to read?

German wind and solar, 15 – 22 Jan

Minimum W&S was 16/01 5.5GW at 12:00

Max W&S was 19/01 11.77 GW at 1:00

Your numbers: 12 – 24 GW

Data: 5.5 – 11.7GW

You are now flatly denying evidence. In public.

Still bullshitting, dumdum?

Renewables produced 12+GW. They produced around 30% of the power used in Germany for the month.

So you're really set on misleading people.

Again.

But I get it, you know you're talking big hairy bollocks and that your complaint basically boils down to "Power production costs money! WAAAAHH!" because you need nukes to get it all.

So you didn't have any other alternative that didn't have exactly the same problem of blackouts, cost, HVDC and storage.

Just as you've failed every single time before you've tried this lying bullshit raving lunacy.

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2017&source=all-sources&wee…

Click off Oil, Coal, Uranium, Gas. About 35% of demand supplied by renewables.

And it’s not even designed to do that yet.

But to you, dumdum, doing better than expected by a long shot is a failure. Because you can't handle renewables being any sort of success when nukes are failing so badly.

Aaaaw.

He's throwing in other items into renewables while you are talking about wind and solar. He's not doing it by accident as he calls you a liar for saying wind and solar are low in #235 and #237.
I went thru this with the upside-down Mann discussion where he posted incorrect code, and he made similar diversions.

Hey, dumdu, for soneone who got pissed off at "Dick" for saying "ECS *could* be less than 1.5C!" and "Oh, it's misleading to say that renewables produced 85% because, um, I may make up something!", you really REALLY don't care about misleading or making up a fake and already unproven future claim, do you.

"It could be too costly to run HVDC lines!!!!" Well , German already has them. That's how they net exported 50TWh last year. They also used non HVDC lines. Because, you know, AC lines still carry electricity. Some people understand this. You don't.

And you mislead people with your claim that production = demand. But Germany exported a net of 4.5TWh in January. CLEARLY the production was higher than demand.

And your mathematical incompetence extends to simple arithmetic, too. When you claimed the fictional EV fleet of Germany would last 12 hours, you were completely making that shit up. I get, even if it had to supply 100% of the power and there were no interconnects (remember, they do have them dumbfuck), it lasts 2 days. Given that renewables managed about a third of demand, it would actually last about 3 days. And if they cut back a little, as everyone has to manage when the systems we currently have don't produce (see Didcot burning down, something else you claimed to be "misleading" - leading people away from your nuke future more like!), then that could be extended four or more days. And if they imported, well, they could manage indefinitely.

No, you only care, as "Dick" did that your preferred fictional future be kept alive and will do so even when you're proven wrong by mere wish and hope.

You lying duplicitious fuckwit.

Yes, "Mike", and you make that shit up and proclaimed Mann was a fraud too. Except reality and evidence were against you.

Funny how you manage to keep doing the same thing and expect everyone to think that maybe this time you got it right.

"He’s throwing in other items into renewables"

Such as hydropower? Seasonal production (mostly stuff like river runoff generation)? Biomass? Pumped storage? Other, such as tidal (though I don't see any "Other" in there, it's so small)..

Weird. There's me considering them to be renewables. Like they are. Seasons keep returning, no need to dig up another winter. Pumped storage is pumped storage. You know, stuff generated from whatever you use to generate the power at excess.

But I guess it's better vision than dumdum has. He can't even see that he's lying to people about what renewables are doing. You just "see" me including stuff that is more than the two dumbass there insists in calling "renewables".

Oh, and tell me if all the pumped storage were used up, and all the hydropower exhausted. Because if generation was more than sufficient for demand, there would be no need or desire to use up storage or hydropower, since they could be kept for emergency need if left alone, and therefore only excess water in the resevior would be used.

Meaning that there was spare capactiy there just among the renewables.

Rather misleading to pretend that somehow all generation was used up.

But dumdum, like yourself, don't care for the convenient lies, the lies that help your pathetic cause.

Hey, here's a fun maths fact, too.

If 85% of demand was met by renewables, then conventional power production only managed 15%!

Fuck me! You need to build out 6x as much conventional power to ensure you get 100% of demand with the current system!!!!!!

And look! 3rd Jan, Uranium manged only 7..5% of the power!!!

Man, you need to build out 13x as much nuclear! DAMN that shit is expensive! CLEARLY you nuke fluffers need to stop lying and deceiving the public or they'll rise up in their millions and crucify you and burn down all nuclear power plants!!!!!!

If demand is a bit of an issue,
up the bloody price of energy. Its cheap as for yanks anyway.
Oh what should we do today? Oh lets go for a drive and have
a lovely picnic in the countryside.
Oh we couldnt do that! Petrols too expensive, said no american ever.
If mains power was dear, yas wouldnt watch shit TV.
Up the price. Reduce demand.
Stop pissing in the pool.

#246 MikeN

He’s throwing in other items into renewables while you are talking about wind and solar. He’s not doing it by accident as he calls you a liar for saying wind and solar are low in #235 and #237.

I know, because I know the numbers I presented, clearly marked and linked wind and solar are correct.

I know that Wow is utterly dishonest. My concern here is only to make sure that everybody else does to.

And nuke power only managed 7.3% of power early on 3rd Jan, dumdum.

Dayum, you need to build that out nearly 14-fold to make it work!!!! LOL!

And ni, dumdum, you dont get t complain about lying when you lied so very VERY often here.

Where are those quotes you said you'd get, hmm?

How about the mismatch between the over 3 days and the less than 12 hours you claimed the EV fleet would operate for?

Oh, and the lie about renewables only being 6%?

Not forgetting the lie about HVDC being nonexistent and likely impossible to be built.

No, dumdum, you don't get to complain about lies. Even if there were any.

We're talking about RENEWABLES here, dumdum.

And you lied.

Lied damn hard.

All to prop up your failing nuke fetish.

Just making sure people know how big a fat-faced dick-header moronic liar you are.

Click off Oil, Coal, Uranium, Gas. About 35% of demand supplied by renewables.

Not only are your numbers completely wrong, you can't even do that kind of source deselection on the Fraunhofer data viewer.

You are literally making shit up as you go along. And your numbers are wrong.

Wow, if you want to make a point about renewables vs wind and solar you could have done so. Instead you took what you knew to be true and declared it a lie.

How about the mismatch between the over 3 days and the less than 12 hours you claimed the EV fleet would operate for?

As VtG backup during low wind winter nights. I'm not lying - you don't understand the topic.

Oh, and the lie about renewables only being 6%?

Okay, you got me there. Minimum W&S was 5.5GW on 16/01.

Not forgetting the lie about HVDC being nonexistent and likely impossible to be built.

You just made that up. So that would be you lying, not me. Or maybe you are just so clueless that you don't know that existing HVDC interconnectors are a tiny fraction of what is required for a high renewables energy mix to actually work.

BBD, your complaint about infrastructure not being good enough to handle supply variation and the need for lines, is this a national issue or a local one?
For example, suppose San Diego had wind and solar arrays nearby, along with nuclear and coal and hydro and gas plants, and enough backup supply to handle darkness and low wind(simultaneously). Is there another issue they have to deal with on the grid?

"Wow, if you want to make a point about renewables vs wind and solar you could have done so."

I did fuckwit.

germany-sets-new-national-record-with-85-percent-of-its-electricity-sourced-from-renewables

IF you wanted to read, you could have, but you, like dumdum dumbass here, did not like the results so did not, COULD not, read.

"BBD, your complaint about infrastructure not being good enough to handle supply variation and the need for lines, is this a national issue or a local one?"

It's an ignorant one.

Because fuckwits like buddy dumdum here "think" that we don't have HVDC, we don't have the capability to send electricity hundreds of miles, that there is, currently, no backup generation or storage.

If it weren't for the fact that the moron works for a nuke generation company, I'd say he was just uninformed.

"As VtG backup during low wind winter nights. I’m not lying"

Oh yes you are, moron.

How many cars in Germany?

Now, give them a 70kwh battery. Quite small for a EV today, never mind when they're part of the future of an all electric fleet.

And they use up 60-80GW.

Anyone smart can do the maths easily.

Anyone dumb can do the mths with a small effort.

But to claim 12 hours is the result of the maths requires a liar with no compunction or care.

"Okay, you got me there."

It's about 30% if you do the maths, from an eyeball guess I made "a third" and rounded off.

"Oh you got me there", but where do you change your tune? You don't. Kinda meaningless.

"You just made that up. "

Nope.Want the quote? 'cos unlike you, I'll provide it.

#226: which may not even be possible given cost, technology and engineering constraints

Where are the quotes of me saying that I'm against backup? Or refuse HVDC?

You're a lying fuckwit just as deluded and corrupt as "Dick".

"you don’t know that existing HVDC interconnectors are a tiny fraction"

YOU don't know that.

AT ALL.

Just like your lie about the EV fleet lasting 12 hours you lying little toerag.

You and dick are absolutely the same sort of corrupt pile of moral garbage. You just choose different things to be corrupt over.

re: 260, you must remember on this he's the same as you in your AGW denial.

He doesn't do solutions, only complains about any other solution, it's a rhetorical trick called "poisoning the well" and is a very stale and corrupt tactic to make people choose what you want to force them to choose without being overt.

Psy ops for the PR fluff boys of nukes. Buddy dumdum, here.

"Not only are your numbers completely wrong,"

For your ideology?

Because they're right, dumdum.

Remember, Germany is exporting all the while, between 2 and 10GW.

Hey, dumdum, how about the pointlessness of nuke power? 7.3% in the early hours 3rd Jan, 2017 in Germany.

Piss poor, innit.

But you'll NEVER hear nuke fluffers tell you how much it will REALLY cost you, they know that once you've sunk enough time and money in the scam to find out, they've already cashed in and run off, and in any case, you may just have to suck it at that point, since it's now too late to do anything about it, and then they'll just get to scam yet more cash.

Damn. Even I'm surprised that nukes only managed 7.3%.

Nope.Want the quote? ‘cos unlike you, I’ll provide it.

#226: which may not even be possible given cost, technology and engineering constraints

Ah, you can't read, Wow. Because you are an idiot.

You said that I said this:

Not forgetting the lie about HVDC being nonexistent and likely impossible to be built.

But I didn't. The cost, technology and engineering constraints were specific to massive utility-scale storage.

But you quoted out of context, dishonestly, to try to score a cheap point:

Very large scale investment in HVDC grid interconnections and massive utility-scale storage (which may not even be possible given cost, technology and engineering constraints).

Hey, dumdum, how about the pointlessness of nuke power? 7.3% in the early hours 3rd Jan, 2017 in Germany.

Piss poor, innit.

In Germany, they're doing this thing called the Energiewende which involves phasing out nuclear.

Ever heard of it?

Idiot.

“Not only are your numbers completely wrong,”

For your ideology?

Because they’re right, dumdum.

Remember, Germany is exporting all the while, between 2 and 10GW.

Oh, that doesn't even begin to get you off the hook.

Your numbers are completely wrong and either you are too dishonest or too stupid to admit it.

Shall we go through it, day by day?

Reminds me of that time at Eli's when we went through surface insolation, country by country, demonstrating that your numbers were completely wrong. Remember that?

"Ah, you can’t read"

Ah, but I can buddy dumdum.

What you said was

which may not even be possible given cost, technology and engineering constraints

"You said that I said this:"

Yes.

And you did. Or you misled people into thinking so. Because since we already have HVDC, your comment should have been about how it needed to be increased, not how building it could be impossible.

Not my fault if your misleading comments misled.

This is the problem for you nuke fluffers, you mislead and then howl over the "injustice" when nobody believes your lies because you've misled people so very many times before.

"The cost, technology and engineering constraints were specific to massive utility-scale storage."

Yes. Which is what I said you "thought": that there WAS no HVDC or grid scale storage, but this was a lie.

"But you quoted out of context,"

No context said "expansion" or "increase in...".

You're pretending there's a context that never existed, dumdum.

Yet more dishonesty from you.

Still waiting for the quotes you said you would slam me down with and "prove" me a liar.

"Oh, that doesn’t even begin to get you off the hook. "

Not necessary. I'm not on the hook for lying and deceiving and misleading people, dumdum, you are. If I'm not on the hook, there's no way to get me off the hook I'm not on. It's a logical impossiblity. You may not like logic, though. It doesn't really takes sides, and you need that partisanship.

"Your numbers are completely wrong"

And another claim you made up but can't seem to get off from.

Nope. They're right. I did the numbers (from eyecrometer) in 237.

And where are the quotes you promised in 212????

Oh, that's right, you were lying.

LOL.

And nukes. Huh. barely over 7%. Totally unworkable. Dead and buried.

" Remember that?"

No, nobody does, because that's another lie you've done, retardo.

Remember over at Eli's when you claimed we'd still need 40% fossil fuels?

Of course you'll mislead YOURSELF and justify this not being the case because you "merely" pointed to someone who said that when I and Bernard asked you what YOU thought the mix should be for the future.

Because like any good denier, you never come up with something yourself, only lame excuses why the answers you don't want picked can't be done.

"which involves phasing out nuclear."

No wonder. It barely scraped 7% of demand in January, the most demandingest time of the year, generally, in Northern Europe.

A power source that can't manage better than that is meaningless and should be thrown out as the unusable bondogle it is, unless you're willing to put the stupendous time, effort, resources and cash into making that horrendously ineffective white elephant work as a viable power source.

But you nuke fluffers don't EVER mention the TRUE cost of your industry, do you.

Not even 10%. How pathetic. Really, nuke is dead, and its loss will not be missed. NOBODY misses a power source that's less than the net export of energy. Just shutting that pointless thing down won't even put them below demand!

And where are the quotes you promised in 212????

Interested parties can start here. There are hundreds more examples of your lies and stupidity at Eli's. And hundreds more here - which unfortunate regulars may already be familiar with.

” Remember that?”

No, nobody does, because that’s another lie you’ve done, retardo.

Pants on fire, Wow. It starts right here. at 11/9/15 2:12pm.

“Your numbers are completely wrong”

And another claim you made up but can’t seem to get off from.

Nope. They’re right. I did the numbers (from eyecrometer) in 237.

Lies, Wow. Lies.

Let's skewer the lies before they go any further.

Going back to German electricty generation, 15 - 22 Jan

Let's look at the approximate percentage of daily peak generation (demand) represented by W&S combined:

16/01
Peak GW total/time: 78.13 / 17:00

S: 0
W: 3.46

W&S as % of peak total generation: 4%

17/01
Peak GW total/time: 78.44 / 16:00

S: 0
W: 3.84

W&S as % of peak total generation: 5%

18/01
Peak GW total/time: 80.65 / 09:00

S: 2.94
W: 6.05

W&S as % of peak total generation: 11%

19/01
Peak GW total/time: 80.16 / 11:00

S: 8.39
W: 4.06

W&S as % of peak total generation: 15%

20/01
Peak GW total/time: 80.23 / 09:00

S: 5.4
W: 4.27

W&S as % of peak total generation: 12%

21/01
Peak GW total/time: 71.86 / 11:00

S: 9.93
W: 1.07

W&S as % of peak total generation: 15%

22/01
Peak GW total/time: 68.59 / 17:00

S: 0
W: 1.37

W&S as % of peak total generation: 2%

So W&S share of peak generation (demand) for that week was 2% - 15%.

"Interested parties can start here. "

Oh,so when you complained about me lying and you said you'd get quotes, you were, in fact, lying when you accused

Nope, your standard rant is that there’s no need to back up renewables.

Oh dear. For anyone else, near enough, they'd have tried to avoid proving themselves a liar. Only dick is just as dumb as you and willing to do that.

Damn, you're hellaciously dumb, buddy dumdum.

" It starts right here. at 11/9/15 2:12pm."

Which really doesn't support your claims. Dear o deary me.

"Let’s look at the approximate percentage of daily peak generation (demand)"

Aaaawwwww. And you YET AGAIN lie.

BEcause, this time, you are incompetent.

See the hollow circle labeled "Import"? Click on that.

You than then read the DEMAND, the SEPARATED EXPORT and therefore, with a tiny amount of maths, the GENERATION.

You're so dumb! LOL!

"Peak GW total/time: 80"

Which isn't DEMAND.

But, yeah, your complaints about the headline being misleading was not merely wrong, it was pure unadulterated projection.

Absolute lies.

From an absolute dumbass.

You're not going to get a good box marking and you may lose your job at the plant, dumdum. They don't like failures.

But, yeah, also less than 7% of power generated by nukes. As you say, it's totally unworkable and should be berated for their lying misleading of the public that will only end in yet more catastrophe.

You know, when the dicks and mikes of the world complain that it's all a scare tactic to get unearned cash, you're the one they point to as proof, dumdum.

And though this doesn't prove AGW is false, they're not wrong that *you* push AGW as a scare tactic to push people to your scam.

Go back and add up renewables.

When renewables did 85% of power, all conventional and nuclear power generation COULD NOT MANAGE more than 15%. Because that's all that's left.

Dumdum's "maths" and "logic" would therefore PROVE that conventional power does not work.

Kinda proves dumdum's wrong, really.

PS if there WERE any interested parties, don't click the link he gives here

"Interested parties can start here. "

Because he hasn't actually given any quote, nor even the link to any post that he'd quote. He wants you to be punished for not just taking the nutcase's word on it by having to trawl through 700 posts, page by page, and THEN work out what the fuck he was thinking of, thereby doing all the work and, if you don't get the answer he wants, he can claim you missed it or misread it or are just lying.

You see when dumdum gives a quote that he knows he can't find, he wants to make sure you can't be absolutely certain he's talking out of his shit-eating piehole.

Brown coal, hard coal, gas look like a lot more than 15% here.

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2017&source=all-sources&wee…

#275 Wow

You are getting horribly muddled. Total generation (demand) is the sum of domestic and export demand. That's why I used it.

Just in case that isn't clear enough for you Wow, meeting total aggregate demand is what this is all about.

So analysing the percentage contribution of W&S to total generation (demand) is the correct approach.

God knows, this is wasted on you.

"Brown coal, hard coal, gas look like a lot more than 15% here"

Looks a lot like 15% here, though, "mike":

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

But I can understand you not wanting to see it. It's probably triggering you badly..

But, hey, at least you're agreeing with the logic that proves conventional power stations are worthless!

"Just in case that isn’t clear enough for you Wow, meeting total aggregate demand"

Nope, it's about the fact that you found the headline misleading for no reason other than you hated renewables in a good light. It's about how you lie and mislead. It's about how you make up scare stories to push people away from renewables and push AGW scare scenarios if they don't go for nuclear. It's about your lies and misrepresentations, it's about your hypocrisy, it's about the facts that you refuse to even see exist.

It's about how you leap off and when you lose you insist that the entire conversation be moved where you haven't been losing recently to distract from your utter failure of late, but you will also, and this gets back to the hypocrisy, gladly weave anything "off topic" yourself.

Such as your BSing about another date where renewables weren't doing 85% of demand in a conversation about a time where renewables did cover 85% of demand.

It's about how you want to move conversations but when you can't win, want them "back" to one random place you decided you aren't losing on.

It's about you lying, dumdum.

" Total generation (demand) "

Total generation is not demand.

Stop lying.

Wow, the problem here is exactly that W&S can swing from 85% to 2%. All well and good at 85% but WTF powers the nation when W&S are below 10%?

Indeed if total generation were equal to demand, then wind gets 100% of demand. So does solar.

Because at night total generation (demand) is zero watts for solar.

And when nukes are offline, total generation (demand) is zero watts .

And when didcot was on fire, its total generation (demand) is zero watts.

Your maths failures are part of your inability to tell the truth. Like "dick" you insist on not understanding maths because it doesn't give you the answer you like.

And you're ALL about the answer you like, no matter if you haven't a clue about why that answer is so.

It's why you fail so very VERY badly.

Total generation is not demand.

Stop lying.

Of course it is. If you try to feed more electricity into the grid than is being taken from it by demand, you get line overvolts and breakers trip and that leads to more line overvolts and more breakers tripping and before you know it, you have a regional-scale blackout.

Generation (supply) MUST equal demand. Learn your basics before calling people liars.

Your maths failures

Stop lying Wow.

Nope, it’s about the fact that you found the headline misleading for no reason other than you hated renewables in a good light.

No, what I dislike is misrepresentation. Specifically, all the puff pieces like this that imply - misleadingly - that we are well on the way to a successful energy transition when we fucking well are not.

"Wow, the problem here is "

That you're lying.

Renewables managed 30% or thereabouts for the very VERY cherry picked time you selected.

The problem you are having is that it varies from 30% to 85% and this good news for renewables and the planet is bad news for nuclear.

And the problem for nuclear is that you're arguing it's a valueless and overpriced white elephant, barely scraping past 7% of generation.

But only applying it to the situation you hate above all else: renewable power.

You're shit scared of losing your job, and you are desperate to justify yourself as rational when the problem here is you're irrational and lying.

The problem here is you're misleading and have never once managed otherwise when it comes to nuclear or renewables.

"No, what I dislike is misrepresentation."

Specifically when it's not in favour of nuclear power, or done by other than yourself. You mislead and revel in it because you have no other way to defend your job.

And you try to project your lies onto others, even if that means you have to contort some fantasy into what MIGHT be misinterpreted from words not there.

There was ZERO thing misleading about the report that showed renewables managed 85% of demand.

It is 100% misleading to whine about HVDC and storage for renewables when nuclear requires more of those things.

It is misleading to claim demand is generation when it clearly is exporting. But I KNOW that if Germany were IMporting (and it did in 2016 for a few days in the year), you'd be pointing to the lack of generation and failure to meet demand.

And if I pointed out you said total generation WAS demand, you'd ignore that, as you do every time someone points out to you that your whines against renewables are invalid because they apply to all forms of power generation.

You don't hate misrepresentation.

You LOVE misrepresenting things.

You just complain about misrepresentation like some closet homosexual fundie priest railing against the evils of homosexuality.

Shouting as loud as you can so people won't notice the problem is a lot closer to home for you.

"Stop lying Wow."

And another made up claim from you.

Go on, do the maths.

Number of cars in Germany?

Size of battery for an EV 70kwh.

How long will that last when renewables generated about 30% of the power demand, leaving something around 35GW of generation to supply.

Will it be 12 hours or less as you claim, or about three days as I do?

Which of us is lying?

Talk is cheap you pipsqueak, you mental midget, but can you do the maths?

Renewables managed 30% or thereabouts for the very VERY cherry picked time you selected.

No, they didn't. Why don't you just check the numbers properly? Like I did.

"when we fucking well are not."

How the fuck do you know?

As far as you're concerned, producing 85% of the power demand means it's failed.

Because it's done by renewables, and that, to you, is absolutely and irredeemably a bad thing. Because it's not nukes doing it.

You don't even care, though, do you.

You'll bring out the excuses like "the generation of nuclear is not supposed to supply more than 10%!", yet you will ignore and not even wonder what % renewables are meant to provide.

And then lie about them not providing power when they do. About a third. Even on the cherry picked worst day you could find.

And when I posted a link about didcot, which was a terrible day for conventional power production, you didn't do as an *honest* person would and agree that this was a failure of the current system, but complained about the reporter who reported.

Talk about ad hom!

Wouldn't matter if it was Dave Lee Travis saying it. Didcot burned down. Produced no power.

We don't have, according to your standards, a working power system today.

Oh noes, fixing that isn't free!!!!!

Nukes just fail utterly.

Sad day for you, but I don't care. I only care about the wellbeing of honest people, not lying scumbags like you.

Size of battery for an EV 70kwh.

Um, a fundamental constraint on VtG is that it does not deplete all the grid-connected batteries. Or in the morning your car won't get you to work. So VtG only takes a small fraction of each grid-connected battery. Someone as blisteringly smart as you will instantly realise that this means that any calculation base on total battery capacity per EV is going to be horribly wrong.

" Renewables managed 30% or thereabouts for the very VERY cherry picked time you selected.

No, they didn’t. "

Yes they did.

"Why don’t you just check the numbers properly?"

I did.

You didn't.

You lied. How do I know? Because the very simple maths was too simple for you not to get. And you were told precisely what you were lying about.

How the fuck do you know?

As far as you’re concerned, producing 85% of the power demand means it’s failed.

No, it fails when W&S are meeting only a modest percentage of demand and a lack of very large scale storage and sufficient very large wide-area HVDC transmission capacity result in a supply shortfall.

" Size of battery for an EV 70kwh.

Um, a fundamental constraint on VtG "

Um, that isn't maths.

That you go dallying off into irrelevant is why I know you know you're lying.

"it does not deplete all the grid-connected batteries"

It won't.

"So VtG only takes a small fraction of each grid-connected battery."

Still false, and still not maths.

"any calculation base on total battery capacity per EV is "

More than you did. You didn't even do one, and still refuse to do so.

you DO know that it doesn't have to be 70kwh, right?

you DO know that if there was a real problem, they'll ignore the guidelines? YOU hould know that, since three summers running EdF had to get special dispensation to break the law or they would have had to shut off too much of their nuclear power production facilities and EdF would have been immediately bankrupt, requiring another government taxpayer bailout.

So they were allowed to take water from rivers that were too low and too warm, and break the law.

But, yeah, lawbreaking for the nuke industry: totally fine to you, you billious fartknocker. Because it's your employment. But nobody else is allowed! Even if it's absolutely safe.

"your car won’t get you to work."

What? For three days it will. The fourth you may run out.

But it's a truth that it;s not 12 hours and you, me and anyone still reading will know that it's not 12 hours. And we will all know you know it too.

Which is why you're 100% identical to the idiotic liar dick.

"No, it fails when W&S are meeting only a modest percentage of demand "

Do you have ANY power production sytem that doesn't fail if it only manages to meet a modest percentage of demand?

Where is this perpetual motion machine you have invented, retardo extramungo?

"No, it fails when W&S are meeting only a modest percentage of demand "

So we're inagreement, then, renewables are working and not failing.

I know we're not, because your arguments only apply in the direction you want them to.

Because you are incapable of honesty when it comes to either treating renewables fairly or nuclear power honestly.

"“your car won’t get you to work.”

What? For three days it will. The fourth you may run out."

In fact you will last much much longer than that.

Renewables managed 30% or thereabouts for the very VERY cherry picked time you selected.

You asked me to provide an example of sustained low output from W&S. So I did. And now you accuse me of cherry-picking. There's no pleasing some people.

And no, the W&S contribution wasn't 30%. How could it be when at maximum W&S never exceeded 15% of peak generation?

Run the mouse along the horizontal axis and look at the output data in the pop up. Because I'm not using dishonest tricks to try and score rhetorical points, I used the combined daytime values for wind *and* solar to get the highest minimum and maximum values possible. These are:

Minimum: 16/01 12:00 5.5GW

Maximum: 19/01 11:30 11.77GW

Not '12 - 24GW'. Those numbers are incorrect. So the 30% figure is incorrect.

Data link for wind and solar output.

"You asked me to provide an example of sustained low output from W&S."

Aaand another made up claim from you, dumbass.

No. YOU wanted to mislead, and so you cherry picked the worst case then ignore most of the renewables and then lie about demand.

You just flat out lied.

Because you cannot stand renewables doing four times better than nuclear even in the cherry picked worst case, and were all butthurt and complaining about how it did 85% of demand because you didn't like that news.

"And no, the W&S contribution wasn’t 30%"

Oh it was a lot higher than that.

And no, renewables were nowhere near as low as 15% at any time in the past year, not even when you cherry picked the lowest area, and even while complaining about me selecting uranium, which didn't even manage 8% of demand.

"How could it be when at maximum W&S never exceeded 15% of peak generation?"

It exceeded that a hell of a lot more.

But even in the period you chose, the worst case for wind and solar, renewables managed 30%.

And that was even without exploiting all of it, since it wasn't necessary: they were exporting 2-10GW all that time.

But you can't help lying, can you dumdum?

Renewables managed three or four times what nuclear did. And they've mangaged 85%, which likely was mostly filled up with nuclear, but not entirely, which would make it something like 8x the level of production of nuclear power in germany.

How can you claim a method fails when it did up to 8 times better, and even at worst case 3 or 4 times better than nuclear did?

"Not ’12 – 24GW’. "

Yes 12-24GW. and demand was around 40-70GW

CAN you do maths?

"Those numbers are incorrect. "

Nope, your numbers are wrong and you even spell out that they're wrong.

But you know this and this is why you are lying.

Data link for renewables output.

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2017&source=all-sources&wee…

Don't let dumdum lie to you.

Minimum: 16/01 12:00

Demand: 72.6GW
Export: 3GW.
Renewables (not totally utilised): 15GW.

i make that a minimum of over 20%.

Meanwhile, it gives a maximum of 85% on a different date:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

So sad for the nuke fluffers. No pay for them soon!

Mind you even in your cherry pick for "maximum", it's 21GW for renewables, 6GW export and 74GW for demand.

That'd be.... 28%.

Oooooh! Sooo variable!

28/21= 33% variation between min and max.

Meanwhile uranium varied from 7.3% of the mix to 13.5% of the mix.

13.5/7.3= 83% variation between min and max.

I guess nukes are just too variable to be usable even at sub-10% utility rates, there just needs to be too much load balancing to solve the problems of it's wild variations in output...!

Okay, let's look at the data another way.

Pick Month = January, Week = 3.

Weekly generation average for 16-22 Jan:

Solar: 0.255 GW

Wind: 0.676 GW

Combined W&S: 0.931

Conventional: 8.899 GW

Total: 9.83 GW

So average W&S as a percentage of total generation that week was:

0.931/(9.83/100) = 9.47%

And when it comes to misleading people, why have i never heard about this report from you, dumdum?

In 2016, the European Commission assessed that France's nuclear decommissioning liabilities were seriously underfunded, with only 23 billion euros of earmarked assets to cover 74.1 billion euros of expected decommissioning costs.

"Okay, let’s look at the data another way."

I already did.
Unless your other way is a trumpian way. In which case, no, we won't look at it another way,

Weekly generation average for 16-22 Jan.

What was the generation of renewables, dumfuck?

We're talking about renewables here. And remember your whining about storage and HVDC?

Are you telling me that it's not allowed to run??!?!?

You're a lying little turdface, buddy dumdudm.

In March 2017 40% of power demand in Germany was supplied by renewables.

"Conventional: 8.899 GW"

So managed less than 1/7th of the demand?!?!?!?

Fuck, that's terrible.

#308 Sorry - 'average' should be 'total' and units should be TWh.

No change to the 9.47% result.

What was the generation of renewables, dumfuck?

0.931 TWh.

"#308 Sorry – ‘average’ should be ‘total’ and units should be TWh."

Yeah, still doesn't change the fact that renewables did about 30%. Compared to nuclear's 13%.

Aaaaw. Failing nuclear.

" What was the generation of renewables, dumfuck?

0.931 TWh."

Lie!

https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?year=2017&source=all-sources&wee…

You really can do maths, can you? This really is just you lying your little lying puke of a heart out here, isn't it?

You know, dick levels of "Climate sensitivity is only for a doubling of CO2" level of lying your fucking heart out, right?

https://www.energy-charts.de/index.htm

In total, renewable energy sources – solar, wind, hydropower, and biomass – produced approximately 190 TWh of electricity in 2015, 30 TWh more than in 2014, equivalent to a 20% increase. Renewables thus made up around 35% of public net power supply. The share in gross power supply – including power plants in the processing sector, the mining sector, quarries, and excavation – is around 32.5%.

Remember, too, that not all renewable and storage was utilised in any given period because when you overproduce, there's no need to use it all up.

So when you add storage into the mix, there's untapped reserve.

And when you add in the current HVDC grid that is able to easily supply 30% of peak demand, and the AC interconnects able to manage a similar level on top, along with renewables able to manage 30%, if it really came balls-to-the-wall emergency and they only had their current renewables infrastructure, they could keep going indefinitely at dumdum's minimum alarmism rate indefinitely, with only losing 10% or so off the peak supply available.

Hardly enough to collapse industry, unlike your fatuous fantasy created solely to scare people into running for the unwise investment into the white elephant of nuclear power.

Germany imported electricity from France, mainly in order to pass it on to neighboring countries.
In power trading so far only numbers from January to October 2015 are available. During this period, 29.7 TWh were imported to a value of 1.27 billion euros. The export amounted to 67.4 TWh and a value of 2.88 billion euros. In balance, the resulting export surplus was 37.6 TWh and revenues worth 1.6 billion euros.

Just in case you want to try the moronic claim of how germany's anti-nuke program is causing havoc and their reliance on renewables causing them to have to import power.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

Total renewables: 38+12+8+19 TWh = 77TWh.
Total nonrenewable:: 38+19+22+51 TWh = 130TWh.
Total: 207TWh.

Renewables 37% of total.
Nonrenewables: 63% of total

See also for January above link.
Total renewables 15TWh (29.1%)
Total nonrenewables 36TWh (70.9%)

BBD, you keep getting tripped up at W&S vs renewable.

>Renewables managed 30% or thereabouts for the very VERY cherry picked time you

Before you were saying it was 85%. Now it turns out that was for a different time period of a weekend. Stop lying.

BBD, Germany doesn't have to export. So if the wind and solar etc can meet the domestic demand, that is good enough right?

"Before you were saying it was 85%"

Indeed I was.

"Now it turns out that was for a different time period of a weekend."

Uh, that is all in the link:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

Not my fault if you didn't read it, "mike".

"Stop lying."

About what?

" So if the wind and solar etc can meet the domestic demand, that is good enough right?"

WTF?

Are you trying to get buddy dumdum here to accept that the demand for power in Germany is not going to be exported?

Because

a) that's well unclear
b) he doesn't want to comprehend. You know, like you and Mann's work.

Hell, the reason for HVDC and all the other HVAC links between regions, states and countries are so that private companies generating power can, instead of selling them cheap locally, can sell it at market rates elsewhere if those rates are higher.

We’re talking about renewables here. And remember your whining about storage and HVDC?

Are you telling me that it’s not allowed to run??!?!?

No, of course not. But the more W&S there is in the energy mix, the *more* storage and interconnections are necessary.

You’re a lying little turdface, buddy dumdudm.

In March 2017 40% of power demand in Germany was supplied by renewables.

When did I lie about March? And why have we shifted from a week in January to the whole month of March?

And as usual, your numbers are wrong.

March 2017:

TWh
Conventional: 28.16
Wind: 9.43
Solar: 3.52
W&S: 12.95
Total: 41.8

That's 31.5% W&S. You are over-estimating by 27%.

* * *

Fossil fuels are a nightmare, nuclear is problematic and on its arse as an industry so W&S are going to have to work. All the heavy lifting of rapid decarbonisation is falling on them by default. Getting this to work will be immensely challenging. What hacks me off is that saying so is a trigger for so many people. It shouldn't be.

MikeN #320

BBD, you keep getting tripped up at W&S vs renewable.

>Renewables managed 30% or thereabouts for the very VERY cherry picked time you

Before you were saying it was 85%. Now it turns out that was for a different time period of a weekend. Stop lying.

Um, confused.

" We’re talking about renewables here. And remember your whining about storage and HVDC?

Are you telling me that it’s not allowed to run??!?!?

No, of course not."

You're just going to ignore it and pretend, then? Sure, but that's merely lying by omission.

"But the more W&S there is in the energy mix, the *more* storage and interconnections are necessary."

WRONG!

"When did I lie about March? "

When did I say you lied about March? YET ANOTHER made up claim from you!

"And as usual, your numbers are wrong. "

And as usual, you're absolutely wrong.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

Total Nonrenewables: 28.14TWh (58.6%)
Total renewables: 19.83TWh (41.4%)

You lying little shitstain, dumdum.

"What hacks me off is that saying so is a trigger for so many people. It shouldn’t be."

So you think is triggering to say its challenging? That ain't it you lying fuckwit.

It should be a worry for anyone when a lie is told with no compunction or care for the truth or that the lie is patent and obvious, yet still ignored.

If you'd just left it to "challenging", I would have asked "Got one that isn't?"

DO YOU HAVE ONE THAT ISN'T?

But you didn't leave it at that, you had to, HAD. TO. Lie and bullshit to scare people into running to nuke power to pad your resume and keep you in employment.

Without further comment:

So you think is triggering to say its challenging? That ain’t it you lying fuckwit.

It should be a worry for anyone when a lie is told with no compunction or care for the truth or that the lie is patent and obvious, yet still ignored.

Yeah, though that;s kinda your thing, like with any other denier: don't say anything, but post as if you had.

No comment because you think it doesn't apply to you.

Sorry dumbass, it does.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

Total Nonrenewables: 28.14TWh (58.6%)
Total renewables: 19.83TWh (41.4%)

When YOU claimed it was 27% less than that.

And no comment on whether you have a national scale energy system plan that isn't challenging?

#330 "denier"
Er, i honestly was not aware BBD
was one of the denier loons.
There is some posting history that
indicates otherwise.
Im open to being wrong.
Its easy to settle though.
BBD, are you one of those denier loons?

#325 "Fossil fuels are a nightmare, nuclear is problematic and on its arse as an industry so W&S are going to have to work. All the heavy lifting of rapid decarbonisation is falling on them by default. Getting this to work will be immensely challenging. "

This seems eloquent and reasonable and its hard to disagree.

#326, BBD, the second part is a reference to Wow's lies.
Wow's numbers are renewables is X, and you are countering with you're wrong, wind + solar is Y,<X.

"This seems eloquent and reasonable and its hard to disagree."

Which is why it was said.

But why was all the other crap said? Because that last bit there you quoted was not what dudmdum thinks.

"#326, BBD, the second part is a reference to Wow’s lies."

Which ones where "mike"?

"Mike",rememeber I posted the link to 85% renewables supplied in Germany report. Dated 17 May. It's news. And if you read it, even the summary says it was over a weekend.

It was dumdum who went "Huh, but what about thisweek in january, huh?!??!?!?!".

If you want to complain about liars talking about a different time period, that was dumdum.

LiD, think of this, if dumdum here really thought we'd have to go renewables no matter what because it's the best option out of all the possible ones we know the technology for (so no zero point energy generation discoveries), what does it mean to be "challenging"? How can it matter, when we're going to do it anyway? What complaint can be made it will "cost more"? More than what? It can't cost more than it costs, whatever it costs, since that is what it costs. And it doesn't matter if it costs more since it's still supposedly the best option, and all the others unworkable.

This is, of course, given that the claim you quoted that seemed inarguable was genuine. Indeed if it were inarguable, how come dumdum keeps arguing about it, and only it?

And in purely mathematical terms, what does "It will cost more" mean when there's no answer coming to "So how much more?" and "More than what?".

Why complain that there will be more HVDC when there's no answer to the queries "More than what? How much more?". Indeed I've also tried to point out that no matter what generation we go with, we're using HVDC now and we're increasing HVDC and adding HVDC makes any grid system more profitable, more efficient and reduces redundancy when it protects against rare events.

More HVDC than what? What OTHER plan is there that wouldn't? What plan for renewables would it require more HVDC and what plan for renewables are you complaining doesn't have enough HVDC?

When you notice this you notice how buddy dumdum here is lying out of his ass and decieving you with claims "Oh, nuke is bad, coal is bad, gas is bad, we have to go with renewables" because his arguments are null and void and their only purpose is one of two things:

1) FUD about changing things, keep the status quo, delay delay delay.

2) FUD about renewables, point to AGW as urgent and overwhelming need to remove fossil fuels, but renewables can't do it. Never mention nukes in a bad light. Never SAY "use nukes", just make sure every other option is shouted down as too expensive, possibly impossible to do.

And over at Eli's, #2 was 100% dumdum's line. Continually claimed he'd "never said" that we couldn't use renewables. Continued to claim it was far more expensive than claimed, possibly impossible to implement. Continued to claim he'd never said renewables were unworkable.

Remember?

"renewables possibly impossible to implement"
"renewables unworkable"

Oh, sure, unworkable isn't in the first sentence.

Oh, and if you did try to push his quotes back at him there, he'd insist either the precise word claimed was not there (see above) or ignore it completely, wasting all your work looking through the blog for the evidence he demanded.

Nuke sux dogs balls.
Thats my position as eloquently as i wish to make it.
Renewable is the only way forward.
Coal is for fuckwits.
Renewable is a challenge. Not overwhelming.
But challenging.
Sorta like if ya on a boat and it sinks
a couple kms from shore.
Theres no choice. Ya gotta swim. Its challenging.
But ya gunna make it.
Thats sorta how i stay positive. Its a couple km swim.
Luckily we are about 1/4 way there already!
We got some existing tech. Theres heaps of research.
Heaps of public interest and goodwill.
Carmichael mines on the nose.
But its still gunna be a slog, with waves and rips and
the odd denier jellyfish blobbing about, being annoying.
What would sorta help is that people swam together instead
of endless petty bullshit.

Wanna look at another positive?
Theres gas as a helplful transition tool.
Its far from perfect. But it exists.
What there was no such thing as gas? Shit
would be way more challenging then.
But we got it! Yay!
I cant say im a fan of fracking overly on farmland.
Another damn good thing some countries have
is a baseload of hydro . Thats a big plus.
Its subject to climate change issues of course.
And there is horrible ecological damage from the dams.

Hydro is also renewable energy...

As is biomass.

Know another thing that's renewable? Synthfuel from excess wind or solar. Or hydrogen cells from wind/tide/solar/geothermal/...

Know what we can do with them?

Store them up in those big tanks we reserve for fossil fuels like gas and petroleum and burn them like they're gas or oil.

But, remember, as long as someone wants to slow down changing from the status quo or push you to an expensive bondoogle that will delay doing anything other than spend massive amounts on infrastructure we may find out in 20 years is entirely unusable in the changed climate we have already dealt for ourselves in our collective denial and timewasting, you can only "store" in new build storage.

And in a blogpost that talks about the perfection fallacy to proclaim that 100% will be hard and then ignore the existence of cold backup plants which could be coal fired or nukes or anything that we currently have producing a massive fraction of what we currently need (most of the time, but they're not absolutely reliable), just to make sure that we delay and avoid renewables for as long as possible, is rather ironically ridiculous.

So if we leave all current generation there and replace normal operation with 100% planned capacity of renewables, on the rare occasion germany and all its neighbours are under thick cloud and a MASSIVE high pressure zone, they can use the mothballed stations and produce not 100% renewable but 30% renewable and 70% fossil fuels for 0.1% of the time, making it 99.3% renewables on average, somehow this will still be, to denier morons like dumdum here, a failure to bring up and constantly whine and whinge about as a failure, because only renewables have to be perfect.

Agree. Theres alot of bullshit about 100% anything.

Li D

BBD, are you one of those denier loons?

No.

Sorry dumbass, it does.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

Total Nonrenewables: 28.14TWh (58.6%)
Total renewables: 19.83TWh (41.4%)

When YOU claimed it was 27% less than that.

Oh boy.

Wow - those are ANNUAL figures. We were discussing THE WEEK OF 15 - 22 JANUARY and your numbers are incorrect. You have over-estimated by 27%:

March 2017:

TWh
Conventional: 28.16
Wind: 9.43
Solar: 3.52
W&S: 12.95
Total: 41.8

That’s 31.5% W&S. You are over-estimating by 27%.

Please, get it straight.

” What was the generation of renewables, dumfuck?

0.931 TWh.”

Lie!

The only liar here is you, Wow. You are the one trying to pretend that a discussion about expanding wind and solar should use figures for hydro.

These are the relevant data.

Total W&S for the week in question was 0.931 TWh.

As I keep showing you. You can deny it all you like, but the numbers will not change:

Use this link for weekly generation totals for 16-22 Jan:

Pick Month = January, Week = 3.

Weekly generation for 16-22 Jan:

Solar: 0.255 GW

Wind: 0.676 GW

Combined W&S: 0.931

Conventional: 8.899 GW

Total: 9.83 GW

So W&S as a percentage of total generation that week was:

0.931/(9.83/100) = 9.47%

"" BBD, are you one of those denier loons?"

No."

Then again, when do you remember last a denier answering yes to that question? But he is a denier. Remember, there's not just AGW denial.

"That’s 31.5% W&S. You are over-estimating by 27%.

Please, get it straight."

WRONG!

It's 41.4%, 1.4% HIGHER than I said.

"0.931/(9.83/100) = 9.47%"

Yup, but the 0.931 is a lie form you buthurt wangfiddler.

"Use this link for weekly generation totals for 16-22 Jan:"

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

2.33 TWh renewables = 19.9%

Look too at the totals for March:

19.83 TWh renewables = 41.4%

Look too at the lies dumbass fuckwit here spews.

Look at it for the totals for 2016:

181.46TWh renewables = 33.4%

And for 2015:

182.60 TWh renewables = 33.4%

And so far for 2017:

77.97TWh renewables = 37.0%.

It’s 41.4%, 1.4% HIGHER than I said.

Wow, you are *still* conflating biomass and hydro with wind and solar - something I was careful *not* to do from the very outset. This discussion was always about highly variable wind and solar, NOT biomass and hydro, which are pretty stable and which do not have much potential for growth - unlike W&S - which will be the heavy lifters in the evolving energy transition.

* * *

Another of your misleading tricks is the use of partial 2017 annual data. Charitably, I'll ascribe this to incompetence rather than intent, although every single number you have given so far has been a substantial over-estimate, which suggests I'm being too kind to you. Anyway, NB: you can't use partial data to make a strong claim (>40% !!!) as you are doing. It's incorrect. It's misleading.

If we look at 2016 - for which there are complete data - we see that wind = 14.3% and solar = 6.9% of total generation. So that's 21.2% of total generation by W&S. In 2015, it was 21.6%. These are correct annual percentages and these are what you should be quoting.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

"You are the one trying to pretend that a discussion about expanding wind and solar"

And yet another made up claim from you, dumbfuck.

Take a look at the URL:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

FROM RENEWABLES.

Take a look at the topic [post of the thread:

download

I just read an interesting piece on the widely influential VOX, by David Roberts, called “A beginner’s guide to the debate over 100% renewable energy.”

"you can’t use partial data to make a strong claim (>40% !!!) "

YOU want to use partial data to make a strong claim (<10%!!!!)?

Or is it projection again, you flatulent blowhard moron?

". These are correct annual percentages and these are what you should be quoting"

I did:

And so far for 2017:

77.97TWh renewables = 37.0%.

Look at it for the totals for 2016:

181.46TWh renewables = 33.4%

And for 2015:

182.60 TWh renewables = 33.4%

All from:

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

And you continue without a blink to mislead by conflating hydro and biomass with wind and solar.

So, you are dishonest to the point where talking to you is a waste of time.

People like you do more harm to the public perception of renewables than the FF brigade. Everyone sees the total disregard for the truth in your comments and it confirms their darker suspicions that the energy industry is lying to them. As I said upthread, you aren't even a useful idiot.

"And you continue without a blink to mislead by conflating hydro and biomass with wind and solar. "

Nope. More bullshit claim from you, retardo.

WRONG. AGAIN.

"So, you are dishonest to the point where talking to you is a waste of time. "

No, your dishonesty is a waste of time but you can't let it lie, you have to lie for it.

"People like you do more harm to the public perception of renewables"

Shall I bold and italicise that for you?

renewables

And

mislead... conflating hydro and biomass with wind and solar.

The only, and I mean ONLY way this can be said is if you're EVEN LESS CAPABLE OF REALITY THAN DICK.

EVEN TRUMP will be going "That dude some stupid fuck!"

"As I said upthread, you aren’t even a useful idiot."

Yup, and it has only gotten even more incomprehensibly stupid to say it.

You HAVE to, HAVE. TO. Lie like your nuts are at risk if you tell the truth.

So you lie and know you lie about whatthe conversation is about and lie and know you lie when you claim I'm wrong, you lie and know you lie when you complain that others are misleading, you lie AND KNOW YOU'RE LYING when you say you are annoyed with the public being mislead.

Because the only leading you want to happen is away from renewables in fear and uncertainty and doubt it will work.

A plain old nuke worker shilling for their PR cheque.

Wow

The transient 85% generation peak on April 30 between 13:00 - and 15:00 was not caused by a sudden spike in biomass generation. Nor did it result from a sudden output surge from hydro.

It was produced by unusually widespread windy conditions on a sunny day - which happened to be on a holiday weekend when industrial demand (so national demand) was unusually low.

Wind and solar variability produced the headline. So the ensuing conversation was about wind and solar variability and its implications. Or at least, the honest side of it was. Only a peddler of misleading industry PR such as yourself would try to conflate an event arising from wind and solar variability with biomass and hydro. It's just dishonest.

JEZUSFUKINGCRIST!

DO YOU HEAR YOURSELF?!?!?!?!?

See the problem is you have FUCK ALL to say that is in ANY WAY honest or real or even fucking SANE.

ONLY YOU would take an event that is fully explained and then WHINE ABOUT IT BEING EXPLAINED.

You are the exact same as dick and his "Climate sensitivity is per doubling of CO2!!!!".

The event was renewables produced 85% of the power needed in germany to which YOU whined that it was "misleading" for reasons that clearly became more and more outlandish.

Then you whine about how nonexistent claims of nonexistent renewables would cause nonexistent problems for nonexistent futures that you thought were bad.

So you have lurched from one complete clusterfuck of lies and ignorance and deception into the next screaming fake outrage and bullshit claims every single dfrigging step of the way.

Remember when you wanted dick banned for being a complete and utter unprepentant liar?

DID YOU FEAR THE COMPETITION YOU FUCKWIT????

Germany got 85% of their demand from renewables. They got over 40% in march, last year got 33% and 31% the year before that.

ITS A FACT.

But you have to run round in circles screaming "MIsLEAD MisLEAD MIsLEAD!!!!".

Fuck you're a retard.

And then you go complaining "you're not even worth talking to".

Fuck off.

Just fuck right off.

Where the fuck do you live and we'll get in touch and I;ll fucking sort you out.

And don't worry about "I don't want to hit a woman", 'cos I sure as shit don't give a fuck about restraining myself hitting you and wiping you out.

Put up your town of residence, mine is Exeter, and tell Greg that it's OK to pass on your email address to me and we'll arrange a day to meet up where I will send you a fucking message you will NOT ignore.

Fucking deal you moron?

"Oh, it was only 85% for a very special and odd occasion where the wind and sun were appropriate!!!!"

Earlier from you, you fucking lying streak of shit:

"Oh, what about when all of Germany is under a lull in wind for weeks, and there's no sunlight because of the cloud cover, huh? HUH?"

YOU FUCKING DID IT.

TWAT.

So we give up on the "unusual conditions".

Renewables 2016 in Germany: 33%.

BBD said...

8c

You are in denial. Get a grip. Look at the bloody numbers FFS. Anti-nuclear activism is a luxury we can no longer indulge ourselves with. Time has run out.
10/3/16 11:22 AM

https://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/the-lancaster-exception.html?m=0

When you wave about a headline shouting 85%! and it turns out that the story is about W&S variability - not hydro, not biomass - W&S variability, then wind and solar variability is the proper focus of the discussion. Anyone trying to make it about biomass and hydro is being misleading and dishonest.

I pointed out that wind and solar variability is huge - 85% one Sunday afternoon in April and 2% on Sunday Jan 22. That kind of variability has to be addressed by non-FF backup and grid interconnections (something deeply stalled in Germany right now). It's a problem, not something to be crowing to the newspapers about. That's why this kind of PR bullshit is so reprehensible.

* * *

You have a tell that I really have to warn you about.

When you get caught out lying, as above, you GO ALL CAPS and frothingly insane. You do it every time and it's a bit obvious. Mind you, I'm pretty sure everybody knows what a shameless liar you are by now.

BBD:

I admire your patience in dealing with Wow.

His name calling has gotten even worse lately.

I tend to ignore his posts now.

"When you wave about a headline shouting 85%! "

When it does.

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

"and it turns out that the story is about W&S variability "

Except it doesn't. It's about how renewables managed 85%.

"wind and solar variability is the proper focus of the discussion. "

No it isn't retardo.

Now you going to step up and back your bullshit or are you going to fuck off and leave this blog to the at least marginally sane like "Mike"?

Because you're even worse than dick in your insanity and incapacity to tell anything even vaguely the truth.

In 149 I gave that link.

Here's what you said in 150:

And when its dark / winter? And low wind conditions?

And then HERE is what you said

"It was produced by unusually widespread windy conditions on a sunny day – which happened to be on a holiday weekend when industrial demand (so national demand) was unusually low. "

Surely if it was ONLY "windy conditions on a sunny day", then" industrial demand (so national demand) was unusually low." would be FICTION.

Fucking moron.

Oh noes! RENEWABLES DID MORE THAN DOUBLE!!!!! IT FAAAAIIILLLLLDDDD!

THIS is how moronic you are.

A system that has been managing 30+% and increasing that year on year get a time when they do more than twice that AND YOU SCREAM "FAILURE!!!!".

You're a fucking paid hack.

"His name calling has gotten even worse lately."

How the fuck would you know, knobmunch? You ignore my posts now.

And yes, calling fuckwits names is worse when there are fuckwits than when there aren't.

Who'daguessed?!?!?!?

Fucking moron.

And "his" again? You could have said "Her" and if I'd asked about how you figured that said "Well you've said you don't like "him"".

But no, you have to try and bring up the same old tired "gender" argument again because you really REALLY can't handle people as people rather than as whatever dangles between their legs.

Which is the beginning and end of the entirety of sexism.

Er Greg...

Where the fuck do you live and we’ll get in touch and I;ll fucking sort you out.

I'm not happy about this at all.

"I’m not happy about this at all."

Join the frigging club, retard.

Want to try honety, or at least avoid DIShonesty?

Oh and instead of running off crying about meanies, you COULD, like any fucking adult and go "No, I'm not willing to participate".

#342
Ok that sorts that out. Cheers.

So, apparently "Wow" is a woman in her mid-40's who writes like a deranged 9-year-old boy. Unhinged. Honest to the point of recklessness, self-centered to the extreme. Looking for a fight like a school kid who had their feelings hurt once too many. Derailing every conversation "she" participates in with no regard for truth or honest discussion. Fascinating, sad and disturbing all at once.

Who knew? Though nothing new. Just a different venue.

Greg, I'm surprised you tolerate it though, frankly, I'm glad you do. Very entertaining to see that side of the human mind displayed. At length.

And how does that "appear"?

Patrick is "apparently" an ignorant knuckledragger who only comes out of the woodwork when they think they can play hero.

Unfortunately, lacking any method by which to argue a point, they utterly fail their crusade for, well, whatever the hell they're trying to pursue in the last five minutes. It's not like HE cares, is it.

"with no regard for truth or honest discussion."

Ah, some proof would be handy.

Well patmcgroin?

Too funny. Hero? "Wow", you're right, I don't give a shit. I find you entertaining and certainly not in the way you would want.

As for proof? Gee, I don't know. How about virtually every comment above? Or we can go to numerous other sites for more--the defunct asylum of Deltoid being a personal favorite. Of course I would have to have the time and inclination to do that. And I don't.

Was merely a comment pointing out who you seem to have identified yourself as--a deranged, insecure 40-something woman. I was surprised. At least about the woman part. And it "appears" that way because you have made it so idiot.

Yes I am a man. You are an assclown nutter. Neither will change.

"I don’t give a shit."

Ah, clearly you don't care about honesty, then.

Kinda explains your earlier claims, too.

Warrior away, retard.

#372
" asylum of Deltoid"
Get stuffed. Deltoid is a great blog.

It did get killed by batshit betty and StuPid. Hence batshit is roving and trying to get more disruption here.

Looks like we can award the victory to BBD with this neutral scorecard.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160696999931/how-to-know-you-won-a-politic…

Rick, ignoring Wow is what I try to do as well, but other posts get missed.

BBD, will you answer #260?

No. Sorry.

Well, clearly you CAN, but it is unsupportable by any logic reason or reality.

Oh, and I guess it explains how you still don't understand either Mann's work or the work from the IPCC given your love of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALA! CAN'T HEAR".

Not forgetting the ludicrous claims given that if you don't read my posts, you can't actually have any information about them.

You're not the sharpest knife in the sock drawer, are you, "mike".

It;s enlightening to how you perceive things when you link to a blogroll with the URL title:

how-to-know-you-won-a-political-debate

When it ought to be clear this SHOULD have been apolitical and based on provable facts, not political stance.

Clearly even you see that dumdum is not arguing reality, but partisanship.

"Warrior?" What does that even mean? Oh, I know. It's your attempt at some sort of slight. I guess. Shame it makes no sense. But that is by no means unusual for you.

You really don't have a life away from these pages, do you "Wow?" It would be sad if it weren't so amusing.

Nah, it's still sad...

"Wow" proclaims..."Ah, clearly you don’t care about honesty, then."

I don't? What would give you that idea? I honestly believe you are raging idiot with too much time on "her" hands. One who claims knowledge on any number of topics which you clearly do not possess. And I honestly find you endlessly entertaining but, again, not for the reasons I'm certain you would prefer. So, do, please, keep it going. Provided, of course, you don't get banned. Though given your latest work I suspect it is but a matter of time. And you likely won't get your own little padded cell like other venues--see Eli.

Li D--"Get stuffed. Deltoid is a great blog."

It's not a blog at all anymore, and really hasn't been for many years. Perhaps 10 years ago you'd have been correct. But I do thank you for your suggestion.

MikeN re #260:

BBD, your complaint about infrastructure not being good enough to handle supply variation and the need for lines, is this a national issue or a local one?

The problem with large-scale renewables is that the prime resource locations tend to be geographically distant from the major demand centres. So you need lots of new long distance transmission capacity linking the prime renewable resources to their potential markets. Typically, this will mean lots more HVDC, which is a slow, painful process because of all the land rights issues it incurs. There's a good explainer here. You can see why the US isn't looking likely to make a successful energy transion to a high renewables mix unless there is hard-edged federal intervention and soon. And we know teh Donald is really on-side with that.

For example, suppose San Diego had wind and solar arrays nearby, along with nuclear and coal and hydro and gas plants, and enough backup supply to handle darkness and low wind(simultaneously). Is there another issue they have to deal with on the grid?

With all that lot (assuming 'enough backup' really does mean enough backup) then broad strokes, SD would have partially decarbonised its electricity supply. Important to remember that decarbonising electricity generation is just the first - and easiest - step along the much harder road to full decarbonisation of total primary energy (TPE). But decarbonisation of TPE is what has to be achieved if atmospheric CO2 levels are eventually to be reduced.

"The problem with large-scale renewables is that the prime resource locations tend to be geographically distant from the major demand centres"

The problem with your asinine claim is that we have roofs. We put them on the places that are major demand centers.

"With all that lot (assuming ‘enough backup’ really does mean enough backup)"

Oh, dear, because if there isn't enough, there's only the magical pixie dust of nuclear that we put right in the middle of our demand centers that never has a problem with being not enough. Just one gramme of uranium will ALWAYS be enough!!!

"Important to remember that decarbonising electricity generation is just the first – and easiest – step along the much harder road to full decarbonisation of total primary energy (TPE)"

So what? WHAT CHANGES if it's hard or easy? If it's REALLY REALLY hard, do we just not bother and roast or sit at home and do nothing?

And when robots are doing all the work and teleconferencing is all that the jobs left require, the demand for transit to work is gone.

Sounds like transitioning to TPE is easy then.

You're a fucking retard, dumdum.

Hey, wanckchat, you don't appear to have anything to do but post BS about a thing you claim you don't give a shit about.

How retarded is that?

The problem with you, Wow, is that you have almost no idea at all what you are talking about but you never shut up.

Let's take this bit of cretinousness:

The problem with your asinine claim is that we have roofs. We put them on the places that are major demand centers.

But the primary solar resources are far away from the primary demand centres. You have forgotten that solar irradiance at the surface varies with latitude. To generate enough electricity you need to build the large-scale solar plant where solar irradiance is highest.

In your own words:

You’re a fucking retard

Why Greg allows you to carry on is increasingly puzzling.

Ah, yet more projection an dbollocks form you.

And what is this about "you never shut up"? What about the moron who said "It's not even worth talking to you"? Yet here you are, still trying to talk over me.

That, by the way was incredible stupidity you said.

"Why Greg allows you to carry on is increasingly puzzling."

Because he needs to have someone willing to go up against your pro-nuke insane bumblings and he's quite aware of how mindbogglingly infuriating a retard like yourself is when they're desperately trying to rubbish the competition.

Kinda simple. Not as simple as you are, you moronic fuckwit, but that's practically "absolute stupid". Even trump is going "that dumdum fella is fucking stupid, isn't he.".

The fact is that all your complaints about renewables are manufactured failures you're promoting to scare people off and rush them into buying nuclear. Not one of them, even the very few valid points, are of any value whatsoever because even the valid ones are valid for ALL OTHER GENERATION.

And you keep whining about how challenging it will be to no purpose.

Got anything that isn't challenging? No? Then you're only whining about how it's not money going to pay for worthless nukes.

If you wonder why nobody wants nukes or believes the BS about their safety, your lies and horrendous arguments against renewables is why.

You have screwed over the industry in your insane rantings devoid of reality against renewables.

Wonderful own goal dumbass.

"But the primary solar resources are far away from the primary demand centres"

No, they're everywhere.

Or are you secretly a moleman? A molech? Some sort of cave-dwelling troll? We have humans here and we work above ground mostly, and the few underground jobs are apart from deep seam mining, all absent any great power demands.

And without coal and uranium, we won't need much mining.

And where are the major sources of uranium? Coal? Right under the major cities?

Nope.

"To generate enough electricity you need to build the large-scale solar plant where solar irradiance is highest. "

Wrong. It's cheaper to build large scale solar plants where the sun is strongest.

Germany isn't where the sun is strongest, yet it managed 85% of demand from renewables.

“But the primary solar resources are far away from the primary demand centres”

No, they’re everywhere.

In which Wow denies that surface solar irradiance varies with latitude.

Wonderful own goal dumbass.

Germany isn’t where the sun is strongest, yet it managed 85% of demand from renewables.

For three hours on a Sunday afternoon. But it can go down to 2% on a different Sunday afternoon, as the data show.

Looking at individual days is potentially misleading, hence the misleading PR we see regurgitated by they press every so often. Let's avoid that sort of error and concentrate on annual data.

Total solar was 7.1% in 2015 and 6.9% in 2016. That puts things a bit more into perspective.

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

"For three hours on a Sunday afternoon"

But according to your screed this is impossible, because Germany is where the big industrial powerhouse of Europe is, and you insist that we only have sufficient power in distant places and therefore have to have lots of HVDC.

"But it can go down to 2% on a different Sunday afternoon, as the data show. "

No, the data shows that is a load of bollocks. Another fake trumpian claim from you, dumdum. Tell me do you have ridiculous "real hair" too? Offensively long ties?

"Looking at individual days is potentially misleading"

Yet you keep bleating on about individual days whenever you whine and whinge about renewables being too expensive to possibly work.

You really don't care what bullshit you spew, do you?

"Let’s avoid that sort of error and concentrate on annual data."

YOU were the one bleating about "What about this short period possibly??!?!?!?!"

Annual data for Germany, hardly a place with a clear sky desert climate today:

And so far for 2017:

77.97TWh renewables = 37.0%.

Look at it for the totals for 2016:

181.46TWh renewables = 33.4%

And for 2015:

182.60 TWh renewables = 33.4%

All from:

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

Your claims are just fakery and the exact reason why nukes will NEVER be acceptable to the educated and educable, since your lies and bullshit are entirely fictions to drive people to your white elephant money grab scam.

And the renewables are so plentiful that Germany is increasing year on year the exports the do to the rest of Europe.

Making the figures above EVEN BETTER, since they include overgeneration that is sold for profit elsewhere. Generation ABOVE demand.

"In which Wow denies that surface solar irradiance varies with latitude. "

and another fake claim from you, you retard.

“To generate enough electricity you need to build the large-scale solar plant where solar irradiance is highest. ”

Where buddy dumdum insists that it's eternal night in Germany.

“For three hours on a Sunday afternoon”

But according to your screed this is impossible, because Germany is where the big industrial powerhouse of Europe is, and you insist that we only have sufficient power in distant places and therefore have to have lots of HVDC.

It was the Sunday of the May Day holiday long weekend. As has been pointed out repeatedly, industrial demand was at unusually low levels.

“But it can go down to 2% on a different Sunday afternoon, as the data show. ”

No, the data shows that is a load of bollocks. Another fake trumpian claim from you, dumdum.

Learn to read a graph. German electricty generation, 15 - 22 Jan:

22/01
Peak GW total/time: 68.59 / 17:00

S: 0
W: 1.37

W&S as % of peak total generation: 2%

YOU were the one bleating about “What about this short period possibly??!?!?!?!”

Because you peddled the industry PR puff about Germany's 'record-breaking' 85% renewables blah on this thread. For three hours on a Sunday afternoon.

"It was the Sunday of the May Day holiday long weekend"

So when you claimed that solar had to be built in distant places far from the demand, you had the unstated coda "unless it's a Sunday May Day Holiday!"????

Fucking liar.

"Learn to read a graph. German electricty generation, 15 – 22 Jan:"

I can.

Total Renewables: 2.33TWh, 19.9%.

Nearly 10x what you're claiming.

And weren;t you whining about not taking some short atypical time period and we had to use annual averages?!?!?!?

Oh, yes, you were.

Seems like hypocrit is still a hypocrit.

If you ever wondered why dick still gets to post, you are the reason why. If he sacked dick he'd have to get rid of you first.

"Because you peddled the industry PR puff about Germany’s ‘record-breaking’ 85% renewables "

IOW you scream "FAKE NEWS!!!!".

No, it really did break the record, it's a fact, it;s reality, it;s what really really happened. Renewables manged 85% of power demand in Germany. A fact you cannot face so bury under your bullshit.

O, and more lies too.

YOU were the one bleating about “What about this short period possibly??!?!?!?!”

Because you peddled the industry PR puff about Germany’s ‘record-breaking’ 85% renewables blah on this thread

Wjen you posted this at post 95:

Over 48 hours of low regional windspeed?

Was that BEFORE or AFTER my post at 149:

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

Was 95 a response to a LATER post, dumfuck?

Come on, which is earlier in the number sequence: 95 or 149?

Does Scott have "When they have to make up reality to prove you wrong, that proves you're right" in his description of how you can tell you've won an argument "Mike"?

And since industrial demand is so significant, why do you keep whining about out-of-office-hours lack of solar? There's very little industry running at night. So low industrial (therefore low national demand) would have the same effect as a May Day Bank Holiday Weekend Sunday.

Blah blah blah.

I don't think anyone reads you bollocks anymore.

22/01
Peak GW total/time: 68.59 / 17:00

S: 0
W: 1.37

W&S as % of peak total generation: 2%

Fact. Deal with facts.

Total Renewables: 2.33TWh, 19.9%.

Nearly 10x what you’re claiming.

Because a WEEK isn't the same as a day, idiot.

You keep ondoing this. Are you stupid or simply dishonest?

Do tell.

"Blah blah blah.

I don’t think"

True, dumdum.

" Nearly 10x what you’re claiming.

Because a WEEK isn’t the same as a day, idiot. "

But one day is not the same as "German electricty generation, 15 – 22 Jan." That happens to be one week, moron.

And what does % have to do with the difference between one day and one week.

More maths fail from the dribbling buffoon nuke fluffer.

" Are you stupid or simply dishonest?"

You are both.

"Fact. Deal with facts."

Hey, you're the one whining about facts and insisting they're PR.

And is it a FACT that 95 comes after 146, moronico?

Or are you just terminally incapable of thought?

Do tell.

"https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…"

Fact.

Deal with it.
German electricty generation, 15 – 22 Jan:

Total Renewables: 2.33TWh, 19.9%.

Fact. Deal with it.

#95 was BEFORE #146

FACT.

Deal with it, morondo.

"Fact. Deal with facts."

Facts like renewables managed 85% of demand in Germany? No, you can't deal with facts. Only fluffery.

Does radioactive knob taste nice?

OK, BBD, I had misunderstood your objections in previous thread, and thought you were saying the variation of wind and solar was a technical challenge. Instead your argument is that the wind and solar local supply is not enough, and you need transmission lines to utilize the national supply?

He doesn't know what the challenges are, he knows he has to keep harping on about them.

National grids, for example, are mostly AC. There's nothing about HVDC that makes them necessary, they only make it cheaper to run, having the possiblity of lower loss than HVAC of the same power capacity because of capacitative losses. It's currently used where it makes it cheaper to move electricity now. And it will be used no matter what the future power grid will be, because long distance catchments allow more market exploitation.

>He doesn’t know what the challenges are, he knows he has to keep harping on about them.

You are an expert on keep harping on without knowing the details.

Yes, that's his probem all right.

I'm an expert and he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and NOBODY knows "the" details, because there aren't any.

Hell, when I asked you "About what?" when you told me "stop lying", YOU didn't know any more details than you'd asked me to stop lying.

You didn't know the details of the content of the link and got the detail that HE'D waddled off about some OTHER period of time and appeared to think it was me (which is why dumdum thought you were telling THEM to stop lying, THAT is how out of detail you were).

I will demonstrate your lack of knowing what "the details" are by asking you again right here: what details, and where are they to have been missed?

You posted that BBD was lying with #235:

"Lie about renewables to fit your agenda of denial of a reality you don’t wish to confront.

Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:"

This is a lie by you.

MikeN

OK, BBD, I had misunderstood your objections in previous thread, and thought you were saying the variation of wind and solar was a technical challenge. Instead your argument is that the wind and solar local supply is not enough, and you need transmission lines to utilize the national supply?

Well, that's two sides of the same coin, really. Whenever W&S variability causes local supply to fall below local* demand there's a problem. It might be that local wind and solar resources are not that good or it might be that it's dark and windspeeds are low or a combination of both. Doesn't matter - there's a supply shortfall.

Small, transient supply shortfalls can be managed with demand-side management but longer and larger shortfalls need extra energy inputs. These can come from utility-scale storage or long-distance transmission or both. But they have to come from somewhere or the lights go out.

It looks likely that a combination of both will eventually be used, with HVDC links to the big wind resources in the N and big solar in the SW as essential parts of the US grid infrastructure. The results would look something like this (red circles indicate imports, blue indicate exports). Note that the source is NREL - generally considered impeccable in RE discussions.

*'Local' in this context can mean 'NYC' or 'the Eastern Seaboard'. Not just Littleburg, VA.

"You posted that BBD was lying with #235:

“Lie about renewables to fit your agenda of denial of a reality you don’t wish to confront.

Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:”

This is a lie by you."

Nope, retard, this is where you told me I was lying:

Before you were saying it was 85%. Now it turns out that was for a different time period of a weekend. Stop lying.

What was I lying about?

"Small, transient supply shortfalls can be managed with demand-side management but longer and larger shortfalls need extra energy inputs...But they have to come from somewhere or the lights go out. "

So tell me your power supply where this would not be the case that if there is insuffucient power produced the shortfallnhas to come from somewhere or the ligths go out?

"These can come from utility-scale storage or long-distance transmission or both."

And, yes power has to come from somewhere, but it DOESN'T have to come from utility scale storage or long distance, or both.

That is a lie.

"Whenever W&S variability causes local supply to fall below local* demand there’s a problem."

Wherever nuclear variability causes local supply to fall below local demand, there's a problem.

So what magical power source do you have that this is NOT the case?

"Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:"

IS a lie.

Retard bum dumb destroyed was lying about renewables producing less than 10% in that time period WHICH WAS WHAT HE WAS ASKED TO ANSWER: how much renewables produced to demand.

And lied about how much DEMAND was when he kept bleating on about how much GENERATION was and CLAIMED it was demand.

Even you tried to correct him on his deliberate "confusion" most recently in 324.

“These can come from utility-scale storage or long-distance transmission or both.”

And, yes power has to come from somewhere, but it DOESN’T have to come from utility scale storage or long distance, or both.

That is a lie.

No, it's a fact. Deal with facts.

Retard bum dumb destroyed was lying about renewables producing less than 10% in that time period WHICH WAS WHAT HE WAS ASKED TO ANSWER: how much renewables produced to demand.

Wind and solar produced 9.47% during the week 15 - 22 Jan.

Fact. Deal with facts.

another way. Here are the weekly generation figures for 16-22 Jan:

Solar: 0.255 GW

Wind: 0.676 GW

Combined W&S: 0.931

Conventional: 8.899 GW

Total: 9.83 GW

So W&S as a percentage of total generation that week was:

0.931/(9.83/100) = 9.47%

Not 30%.

And lied about how much DEMAND was when he kept bleating on about how much GENERATION was and CLAIMED it was demand.

But it is demand. If generation exceeds demand, then the grid breaks. Already explained this to you.

There's no difference between domestic (German) demand and export demand - electrons don't care, they just have to *go* somewhere. So generation must = total aggregate demand (domestic + export).

Your topic knowledge is appalling.

"No, it’s a fact. Deal with facts. "

No, it's a lie, and I deal with liars like you by treating them with the same disdain and abuse they give reality.

“https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…”

Fact.

Deal with it.
German electricty generation, 15 – 22 Jan:

Total Renewables: 2.33TWh, 19.9%.

Fact. Deal with it.

#95 was BEFORE #146

FACT.

Deal with it, morondomookfuck.

"But it is demand."

No it isn't. It's supply.

Fucking moron has no clue what reality is.

"There’s no difference between domestic (German) demand and export demand "

So Germany is the entire world? Or Germany exports to Germany?????

Fucking idiot.

"Not 30%."

it was 85%.

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/17/05/11/229217/germany-sets-new-na…

DEAL WITH FACTS.

Germany manged 85% of power demand being supplied by renewables. They did not require HVDC to provide it, they did not even use all storage to provide it.

There was nothing misleading about the story.

There is no power supply that will not result in power outages if there is insufficient power supplied.

There is no idea from you on how to avoid your claims of problems.

You do not know what generation, demand, supply or export means.

You have only ever whined about renewables as being challenging, and only care about pointing out how insufficient supply is a problem if we don't build enough power generation.

You have lied and made shit up. This too is a fact.

You then go and complain when I make blank assertions from claims that you made when I do them RIGHT AFTER YOU MAKE THE BS CLAIM.

You have proclaimed you would provide a list showing how I insist there should be no HVDC or backup with renewables, yet not one location did you find it.

I have provided one direct quote of you to support MY claim about your lies.

You are a partisan hack trying to stop renewables from being pushed out by proclaiming unspecified catastrophe if we do a thing nobody has shown we should do and given no method of avoiding that catastrophe you claim could exist.

Facts? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE FACTS.

More facts: the anti-green brigade and pro-nuke fluffers and the AGW denialists have all insisted that renewable penetration would cause catastrophe much past 20% of total average generation because of "intermittent" supply.

Germany has manged over 30% just fine. And this build out was not produced to the expectation of covering that volume. NOT ONE OF YOU MORONS have actually stated how much the build-out of renewables in Germany was intended to supply (given your claims of its capacity factor compared to nukes and other fake-dispatchable suppliers). It's definitely not 40% and last I actually heard the plans for Germany was a while ago when it was "We will get to 20% or more renewables by 2020".

So you deniers and corporate shills and hacks complain that in a scenario where it isn't expected to cover 40% that it somehow has failed when producing 85% because it hasn't done it for a long stretch of time????

HOW THE HELL IS THAT A FAIL?

So Germany is the entire world? Or Germany exports to Germany?????

You fucked this up earlier when you tried to pretend that the export wasn't demand:

#247

And you mislead people with your claim that production = demand. But Germany exported a net of 4.5TWh in January. CLEARLY the production was higher than demand.

And at #265:

Remember, Germany is exporting all the while, between 2 and 10GW.

You were wrong then and you are wriggling now.

Own your faceplants and bullshit.

God but you need banning.

Germany manged 85% of power demand being supplied by renewables. They did not require HVDC to provide it, they did not even use all storage to provide it.

There was nothing misleading about the story.

For an eyeblink. That is what is misleading about this story. Sometimes the variable renewables wind and solar which produced the 85% blip can drop to >10% for an entire week.

The lack of meaningful progress in dealing with it is the real story. But it is the one you will not allow to be discussed, preferring instead to peddle misleading industry PR.

"You fucked this up earlier when you tried to pretend that the export wasn’t demand:"

And another fake claim from the moron of the year.

"You were wrong then"

Really? O was wrong? WHERE? EVERY SINGLE VALUE IS CORRECT

"Germany exported a net of 4.5TWh in January"

Is that not CLEARLY supply exceeded demand?

Fuck off you lying little streak of weak piss. Just because you hate reality doesn't mean I have to be banned you fucking retard trumpnutmuncher.

ESPECIALLY when you're too shit scared to solve this like humans, face to face.

You chickenshit liar.

“Germany exported a net of 4.5TWh in January”

Is that not CLEARLY supply exceeded demand?

NO! Jesus you idiot!

Read. The. Words:

But it is demand. If generation exceeds demand, then the grid breaks. Already explained this to you.

There’s no difference between domestic (German) demand and export demand – electrons don’t care, they just have to *go* somewhere. So generation must = total aggregate demand (domestic + export).

Can't you even begin to understand the basics?

"For an eyeblink. That is what is misleading about this story. Sometimes the variable renewables wind and solar which produced the 85% "

IS NOT MISLEADING IN THE STORY!

Do you know what is misleading about you and your idiotic screed?

The nuclear explosion in Fukushima has caused trillions in damage and YOU HAVE IGNORED IT.

Greg, you will, if you have the patience, see that dumbfuck retard here's MO is to go full retard and rile the shit out of people who DARE to say that renewables might work so that they can keep fucking lying.

He's a 100% fucking troll and if you want reality to even have a chance you either have to completely and permanently drop all reports of anything about renewables in a good light OR ban that fuckwit trollidiot from the blog.

That shitstorm sea of sewage calling itself "BBD" will REFUSE to let renewables be seen as anything other than a complete failure and unworkable idea.

I pointed out your lie to you, and then you switched to another statement. Then you strangely repeat your lie in #417, while trying to say it's a lie that wind and solar is low because renewables. If you want to say that 'wind and solar is low' is a lie, then you have to demonstrate that 'wind and solar is not low.' Repeating your statements about renewables cannot make 'wind and solar is low' a lie. That you say this statement is a lie while knowing there is a difference between renewables and 'wind and solar' is why I call you a liar.

"I pointed out your lie to you, "

Ah.so when you said:

Before you were saying it was 85%. Now it turns out that was for a different time period of a weekend. Stop lying.

You were lying, it had NOTHING to do with "a different time period". If you'd said "*a* lie", that would have been different, but youve just said this was *the* lie, the lie you were talking about there.

"and then you switched to another statement. "

Nope, I stayed on the statement YOU had made, I had not switched statement, just like, it now appears, you admit to lying about when claiming I had switched to another time period (indeed it was dumfuck wallyfeaturs who did that).

So that is a second lie from you.

Not doing bad. do you also whine about your own duplicities like you do everyone else's, or are you endemically corrupt and hypocritical "mike"?

"Then you strangely repeat your lie in #417"

WHAT lie in 417?

“Like the one about W&S being low 15-22nd Jan in Germany:”

IS a lie. Because it was buttfuck mcstupidarse's use of the "low W&S" to "prove" I was wrong about renewables being about 30% of demand. Since W&S is not "renewables", bleating on about it is NOT proof of error in, or counter to, my claim about renewables.

THEREFORE his claim was a lie.

But you dont know what anything means, you only hope to take advandage of your own confusion and pretend that you're somehow right and someone who has been a thorn in your side is wrong.

Sorry, cupcake, you're entirely wrong.

And that's if it's just pure stupidity rather than active lying going on there, "mike".

"That you say this statement is a lie while knowing there is a difference between renewables and ‘wind and solar’ "

The point is that either YOU don't know or YOU DON'T CARE.

Because it's sure as shit that turdbreath monkeynutfeatures doesn't care that he's getting it wrong, he has a corporate cheque to cash in, and lies to promote to earn it.

When he was asked what renewables were, HE was the one who claimed the solar plus wind totals and then continued to proclaim I was "wrong" because renewables are NOT the same as wind and solar.

He didn't care because he's a useless shitstain of a human being.

Why didn't you care about it, monkeynuts?

Too complex for you, didn't CARE, or know you're talking bullshit?

Moreover, the statement you claim is a lie and was repeated in 417 was NOT in any of the posts you complained about.

Go back to badbraindumdump's post at 292, "mike".

Oh, and as predicted in 411 when I said

I will demonstrate your lack of knowing what “the details” are by asking you again right here: what details, and where are they to have been missed?

To your post at 410 when you proclaimed:

You are an expert on keep harping on without knowing the details.

Since you failed to provide any of the details nor where they were to be "not got" by me.

Sadface, cryface.

And when you swallowed dumdum's liquid load claim of "Buys you about 12 hours", did you miss the details like, oh, say, the complete lack of any calculation for that figure, especially when it is quite easy to work out if it's even near?

Seems like you love to not get details and complain about them.

Currently dumdum is helping sow doubt about the feasibility of doing anything about AGW and promoting the "do nothing" agenda of AGW denial, so you're really up for helping him, and all of a sudden, you're not so worried about asking him where he gets his data from or detail the working and proofs of his claims.

When you like them, you will just let the pass, even though you were awful insistent on "PROOF DAMMIT!" when he wasn't helping delay doing anything about AGW.

For all dumdum's whining about how people saying "we can do 100% renewables" are, somehow, because he's not given any proof this is actually reality, pushing people to stick with fossil fuels by not proclaiming renewables possibly too hard to even do.

And you haven't noted any lack of evidence of this claim even existing.

"W&S can swing from 85% to 2%."

Notice that "mike"? Or did you not care? When you complained

That you say this statement is a lie while knowing there is a difference between renewables and ‘wind and solar’

Had you actually read the thread you were complaining about, or had you merely read enough to confirm what you wanted to see?

Do you want to post that to dumdum? Call HIM a liar? Or do you wish not to undermine someone working toward the FUD and delay tactics of not doing anything "because it may be really really hard, like" that you prefer to see "win" in the political arguments you're stuck in?

And if you DO go back and see how your expectations changed the evidence you "saw" (as in that was all you saw), you NOW know why the scientific method is there and how it doesn't just apply to things you do in a lab or science class, it really does need applying everywhere in life when your aim is to describe reality as it is.

And how the lack of such scientific scepticism really does nullify any claims, no matter if they are "honestly held" or not, because the evidence is not what is real but what is presented.

#436 "...method is there and how it doesn’t just apply to things you do in a lab or science class, it really does need applying everywhere ..."
Mmmm yes. Shit boils down to this really. What works and how do we know?
The thing that ( off topicly ) came to mind reading your post
was this. Does tax lowering for corporations assist growth and
employment? Its almost a forgone conclusive thought for many.
But is it valid? Theres no shortage of data to examine.

#430 jeezuz!
No wow. Just no. Thats my view anyhow.
Batty on the other hand...

“W&S can swing from 85% to 2%.”

Notice that “mike”? Or did you not care? When you complained

Whoops. That was a typo.

W&S on April 30 was 65% of total peak generation / demand. On Jan 22, it was 2%.

* * *

Li D

Thanks for your kind words.

"Does tax lowering for corporations assist growth and
employment?"

Well, no.

For a very simple reason: they don't have to employ more people if they can increase profits by government handouts or tax breaks. Normally it would require more workers to produce more goods to produce more revenue to produce more profits.

If you're going to get more profit because the government hands you cash or free services, there's no need to go to the risk of employing someone new.

"No wow. Just no. Thats my view anyhow."

I didn't give a view, lid. I have given the parameters of consequence.

" “W&S can swing from 85% to 2%.”

Notice that “mike”? Or did you not care? When you complained

Whoops. That was a typo. "

Ah, shall I correct your typo?

"whoops. that was incriminating."

You KNEW you were talking BS. You keep claiming, for example 8 posts later, that you argue wind and solar === all renewables. EVEN "MIKE" tried to make you see your fallacy. Though they were attempting to make it my fault.

"W&S on April 30 was 65% of total peak generation"

So what was renewables? And 15-22nd Jan, what was renewables? And what is the topic of this thread as written specifically in the text Greg gave and the content of the publication he quoted?

And while you're avoiding those questions, here are more you need to avoid:

How much untapped storage was there from current storage systems that are not an additional cost for renewables, but a requirement for a modern stable national grid intended to be reliable?

How much untapped interstate power was available?

If Morocco has an excess of Solar and Germany a lack, does the electrons produced have to go all the way from Morocco to Germany?

When you cry fake tears at how complex and challenging renewable power is, do you have any plan that is less challenging?

When you cry your fake tears at how insufficient supply would cause power shortages, what plan do you have that doesn't have that problem?

When you cry your fake tears at misdirections, when will you stop misdirecting others by claiming bullshit equality between "W&S" and renewables?

When you scream fake outrage at plans of 100% renewables and insist it will "cost more", HOW much more? and how much more than WHAT? Where is this plan you're crying about and what's your alternative that avoids the pitfalls you proclaim?

PS why aren't you thanking "mike"? He's taking everything you emit here and guzzling it down like a pornhub amateur.

And don't you mean 55%, dungus?

And isn't that mostly due to turning off gas, coal and oil? If they were all kept on, what % would "wind and solar" be? And if the renewables managed 20% of the demand, then isn't it the fact that when there's the "perfect storm" of no sun and no wind, renewables managed 20+% not your "only 2%!"?

Out of the 30% they nominally produce, that gives a "wide variation" of 22/30=73% of nominal when still untapped hydro and storage of currently applicable ratios of HVDC and storage to generation are built out.

Oh noes, it could go and drop by 27% from expected!!!! For a few hours!!!! For which we'd have to use up maybe 4% of our EV fleet's battery storage!!!!!! END OF WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!

You KNEW you were talking BS. You keep claiming, for example 8 posts later, that you argue wind and solar === all renewables.

Nope, lies on both counts. I acknowledged the typo the instant it was pointed out and I have repeatedly made the point that since the entire discussion is about wind and solar variability then it is *misleading* to conflate biomass and hydro with W&S. Which, of course, is why I didn't do so and you did.

And don’t you mean 55%, dungus?

And isn’t that mostly due to turning off gas, coal and oil? If they were all kept on, what % would “wind and solar” be?

W&S would be exactly the same. Germany curtails fossil fuel plant in favour of W&S. You can see this instantly from the weekly data. But clearly you don't care about the facts.

Back to the numbers for 30/04:

Peak generation / demand was 75.55GW at 11:00.
Solar: 29.76
Wind:16.75
W&S: 46.51
W&S % of total gen = 46.5/(75.5/100) = 65%

Peak generation / demand was 68.17GW at 13:00.
Solar: 28.94
Wind: 15.66
W&S: 44.6
W&S % of total gen = 44.6/(68.2/100) = 65%

Peak generation / demand was 66.72GW at 14:00.
Solar: 26.32
Wind: 16.78
W&S: 43.1
W&S % of total gen = 43.1/(66.72/100) = 65%

Peak generation / demand was 64.34GW at 15:00.
Solar: 21.55
Wind: 18.77
W&S: 40.32
W&S % of total gen = 40.32/(64.34/100) = 63%

When you scream fake outrage at plans of 100% renewables

And yet again, you are making shit up.

What I object to is the incessant barrage of industry PR (lies, really) about 'cheap' renewables and the misleading presentation of W&S variability (85%!!) as if it was a benefit rather than a profound systemic problem.

All I care about is efficient decarbonisation. Anything that gets in the way, from anti-nuclear activism to misleading presentations of renewables potential, is the problem.

You KNEW you were talking BS. You keep claiming, for example 8 posts later, that you argue wind and solar === all renewables.

Nope, lies on both counts.

OK, you were lying on both counts, dumdum.

since the entire discussion is about wind and solar variability

And another lie. It's about renewables. Not wind and solar variability.

You LOVE the lies, don't you? Can't prevent yourself diving right into them. Because the truth is devastating to your checking account.

W&S would be exactly the same

Ah, and another lie from you, retard.

No. If it were supposed to be 100% renewables,then there would be no normally operating nuke or coal or oil or gas plants producing power.

You are INCREDIBLY stupid to think that ANYONE would buy your bullshit claims. Yet still you bullshit.

Germany curtails fossil fuel plant in favour of W&S. You can see this instantly from the weekly data.

Therefore that 55% was not due to wind or solar variability, was it you pointless waste of oxygen? It was due to not bothering with that useless nuke or coal or gas or oil.

But your bank account can't handle that so you keep pretending your idiotic ranting is somehow believable.

. You can see this instantly from the weekly data.

I can. So can everyone else. Which is why your idiotic claims are so trumpianly stupid to make. It's so easy to show you are talking complete and utter bullshit.

Peak generation / demand was 75.55GW at 11:00.

Lie. It was less than that. 13.4 GW was exported and not part of demand.

And so far for 2017:

77.97TWh renewables = 37.0%.

Look at it for the totals for 2016:

181.46TWh renewables = 33.4%

And for 2015:

182.60 TWh renewables = 33.4%

All from:

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy_pie.htm

Facts. Deal with them, you blundering dunderheaded idiot.

When you scream fake outrage at plans of 100% renewables

And yet again, you are making shit up.

Nope, 100% of that was an accurate and apt description, you screaming frothing maniac.

All I care about is efficient decarbonisation.

Now THERE is a lie.

No, you only care about your paycheck and job at the nuclear industry PR firm you inhabit. You would prefer to go back to 100% smog producing coal than let renewables work.

the entire discussion is about wind and solar variability

OK, so what is your plan for renewables to be as variable as you claim, you lying streak of shit?

And see, lid, how with this batshit crazy moron bullshitting that any blog that dares talk about renewables will be as broken as deltoid with batshit betty on it, because BBD is 100% identically equivalently insane on nukes as batshit is about how AGW is a scam.

Sure, keep the retard and let them post their bullshit, but no discussion will be allowed that shows renewables could work without dumb idiots ranting and railing against renewables being impossible like Bloody Boring Dumbass shitting all over it in their insane crusade against reality.

So still no actual evidence of any catastrophe from BBD.

Still no plan that will work better.

Still no plan that he's complaining about.

Still just 100% content free insanity from the pro nuke shill going batshit.

Misleading to proclaim it's about wind and solar variability when it's all about when "conventional plants" were turned off, varying the output to zero. Misleading to claim it's all about wind and solar variability when it's all about demand variability dropping at weekends.

Misleading will be you whining about how it's "NOT only conventional plant variability, that's a LIE!" when the truth is that is PRECISELY how you caricature the situation, just choosing a target of the variation to focus solely on that does not help and indeed punctures your political and financial ideology against the FUD promotion about renewables you crusade about on every single thread on every single blog where you do not get 100% your own way to scare the shit out of people into paying massive inflated costs and take on incredibly stupid risks of nuclear power.

And incredibly misleading to pretend that you are never doing this, only the opponent who is fighting your insanity in public.

Nukes in the two periods BBD provided to "prove" wind and solar were unusable varied 45%. Yet renewables varied 15%. But somehow this is not about nuke variability.

Demand varied from 35GW to 75GW over that entire week 3 in 2017 in Germany, yet somehow this is not about demand variability.

Supplies from "non renewable" sources varied from 42 to 60GW, yet somehow this is not about conventional supply variability.

April 30th, conventional varied from 15GW to 49GW. Yet still this is not about conventional power variability.

The subject of the thread above the line is about renewables. Not "Wind and solar" never mind "wind and solar variability". The URL said RENEWABLES, not "wind and solar" never mind "wind and solar variability", my questions have been about renewables, my figures have been for renewables.

And this was, apparently supposed to be about GERMANY (post 177), yet you talked about US grid, which last time I looked was not built in Germany.

You bullshit and scream your insanity at the skies and when it fails insist on going somewhere else. But only when "rebutting" a claim you cannot handle.

I posted FACTS showing that nukes varied from 7.3-13.5GW and that it barely managed to get over 8% for much of the period in question, yet when this pitiful amount was shown, dumdum here whined "But they're closing down nukes! You can't use that!", yet when I point out that the 55% of production was a result of shutting down white elephants of fossil fuel production therefore you could not use it compared to 100% of the production but the 30% of production that renewables were generally getting, of which 2/3rds was not wind and solar but still absolutely renewabeles, suddenly it was "MISLEADING" to take into account shutting down plants and shutting down those plants anyway shows how variable renewables are!?!?!?!!

And not one of the whiners complaining about me care.

Do you, morons.

Which is why your complaints are rebutted but your concerns discarded. I may defend myself against attack but I don't have to worry about your good opinion of me. Or, indeed your opinion AT ALL.

If you had displayed any sense of actual care about reality, I would find it much harder to discard your whining as anything other than partisan idiocy and glee at finding someone to attack in safety. Because it really REALLY is only the cheapest and most cowardly bullying you're doing. Wait for someone to come along who you can attack without worrying about having to defend yourself.

Pure, unadulterated cowardice.

And therefore your "concerns" can be dismissed as entirely fake. They never bothered you before, with ample justification to be bothered if you were honestly worried about your points.

Why the hell did I bother?

BBD,

I received a paper this week from a principle planner who has been dealing with defining the assumptions that are going into mobility plans being developed for a large county (1). Richard indicated that a lot of his efforts are spent coming up with communication plans. Being well seasoned, or over the hill depending on how you look at things, he stressed that his objective or goal is to provide context to the assumptions in the plans- or as Richard stressed “the goal is to minimize distorted thinking and see the world more accurately.”

The EIA had a recent post on how the state of CA is doing in regards to reducing natural gas this spring:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31252

“....So far in 2017, increased hydroelectric generation and solar power generation in California have contributed to lower natural gas-fired power generation in the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) region, the electric system operator for much of the state”…

Genentech media noted the slowdown in residential capacity additions this spring vs last recently as well:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/residential-solar-capacity…

…”The decline is even more pronounced on a year-over-year basis, dropping by 31 percent from 284 megawatts (DC) in the first quarter of 2016, to 196 megawatts (DC) in the first quarter of 2017”….

(1) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-th…

Because your paycheck relies on it. Of course, being unsuccessful means no bonus pay for you.

Not that you HAVE bothered.

Still no actual evidence of any catastrophe from you.

Still no plan that will work better.

Still no plan that you are complaining about.

How much untapped interstate power was available?

If Morocco has an excess of Solar and Germany a lack, does the electrons produced have to go all the way from Morocco to Germany?

When you cry fake tears at how complex and challenging renewable power is, do you have any plan that is less challenging?

When you cry your fake tears at how insufficient supply would cause power shortages, what plan do you have that doesn’t have that problem?

When you cry your fake tears at misdirections, when will you stop misdirecting others by claiming bullshit equality between “W&S” and renewables?

When you scream fake outrage at plans of 100% renewables and insist it will “cost more”, HOW much more? and how much more than WHAT? Where is this plan you’re crying about and what’s your alternative that avoids the pitfalls you proclaim?

So what was renewables? And 15-22nd Jan, what was renewables? And what is the topic of this thread as written specifically in the text Greg gave and the content of the publication he quoted?

Where are the quotes you said you'd bring down on my head proving I am against HVDCs and backup for renewables?

BBD #452:

I was asking myself the same question.

But that means nothing. Actually nothing. No information, no progress, no reasoning, nothing.

So ask yourself this question: why are you pointless?

For example, I ask why dumdum keeps making such bullshit and easily destroyed claims and whinges.

So I can take it that you feel the same way, right?

If not, then why did you not realise you actually said nothing there? If you do, ask yourself why I had to assume?

"Genentech media noted the slowdown in residential capacity additions this spring vs last recently as well: "

Which would be because the current owners of the white house are trying to kill renewables. And increased capacity is still increased capacity. You know, in case you were confused. It's not like they took down 88MW of solar, is it. They still added just shy of 200MW.

Moreover, what does this do about Germany where the private homeowner solar cells aren't counted. Not even counted by dumdum as Zebra pointed out in post #88..

"I received a paper this week...

(1) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09..."

Hmmm.

Mark

Thanks, interesting market data. I didn't realise just how badly SoCalGas's storage capacity has been hit by and since the Aliso canyon leak.

But as you see, it's no use dealing in facts when people cannot handle too much reality.

Wow

Because your paycheck relies on it.

I retired several years ago and now live on an investment income. Nobody pays me to say anything nor ever will.

"I didn’t realise just how badly SoCalGas’s storage capacity has been hit by and since the Aliso canyon leak. "

Is that why you only complain about storage for wind and solar, dumdum? I guess you now know that it was a fake problem with solar and wind because ALL generation has problems with it.

"it’s no use dealing in facts when people cannot handle too much reality. "

Too true. Why do you hate facts so much, dumdum?

"I retired several years ago"

From a nuke plant marketing position.

" and now live on an investment income."

Which requires that the companies keep bringing in the ROI that means dividends.

"Nobody pays me to say anything nor ever will."

And another fake claim from you. Nobody SHOULD pay you. You need to visit reality sometime and stop worrying about your stock portfolio crashing when renewables change things about.

They certainly don't pay you to talk about what plan it is you're complaining about. Nor what plan avoids your claimed problem.

How much untapped interstate power was available?

If Morocco has an excess of Solar and Germany a lack, does the electrons produced have to go all the way from Morocco to Germany?

When you cry fake tears at how complex and challenging renewable power is, do you have any plan that is less challenging?

When you cry your fake tears at how insufficient supply would cause power shortages, what plan do you have that doesn’t have that problem?

When you cry your fake tears at misdirections, when will you stop misdirecting others by claiming bullshit equality between “W&S” and renewables?

So what was renewables? And 15-22nd Jan, what was renewables? And what is the topic of this thread as written specifically in the text Greg gave and the content of the publication he quoted?

Where are the quotes you said you’d bring down on my head proving I am against HVDCs and backup for renewables?

All of them unanswered.

No profit in actually having a substantive point, much easier to whine for you, isn't it.

Wow,
Why don't you tell us what the last quarterly profit was at Westmill Wind Farm..... also known as Wind Over Westmill or (Wow)....

And then tell us how "corrupt" it is for distributing a percent of the profits to it's shareholders...which includes you.

Thanks.

Ah, so by "also known as" you mean "not at all known as", batshit. So sacked from your tree pruning work for the council, betty? Stole from your customers, eh? Nicked any little boys' underwear you found was it?

Oh, and swindon is not devon, dumbass.

Life's a birch and then you die.

Yes Wow, I did notice you forgot to tell us how "corrupt" Westmill is for distributing it's profits to it's shareholders, which includes you.

Please, in detail...

Which includes who? You don't even know what the company you named is known as. But as well as being incompetent at geography as well as tree pruning, you also admit to having a fetish for collecting little boys underwear.

When there's a community project it pays to the people in the community. Which are people in the area. Ask a grown up for what all the words mean. And, no, I'm not an owner of that wind farm. Because it's a community project and I'm not in Swindon.

But you do have a problem now you're unemployed and on the KP watchlist.

Oh, and glad to hear that you discard utterly the free market and capitalism as corrupt, batshit! Well done for meeting reality and getting rid of that ridiculous faith of yours.

Next time John comes on I'll let him know you're changing your mind on economic policies and are discarding the corrupt and unworkable free market capitalism. It's not much of a change because you're still as clueless as ever, but it's SOMETHING.

So who is pushing vested interests here, Wow?

“I retired several years ago”

From a nuke plant marketing position.

No, I had my own business. For over 20 years. I will categorically state that I have never worked for the nuclear industry directly or indirectly in any capacity whatsoever.

You are lying again. Surprise.

"So who is pushing vested interests here, Wow?"

You, dumdum. Already said that. Alzheimers gotten to the optic nerve?

"No, I had my own business."

SURE you did. As a PR fluffer for the nuke industry, right?

"For over 20 years. I will categorically state that I have never worked for the nuclear industry directly or indirectly in any capacity whatsoever. "

Yeah, Pat Michaels said the same thing to Congress.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jan/25/michaels-climate-sc…

You, dumdum. Already said that. Alzheimers gotten to the optic nerve?

“No, I had my own business.”

SURE you did. As a PR fluffer for the nuke industry, right?

Lies the first time around, so no change.

Now I think about it, I recall you saying that you were a major shareholder in a solar project as well, presumably the one associated with the above-mentioned wind farm.

Go on, deny it.

"Lies the first time around, so no change. "

Lying again. As usual.

" the one associated with the above-mentioned wind farm. "

LOL! Now THAT I gotta tell John! You believe batshit! LOL!

And you had insisted I was lying about being a shareholder of a community solar farm! ROFL! But though batshit perv here is from Australia therefore doesn't know where Exeter is can be sort of understood, you claim to be from the UK.

Dayum! You're making TRUMPO look smart!

And you had insisted I was lying about being a shareholder of a community solar farm!

No, I don't recall even mentioning it at the time.

I think you are projecting like a poisoned dog.

"No, I don’t recall even mentioning it at the time. "

Aaaw. The weasel wording of the moron who knows what will happen if they make a concrete statement.

LOL!

Must be bitter for you, hmm, having to suck up to the dumbest AGW deniers around to help your case!

PS if your feet get cold, ask betty,they have so many socks they manage to turn each other in accidentally.

So did M2, oddly enough. AND he spent several posts proclaiming that he was honest and used consistent names. AND another moron denier on Barry Bickmore's blog tried to defend him.

But eventually the evidence was irrefutable, being as it was all on the same page, and he gave up and said he was using the wrong account because he got confused about which tab was open for which webblog.

But, hey, plenty of socks is how deniers think it's REALLY warming.

You just want to cash in before you cash out.

Aaaw. The weasel wording of the moron who knows what will happen if they make a concrete statement.

Quote me, then.

The *truth* is that you are making money out of the solar industry and I am not being paid by the nuclear industry and never have been.

That thing with facts again, Wow.

They matter, at least they do to honest people.

"Quote me, then. "

Then what?

What do I get for doing that? You will piss off and never come here again?

"The *truth* is that you are making money out of the solar industry "

Actually, that's what batshit betty claims. And you believe it.

And go read up on community projects for solar. Renewable community plants were most usefully used in the Hebredians because they were getting fucked over in charges to get power, so they chipped together and bought their own wind turbines to power the small village and that saved them money.

Most community projects don't make profit, they sell their generation to the grid, but it's there to power the community, hence the term. The community gets paid for it by reductions in payments for power, NOT by profiting.

But it's no surprise you don't know any of this.

So, I go and get that quote of you and you do what?

Oh, and while you mull that over, please peruse this list of pertinent questions for your shill paycheck to cover:

Some actual evidence of any catastrophe from you.

Your plan that will work better.

The plan that you are complaining about.

How much untapped interstate power was available?

If Morocco has an excess of Solar and Germany a lack, does the electrons produced have to go all the way from Morocco to Germany?

When you cry fake tears at how complex and challenging renewable power is, do you have any plan that is less challenging?

When you cry your fake tears at how insufficient supply would cause power shortages, what plan do you have that doesn’t have that problem?

When you cry your fake tears at misdirections, when will you stop misdirecting others by claiming bullshit equality between “W&S” and renewables?

So what was renewables? And 15-22nd Jan, what was renewables? And what is the topic of this thread as written specifically in the text Greg gave and the content of the publication he quoted?

Where are the quotes you said you’d bring down on my head proving I am against HVDCs and backup for renewables?

"They matter, at least they do to honest people."

Ah, that explains your abhorrence of facts, then, dumdum. Dracula doesn't faint at the sight of crosses faster than you faint at the horrible truths you can't bear to see in print.

Wow - "When there’s a community project it pays to the people in the community. Which are people in the area."

And it also distributes profits to it's shareholders, like the Westmill Solar Co-operative you are part of....

So why would you be part of a "corrupt" operation..."corrupt" according to you, because it earns a profit...

C'mon Wow, let's see some honesty here, your hypocrisy has already been exposed, what do you have to lose?

Hey, dumdum, in the meantime, please go through the "thought" process that led to this claim from you:

presumably the one associated with the above-mentioned wind farm.

I could do with a bit of a giggle to cheer me up!

So, betty, because I say profit is corruption as far as you caricature it, you are of the opinion that if something is criticised, it must be being engaged in, correct?

Oh, and yes, according to the free market ideology, profit shows that the market is corrupted. Which I assume you did not know because you think that free market capitalism is a load of bullshit.

Wow - "glad to hear that you discard utterly the free market and capitalism as corrupt"

As usual, you are arguing with yourself...

Wow - “No, a business corporation is organised and carried on primarily to sell to customers and exchange the customer money for the businesses’ goods or service.
That is all. All else is political dogma and hidden corruption"

"As usual, you are arguing with yourself…"

Oh, so you weren't posting as far as you recall. Fair enough, I'll assume you're denying your own posts too.

Wow - "So, betty, because I say profit is corruption as far as you caricature it, you are of the opinion that if something is criticised, it must be being engaged in, correct?"

Nope - it's because you told me you owned it.

The community gets paid for it by reductions in payments for power, NOT by profiting.

There's no difference between investing in solar and getting a £500 dividend and being part of an energy co-op and paying £500 a year less for your electricity. Call it profit or call it material benefit or whatever; it's all the same: there's £500 in your bank account that would not be there otherwise.

Wow,
Still waiting for you to explain why you are part of a "corrupt" profit making operation...

It's a simple question which you seem to have a hard time answering...

#452, at least I got an opportunity to clarify the issue. I thought you were claiming the grid itself locally can't handle the variability even if there is excess supply to cover the drop in wind and solar. I have seen this argued elsewhere, but you don't think that's an issue.

Betula, basic microeconomics argues that profits will be zero in a competitive environment.

"There’s no difference between ... getting a £500 dividend and ... paying £500 a year less for your electricity."

Yes there is, dumbass. It's the same damn thing as getting free food money handouts or growing your own veg in the garden meaning a smaller shopping bill, you retard. But you're well sold into the PR fluffery of your nuke cheque and therefore don't want to think there's any difference, do you.

Now, where's the answer to any of MY questions you lazy lying fuckwit?

Oh, and I suppose we can now take it as given you were employed by the nuclear industry.

#487 it's called "marginal cost". But batshit betty really doesn't care. Oh, and apparently you're going to be arguing with yourself because not even betty wants to read their own posts. Just an FYI.

Yes there is, dumbass. It’s the same damn thing as getting free food money handouts

From who?

or growing your own veg in the garden meaning a smaller shopping bill, you retard.

The analogy breaks if the energy co-op is grid-connected and sells energy to the grid and / or receives any kind of external subsidy.

Now, where’s the answer to any of MY questions you lazy lying fuckwit?

You don't start well:

Some actual evidence of any catastrophe from you.

Just as deniers say 'where's the catastrophe then?' when the actual argument is that current behaviour will lead to increasingly negative impacts in the future.

" sells energy to the grid "

Wrong.

" and / or receives any kind of external subsidy. "

That would.

Now, comeon, what "thought" process led to your claim:

" presumably the one associated with the above-mentioned wind farm. "

Love to hear it, but you hate to actually support your blatant bullshit, it so often leads to your humiliation.

Not to mention all the other bullshit you have claimed, been asked to answer (and you are the only one who CAN answer since they pertain to your complaints that you have internally held to with religious zeal).

Come on, stop fucking about and start explaining yourself. Until you do, I'll just leave the assertion of your ridiculous wrongness to blank assertion, since this seems to be entirely acceptable to you.

And yes, your tacit agreement that you WERE a nuke employee has been noted.

"You don’t start well:"

Ah, so the plan you are complaining about is me not starting well.... Got it. You're complaining about nothing.

YOU claimed that the people would riot if the lights went out, but we have had the lights going out and society is still here.

We've HAD the catastrophe you cried about, but there was the miniscule possiblity that you were thinking of something specific.

But you weren't thinking at all.

So next?

The Hypocrisy of Wow....

Wow - "Profit is unnecessary. All the bills are paid before profit. Everyone gets paid what they need. And if anyone has money in the business, they still have that business asset as collateral and to sell."

Wow - "ZERO profit is all a business needs. Less than that and the business will eventually fail. And more than that is merely evidence of a failure of the market to find the fair market price, and is a drag on the economy, making it inefficient"

Wow - "a business corporation is organised and carried on primarily to sell to customers and exchange the customer money for the businesses’ goods or service.
That is all.
All else is political dogma and hidden corruption."

Yet, you are part owner of a business that not only profits, but distributes part of those profits to it's shareholders....

So why do you choose to be part owner of a business that overcharges for it's product and is corrupt? And why shouldn't you be viewed as anything other than the arrogant jackass hypocrite that you are?

Thanks.

Days later and still the entertainment continues.

From madam "Wow"..."...you screaming frothing maniac."

More ironic words have never been written.

Betula..." And why shouldn’t you be viewed as anything other than the arrogant jackass hypocrite that you are?"

"She" shouldn't be. And isn't.

Batty. Piss off under your rock. You are
fair dinkum the most trollish crap artist muppet
who only exacerbates tension and never contributes
to the topic at hand.
Energy transition can and is and will happen.
Its a reasonable thing to highlight issues that need
looking at so that they can be rectified.
Its a reasonable thing to think they will.
Its not fucking reasonable for people with the same
goals to carry on like porkchops.
Save the abuse for denier scum whos motive is, well,
they are so fucking incoherent in their arguments, its hard
to work out a motive. Certainly isnt healthy scepticism.
Certainly isnt advancement of science. Certainly isnt a healthy
biosphere.

Li D - "who only exacerbates tension"

Right, because there was very little tension within the 461 comments before I entered the discussion. It was the act of exposing Wow for the hypocrite that he is that resulted in diverting the relatively calm, reasonable, understanding nature of the conversation to a more tense one...

Yes, you're a genius.

Anyone got any thoughts on the cella hydrogen storage idea?
Ive always been ambivialant about hydrogen cuz its so dangerous, but this cella shit looks interesting.

Li, it is not promising when the first link in a web search is broken. That said, the dangerousness is considerably reduced perhaps. There is still the issue of hydrogen production. Using solar and wind to produce the hydrogen might work.

Synthfuel is possibly a better option at the mo given current infrastructure and systems.

PS oi, patwanker, before you were enraged at my posts but now you're claiming them entertaining? Get your story to silence me straight, moron.

Nuclear Industry Suffers Meltdown?

gregladen — Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:48:04 +0000

Nuclear Industry Suffers Meltdown?

It is hard to get very far into a discussion of non-fossil fuel energy, and the energy transition, without someone coming along and yammering about nuclear energy.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for inexpensive and safe nuclear power and for building nuclear power plants that promise to eat up all the waste, do not create any more waste, are totally safe, are affordable, are efficient, don't require the equivalent of slave labor to mine the uranium, and are cost effective. Bring it on!

But the nuclear industry is generally troubled by the fact that this list of promises is not possible. Well, each item on that list can be delivered by this or that technology, but not all in one power plant. And, on top of that, nuclear plants are just too darn expensive to build.

Moments ago, Westinghouse Electric Company, which is owned by Toshiba of Japan, filed for bankruptcy. Westinghouse is a key player in the nuclear industry, globally. This filing is a very big deal, and may signal either the end to or a dramatic slowdown of movement towards expanding nuclear capacity.

And it isn't just Westinghouse. From the New York Times:

General Electric, a pioneer in the field, has scaled back its nuclear operations, expressing doubt about their economic viability. Areva, the French builder, is mired in losses and undergoing a large-scale restructuring.

Among the winners could be China, which has ambitions to turn its growing nuclear technical abilities into a major export. That has raised security concerns in some countries.

The shrinking field is a challenge for the future of nuclear power, and for Toshiba’s revival plans. Its executives have said they would like to sell all or part of Westinghouse to a competitor, but with a dwindling list of potential buyers — combined with Westinghouse’s history of financial calamity — that has become a difficult task.

gregladen Wed, 03/29/2017 - 07:48

Tags

Thorium reactors?

Not a silver bullet for all problems, but greatly lessens most of them, and compared to carbon fuels is (to me, anyway) a no-brainer.

Rather like saying that being killed by lethal injection is better than being nailed to a piece of wood upside-down and sliced apart.

Thorium has been a thing for nearly as long as fusion, 60-80 years. Still not managed one that will be workable in the real market.

For nuclear to flourish the regulatory environment must change.

Fortunately, we now have an administration which may actually do that.

Safety in all matters is an issue of cost. Cars could be made as durable as tanks, but how empty would roads be if the mandate was $100K vehicles. Airlines could hand search every bag and every person, but they would go out of business as the costs of the manpower rose.

Nothing is 100% safe. There's this crazy idea that taking risks is worth it when the reward is great enough. We don't get guarantees.

So how much per life saved is sufficient? And nobody other than you is demanding 100% safe.

Or can i ask why some say we should have 100% unsafe nuclear power?

Bruce, thorium is everywhere. That sounds like a good thing, but it is not. If you want to mine something, you want it to be not very many places, but highly concentrated where it is found. I am pretty sure there are serious concerns with Thorium in that regard.

But, again, they are one of the "next gen" reactors that address SOME but not all of the concerns. Thorium reactor pushers usually switch the conversation part way in and start talking about next generation reactors, or some such thing, so they can add virtues to the list that Thorium reactors don't actually have.

I'm pretty sure all this talk about safety is entirely out of left field. There have been no specific statements about safety, other than that the nuclear power industry promises safety whenever no one who knows anything is in the room.

This is not about technology, folks. This is about an industry that came up on bullshit and is still full of bullshit. I know guys who would do a great job painting my house, but I won't let them near my house because they are crooks.

"regulatory environment must change.

Fortunately, we now have an administration which may actually do that."

How odd that intelligent people are worried about this, as they remember how businesses fucked up the country side before regulations came into being.

Only the ideologically stupid and fundamentally dishonest (you're in the intersection there rickA) think it is a good idea.

Looking just at your blog, I see
"the endpoint of this approach is the ruination of our livable climate and the needless suffering of billions of people for decades to come."
" hopes for a livable future climate"
"attacks that threaten our health and the planet’s health"
"the energy transition that is absolutely required if our global civilization is expected to survive into the future"

Now you are talking about safety issues with nuclear. Surely these are small compared to the above? If some companies are going bankrupt, then why not subsidize them, as other renewables are? Why declare the bankruptcies mean the end of the industry? Or perhaps more nuclear technology needs to be invested, more pilot programs?

Until there is private liability insurance for nuclear power, there will be what is called "moral hazard". Government liability limits and liability insurance create the perverse incentive for designers, builders, owners and operators of nuclear power plants to skimp on safety because that increases profits while the risks are born by the public.

You can't be for "smaller government" and for liability limits and government liability insurance.

I think it is a far sadder story than you portray. I believe that the NYTimes buried the lede. Near the end you read:

"... because nuclear construction had been dormant for so long, American companies also lacked the equipment and expertise needed to make some of the biggest components and construct the projects.

Indeed, that may ultimately have been at the root of the troubles. The contractor Westinghouse chose to complete the projects struggled to meet the strict demands of nuclear construction and was undergoing its own internal difficulties after a merger. "

We've seemingly lost the ability to even build these facilities. The Chinese, meanwhile, are going forward at 1000 mph.

Well, not so much. They're working far more on renewables. They pay back faster for a start. And are safer to deploy in a changing world.

But, like Pakistan, India, France, GB, and the USA et al, nukes are a government willy waving contest. Nowadays, it's probably more of a political sovereignty requirement. Iraq showed that if you aren't a nuclear power you can get invaded when the USA wants to get rid of a troublesome leader.

Serious question: what are the problems of using thorium? I know the basic process: thorium-232 gets smacked by a neutron, becomes Uranium-233 (which is fissile), gets hit by another neutron and fissions (most of the time), releasing 2 or 3 neutrons that continue the process.

Tom Murphy's Alternative Energy Matrix
Thorium Breeder: Thorium is more abundant than uranium, and only comes in one flavor naturally, so that abundance is not an issue. Like all reactors, thorium reactors fall into the high-tech camp, and include new challenges (e.g., liquid sodium) that conventional reactors have not faced. There have been a few instances of small-scale demonstration, but nothing in the commercial realm, so that we’re probably a few decades away from being able to bring thorium online. Public reaction will be likely be similar to that for conventional nuclear: not a show stopper, but some resistance on similar grounds. It is not clear whether the newfangled aspect of thorium will be greeted with suspicion or with an embrace. Though also a breeding technology (making fissile 233U from 232Th), the proliferation aspect is severely diminished for thorium due to highly radioactive 232U by-product and virtually no easily separable plutonium. Of the future nuclear prospects, I am most optimistic about this one—although it’s no nirvana to me.

It absorbs the neutron which is lost for the chain reaction.

Th-232 + n -> Th-233 -> Pa-233 -> U-233

Pa-233 is a very good neutron absorber and because of its long half-life (27 days) compared to Th-233 (22 minutes) builds up faster in the core than the U-233 does. If the Pa-233 absorbs another neutron it transmutes to Pa-234 - another good absorber - and eventually into U-235 which is fissile but requires yet another neutron.

This abysmal neutron economy is one major problem of Thorium-Reactors. In fact all of the large Power Reactors built in the 70s and 80s needed additional feed of fissile Uranium for Operation and comparatively little energy came from the fission from Uranium from the breeding process.

Yes, the nuclear industry is in a mess. No, the future doesn't look too bright for it at the moment.

That means that the already daunting mountain of decarbonisation will be significantly higher and harder to climb.

Greg

This is not about technology, folks. This is about an industry that came up on bullshit and is still full of bullshit. I know guys who would do a great job painting my house, but I won’t let them near my house because they are crooks.

The energy industry as a whole is full of bullshit. Everybody forgets that renewables aren't delivered by smiling non-profits but by the same beady-eyed, self-serving capitalist swine you find everywhere else. And you can't trust any of them further than you can spit.

Yes, I'm couching this in humorous terms, but it is true, all the same. I do hope *all* sectors of the energy industry will be held to the same critical standard in the future as we currently apply to nuclear and FF. Because in essence, they are exactly the same.

"Serious question: what are the problems of using thorium?"

It is still toxic, still dangerous, and several designs are either prone to dangerous excess or ineffective producers.

Try googling.

And the fact that no commercially viable design, despite even pebble bed reactors being "so simple to set up, and safe!" should indicate that there's some serious problems with the design starting point. It's not like the pebble bed design is new, being proposed in the 1940s.

Even Fusion broke even EROEI some decade or two ago.

"That means that the already daunting mountain of decarbonisation will be significantly higher and harder to climb."

Given we already have current nuclear, how is it "harder and higher" to climb when we continue to have current nuclear???? Scare mongering again.

"Everybody forgets that renewables aren’t delivered by smiling non-profits"

You forget that many or most installations are personal. So you're calling everyone a beady eyed bullshitting financial shark.

Renewables are cheaper to start off on, except for a local ICE generator, which is probably less efficient than cars, and don't even do a minor amount of CHP like a car does with its hot air venting. Stick 'em on your roof, and become a bullshitting shyster yourself!

MikeN #9,

If there is some kind of disincentive to burning fossil fuels (like a carbon tax), then nuclear plants will be built where they can make money.

There is already a subsidy, and research funding, in place for them; there just isn't a profitable market.

This is why the endless, repetitive, debate is absurd, and why the correct approach is for the government to intervene where market dynamics allows it to be effective.

We have seen technology develop again and again due to that kind of nuanced action. A good recent example is LED bulbs:

Remember, there was all this outrage about "take my incandescent bulbs from my cold dead hands". But the government never banned that technology; it just set efficiency standards, which it turns out could be met by incandescents.. The market and engineering did the rest. Now we have a real leap in both quality of light and in reducing energy consumption.

So, eliminate anti-competitive structures in the energy sector, and disincentivize FF burning, and the technology will sort itself according to local needs.

Given we already have current nuclear, how is it “harder and higher” to climb when we continue to have current nuclear???? Scare mongering again.

If we phase out nuclear instead of increasing its share of the energy sector, there's a decarbonisation hole that has to be filled in by other means.

You forget that many or most installations are personal. So you’re calling everyone a beady eyed bullshitting financial shark.

God no. The companies that manufacture the panels (and install them) are yer capitalist running dogs. Not the householder. Also this is to move the focus away from the corporations that will build the giant, world-girlding power generating machine of tomorrow, which is what I was talking about. They are not, and never will be any more your fluffy friends than the energy industry of today.

zebra

But the government never banned that technology

It *tried* in the US, if Teh Wiki is correct.

It did in the EU. And quite rightly so.

Wow #19,

I think it is less polluting and more efficient to run a diesel at relatively constant rpm as a generator.

Consider all those Brit and Euro cities choked by diesel fumes these days. If all those cars were EV, charged most of the time by wind and solar, and you had even ICE back-up generators, it probably would still be a net positive.

In addition, consider that you can do co-generation with a local ICE generator using biofuel.

Again, technology will sort itself given a chance. And the kind of technology I am talking about is basically off-the-shelf in some form or other, unlike the magical thorium nukes and other vaporware.

"I think it is less polluting and more efficient to run a diesel at relatively constant rpm as a generator. "

But such generators are not as efficient, because they're built to a power/price point, not beholden to CAFE standards (did I get the USA law right?).

And they aren't overhauled by law like car engines.

Most diesels, by the way, are run at nearly the same rpm. That's why diesel cars have so many gears, and trucks have a shitload of gears.

"If we phase out nuclear"

Where did you bring up that titbit in the post I responded to?

And we'd still have more renewables unless you're idiotically assuming we replace mostly coal with mostly nuclear, so still the question remains: why is it harder?

"there’s a decarbonisation hole that has to be filled in by other means. "

So it's the same size hill to climb.

"" You forget that many or most installations are personal. So you’re calling everyone a beady eyed bullshitting financial shark."

God no"

Hell yes. You said power providers. Whooshing the goalposts again, BBD, anything to promote your scaremongering.

The panels are sold by companies making them. But they don't have to be huge companies. Companies are run by cold-eyed financial sharks? All their customers clueless? Or sharks too?

Everyone who wants to start their own company are made sharks by what induction method? Or is it only sharks want to start their own company?

When you get out of an InfoWars commercial, please rejoin sanity and partake of this reality which is not peopled by caricatures, but actual human beings.

Wow,

Good point about CAFE.

There are some standards here on small engines, but more stringent ones are due to California being a large enough market to influence manufacturers.

Okay, Wow has ruined another thread.

Until this gets sorted out, intelligent discussion will be impossible.

NB, Greg.

Zebra, my view of lightbulbs is they serve as a warning sign on renewable energy. What the efficiency rules that phased out the old locally produced lightbulbs that you could throw in the trash did was to get lots of people to install CFLs that contain mercury and will poison the environment for decades. We know they are not going to be disposed of properly. LEDs took a little while longer to develop at a cheap price point. Without the standards, there would be much less CFLs right now(which I think should be banned on environmental grounds). I think the subsidies for renewables would serve to lock in 'profitable' technology rather than spur improvement.

Very bad news about these companies going bankrupt, if one is concerned about CO2 emissions and fossil fuel use. As the US Energy Information Administration shows, when a nuclear plant closes or is not built, it is generally replaced by fossil fuels, particularly natural gas (as of about a year ago, now #1 producer of electricity, overtaking coal) https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=28572
This is also the case in Japan after Fukushima, as their electricity generation was previously 60% generated by imported fossil fuels, now 90% https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=19951 Japan has also announced this year the opening of 45 coal plants http://www.platts.com/latest-news/coal/sydney/japan-plans-to-build-45-n… However, maybe a few less of these coal plants will be required as Japan's supreme court has overturned keeping older nuclear power plants closed, are now allowed to reopen https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-28/japan-overturns-ruli… Fossil fuel and nuclear are able to provide around the clock electricity generation that modern societies require, but fossil fuels are cheaper for various reasons today.

Not really. 30 years ago it might have been, but the delays from deniers whining about doing anything all the time mean we haven't had time to solve the issue with nuclear power, we JUST DO NOT have the time left.

Whether they went out of business or not.

30 years ago it could be ramped up and designed and planned properly, but it would be rushed, badly placed and take away from the only viable solutions to decarbonise: renewable rollout.

"Okay, Wow has ruined another thread. "

Or translated to normal human: Waaah! They're not letting me win!!!!

MikeN #29,

I can't follow your reasoning there.

First, the math says whatever risk from mercury in CFL is trivial compared to the mercury dumped into the environment from mining coal and burning coal. Even if people don't recycle, the bulbs are "sequestered" in landfills. All kinds of consumer electronics have heavy metals to deal with.

But, more to the point-- you seem to be contradicting yourself. LED are winning, because they are better.

Same will happen with cars and electricity generation.

The government didn't mandate CFL, it just created a more competitive situation where externalities were returned to the market where they belong. Remember, people could still buy incandescent technology, and they still can today. But no rational person would buy anything but LED at this point, for most applications.

Likewise, to repeat my point yet again: Arguing about whether nuclear is "better" than renewables is silly. If there's a competitive market, people will choose whatever is best for themselves.

The government's role is to make sure the market is competitive and to internalize social costs.

Uranium mining is mentioned and unfortunately, when it comes to energy, there is no free lunch. The USA's Dep't of Energy 2015 Quadrennial Technology Review discusses material requirements (aluminium, cooper, steel, concrete, glass, iron, steel, etc) per tera-watt/hour for various electricity generation sources in Chapter 10, page 390 https://energy.gov/under-secretary-science-and-energy/quadrennial-techn…. (Nature Geoscience also published an article about this a few years ago https://jmkorhonen.net/2013/11/29/graphic-of-the-week-the-hidden-fuels-…). As we transition to cleaner forms of energy, the Review raises possible issues with supply availability, for example, rare earth elements (each wind turbine requires about 600kg of rare earths). As one can see here, rare earth mining is perhaps the most toxic form of mining on the planet http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth. The Washington Post recently did investigative reporting on cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Amnesty International has raised concerns) https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/congo-cobalt… and graphite mining in China https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/batteries/graphite-min…. Cobalt and graphite are critical components in electric vehicles and batteries such as the Tesla Powerwall.
Climate scientists tell us we need to greatly reduce CO2 emissions and fossil fuel use quickly. As there are currently billions today with inadequate access to energy (as seen here https://www.cgdev.org/dont-want-kinky-energy-either) and as our population grows to about 10 billion by mid-century, it is likely in all our best interests, despite various pros and cons, that we support and promote all forms of clean energy.

Oh, one more point "The bankruptcy of Westinghouse Electric Co., the Pittsburgh-based nuclear power company, is a geopolitical setback for the U.S. It halts a long-standing U.S. effort to get Eastern European countries to buy U.S. rather than Russian fuel, and leaves state-controlled Russian and Chinese companies the dominant suppliers in the huge global market for nuclear technology." https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-30/u-s-nuclear-setback-…

Todd, I'm going to allow your comment (it was held in moderation because of all the links) but I do want to note that it is a mish mash of cherry picked and in some cases very questionable sources in the form of a gish gallop designed to express a climate change denier's position. People reading this comment should take it with a grain of salt.

Cleary, Todd believes the only way forward is pumping oil and digging coal, which apparently have no negative effects.

Greg, would you care to point the "very questionable sources"?

Obviously incorrect about my thoughts on pumping oil and digging coal. Coal is not only the highest CO2 emitter, but also highest polluter of particulate matter, nitrix oxide, sulfer dioxide, etc. as the National Renewable Energy Lab and UN IPCC point out. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html
Germany has decided to deploy wind and solar and shut down nuclear, you can see here, from perhaps the biggest booster of the German 'Energiewende" program, they will miss CO2 emission targets 'by a mile" (also note my comment) https://energytransition.org/2017/03/germany-to-miss-2020-carbon-reduct… More information on the German transition for electricity (data from 2002 - 2016) https://thstlewpg.wordpress.com/2016/12/31/germany-electricity-statisti… and comparison to other countries https://thstlewpg.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/international-energy-agency-… . We have to electrify everything and electricity needs to be clean, so grams of CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour is critical. International Energy Agency states it needs to be below 100. Germany is stuck at 535, France, Sweden, Switzerland have been well below 100 for years.

Why is grams CO2 emitted/KwH important? I thought the point was to reduce the total emissions amount. Does Nature react differently if you produce energy?

Because that is a measure of the inefficiency of the production.

Are you a complete dumbass or were you just typing to see your name?

Grams of CO2 emitted per kilowatt-hour shows how CO2 intensive your electricity is. For example, a grid dominated by coal would produce greater than 800 grams of CO2 for each kilowatt-hour produced, whereas one dominated by, for example, hydro might produce 50. Here is a map of Europe electricity grids, click on a country and in the left pane, you will see how much electricity is produced using fossil fuels and how many grams of CO2 are emitted per kwh and how carbon intensive that country's electricity has been in the last 24 hours https://www.electricitymap.org/

Todd De Ryck,

So what's your plan? And here's what I mean by "plan":

What legislation would the US government pass to achieve your supposed goal of "electrify everything" using nuclear?

We are aware of the current substantial support afforded by the US government to the reactors involved in the Westinghouse fiasco.

What more would you have the US government do to prevent a similar outcome, and at the necessary scale (not 4 reactors but 200-300.)

First of all, if you review my previous comments, the statement "electrify everything using nuclear" needs correcting, I have stated all forms of clean energy need to be supported and promoted.
Mackay Miller, currently technology advisor at National Grid US and used to work at National Renewable Energy Labs, proposed 40%nuclear/40% renewables and 20% natural gas (I believe moreso the methane leaking from landfills, not fossil fuel and fracked) also Jeff Terry (professor, Department of Physics Illinois Institute of Technology) wrote about that here http://thebulletin.org/commentary/research-warrants-significant-increas…. NREL proposed a similar mix, but also suggests in this post to use nuclear for industrial heat as well http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/63207.pdf . I'd also recommend writings of the late Sir David MacKay former Chief Scientific Advisor for UK's dep't of Energy and Climate Change "Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air" http://withouthotair.com/ and "the global calculator" (in which one can devise their own energy plans) http://globalcalculator.org/ . Also the book "Sustainable Materials with both Eyes Open" http://www.withbotheyesopen.com/ Also, be sure to review Lawrence Livermore National Labs data on the current state of USA energy, I'm sure 2016 data will be up soon (one can even select individual states) https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/commodities/energy This bipartisan bill "Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act" might help. https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/3/epw-committee-passes…

I forgot to include Mackay Miller's twitter thread in previous comment, sorry https://twitter.com/mackaymiller/status/733746629996621824

Todd De Ryck,

So, like all the other Magical Thinkers here, you can tell me what you would like to see in your future Nirvana, but not how to achieve it.

I asked you what legislation you would have the federal government pass. Do you have an answer, or are you in fact what Greg thought-- a Denialist troll?

zebra, I'll assume you called me a "Magical Thinker" before comment #41 was posted. What are your plans and how are they to be achieved?

Todd De Ryck,

I posted it in response to 41.

Where is your answer?

What legislation would you have the federal government pass to achieve your goal?

#34 Todd DR

Large-scale manufacture of turbines and SPV will of course have negative environmental impacts. But this is unavoidable unless we wish to continue with FFs. The negative environmental impacts of BAU will be vastly worse. So the rational choice is the lesser of two evils.

As the International Energy Agency shows, even if all countries meet their Paris climate change agreement targets on time, we're still on track to have a 2.7C temperature rise https://twitter.com/IEA/status/848271763951767554 . So as these candidates for the Finnish Green Party state "We are already too late in our efforts to stop climate change, and we no longer have the luxury of choosing between nuclear power and renewables." https://jmkorhonen.net/2017/03/06/minority-report-for-now-finnish-green…

We haven't time to choose nuclear power. Trying would oly wast time, money, resources and effort.

And what do other Finnish Green Party candidates say? Wouldn't want to only hear a cherry picked section, would we.

This paper was just released and is available for free download for a short time (not certain how long) "Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117304495

Yah, bu tthere's a lot of reasons why it can be done. Several plans for lots of different countries that indicate 100% is entirely doable.

So against that one paper and the cherry pick of a few people who are in the Green Party of one country are not sufficient to convince me that we cant do 100% renewables.

And, frankly, because of the deniers, we don't have time for any other solution.

Except to reduce power use and waste, ALONG WITH a roll out of 100% renewables, but to a lower level than the wastrel rate today would demand.

If your, or anyone else's, complaint about renewables is the cost, then you're going to have to get on board conserving power. It's COST NEGATIVE. And if your concern about costs is so high you're willing to rush around proclaiming mandatory price increases if we went with one plan are a huge problem, then you have to demand that we reduce power use EVEN WITH THE CURRENT ENERGY MIX.

Failing to do so indicates that this complaint is not genuine, but manufactured to refuse a technology you do not like and/or fluff up FUD support for a tech you do want and desire.

Burden of proof? Requires it be done, then. Otherwise there's no ability to prove, only argue.

So lets get started while some others fund retraining for building up nukes on the off chance renewables fail the test, eh?

could you give an example of the "cost negative" in price per kilowatt-hour averaged out on an annual basis? As you can see here, it certainly isn't Germany and Denmark, as they have the highest residential electricity rates. http://www.ecofys.com/en/news/european-commission-publishes-ecofys-repo… France has for 30 years generated 75% of their electricity from nuclear, so 40% is proven achievable. Also, Sweden "How to Decarbonize? Look to Sweden" http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2016.1145908

Wow,

"complaint is not genuine"

Of course it isn't. What TDR, BBD, and all the other trolls are doing is delay delay delay.

If they were serious, they would be able to tell us what legislation they would have the US Federal Government pass to solve the CO2 problem.

Instead we get "look, a squirrel."

This business of giving irrelevant references is classic Denialist practice; you never have to say anything, just pretend that there is all this support for your position out there.

Often enough, the reference actually contradicts their position, but we have to waste our time pointing it out, and then they move on to the next squirrel.

Tiresome and boring.

"could you give an example of the “cost negative” in price per kilowatt-hour "

Go look at your price per kwh for power.

now, if you DON'T use that energy, it REDUCES your cost, right?

You CAN do that maths, can't you?

"France has for 30 years generated 75% of their electricity from nuclear"

And EdF are bankrupt and bankrupting the French government trying.

So proof that nukes don't work.

"As you can see here, it certainly isn’t Germany and Denmark, as they have the highest residential electricity rates"

And as you could see but for some ideological blinker reason do not, that the price of electricity is nothing to do with not using electricity.

Wow,

"nothing to do with not using"

That's not exactly true, Wow, although your point was correct in the first place. Of course conservation results in reduction of externalized costs like pollution and climate change.

It depends on the...wait for it...paradigm.

If you have a utility monopoly, they will raise your price if you use less.

I could go into more detail, but I'm sure you can fill it in for yourself. And the Denialist trolls will try to change the subject.

"That’s not exactly true,"

Well, it's only not true because companies have sunk costs and an expectation of a certain ROI and profit increase if publicly "owned", so if the use goes down quicker than power plants retire, then the companies will just hike prices to keep profits up.

But this means you still pay less (just not as much less as you could without a defacto monopoly, one which personal generation could break), though the more profligate pay much more.

Todd's query is a bit like asking "So when you decrease costs, how much does that increase profitability, because this company cut costs and lost revenue!". Quite what other than a facimile of counterargument this was supposed to be is unclear.

"facsimile of a counterargument"

Yep. Squirrels, all the way down.

zebra

Of course it isn’t. What TDR, BBD, and all the other trolls are doing is delay delay delay.

If they were serious, they would be able to tell us what legislation they would have the US Federal Government pass to solve the CO2 problem.

Tendentious bullshit, again.

Calling me a Denialist troll makes you as insane as Wow, and frankly robs you of what credibility you had.

I'm not arguing for delay. You are, with your free market stuff which both has the potential to backfire and which is unlikely to do more good than a rising carbon tax anyway. .

If you claim I'm arguing for delay, then quote me doing it. Something you will find difficult because you are making a false claim about me (again).

* * *

Nobody has to provide you with a detailed policy roadmap - that's just you trying on a cheap rhetorical trick. Policy-makers have agency. The electorate provides the mandate, not the roadmap, which is the task of legislators themselves.

If you have a utility monopoly, they will raise your price if you use less.

Too much talk of the FF industry as a monopoly. It is an oligopoly. Note that the same is true of the W&S sector.

But of course oligopolies can and do distort the market like monopolies and it is likely that they will do so in the future.

One potential way of limiting future corporate misbehaviour is to make the delivery system for their product - the grid - a national asset. As previously suggested.

"Calling me a Denialist troll "

Is describing you by the group whose tactics you ape. You may not be sexist, but if you keep using the appellation "luv" when talking to them, you'll be lumped with them.

"Nobody has to provide you with a detailed policy roadmap"

But they have to provide one to you? Because you complained that there was no plan but you had one "in detail". At worst, zebra is taking you at your word to ridicule you.

I think Hydro is great - but is not available everywhere (in the USA).

I think renewable (wind and solar) is great - but agree with Todd and BBD that 100% is not possible with our current grid and without grid level power storage.

I think conservation (using less power) is great.

I am not against any of these technologies.

Hydro is only 6% of USA power generation (as of 2015).

All renewables is only 7& of USA power generation (as of 2015).

Nuclear is 20% of power generation and could be much higher.

I have no idea what laws need to be written or what rules need to be relaxed - but knowing we built and provide nuclear power at 20% I am sure we could encourage utilities to build more and get to 40% or 60%. Maybe tax credits, maybe capping liability - I don't know - I just know it is feasible and I am in favor of doubling or tripling our nuclear power generation.

Fossil fuel is 66% of our power generation and I see nothing which will lower that.

The only way to dramatically lower fossil fuel power generation is to invent non-carbon producing power which is cheaper than fossil fuel (which is currently the cheapest).

So I am in favor of encouraging nuclear and I am in favor of funding research for non-carbon power generation which is cheaper than fossil fuels and I am in favor of funding research for grid level power storage (which makes intermittent power more usable with our current grid).

So by all means - double wind and solar from 7 to 14%, you might even get as high as 30% before the grid starts to breakdown (when it is dark and not windy).

Conserve away.

Build hydro wherever possible (let the snail darter die).

But to really cut fossil fuels from 66 to 33 or lower - I think we will need a lot more nuclear.

James Hansen agrees with me.

BBD agrees with me.

I think over time, more and more green and progressive people will agree with me.

Over time we will build more nuclear and that will cut CO2 emissions.

Maybe we will invent a silver bullet - but probably not.

That is my opinion.

"Too much talk of the FF industry as a monopoly."

Uh, in the USA you generally don't have choice. There are many companies, but they carve up the region. Remember, it was YOU going on about how the USA doesn't have a national grid, when many/most/all European countries do.

Indeed there's no difference between a monopoly and oligopoly, they just carve up to maximise the user base they exploit rather than poach and compete for users.

"Note that the same is true of the W&S sector. "

Wrong.

A large fraction by production is owned by big power companies, but a much larger fraction of it is individuals or small groups (see again Scotland island community wind power farms) and is one of many reasons why the USA is employing lobbyists to get state government to ban the use of home solar. Because they want the monopoly.

There isn't any way to make nukes workable as small scale individual source, but if someone designs a good working small modular nuke station that people will put under their own home/business to make money as a small supplier, then hey, why a priori ban it? That I don't think it will be economically viable doesn't matter, because it won't be owned and run by land shark-run multinationals who will get government pork to prop their business up. So it will work of fail based on whether it works, not whether the owners have the leverage with government to get subsidies.

So, no it's not the same for W&S.

"I think renewable (wind and solar) is great – but agree with Todd and BBD that 100% is not possible with our current grid and without grid level power storage."

We already need grid level power storage, and have it, for the current mix.

Because, run as a profit maximising business as it is, they do not build much more capacity than needed. Therefore when things go down unexpectedly, that is a shortfall.

Ever wondered why there used to be brown-outs all the time, and not so much any more? Because simpletons who "thought" that it would just work with fossil fuels because you just make sure you have the fuel on hand were wrong. And changed what they did and added grid-level storage.

"James Hansen agrees with me."

James Hansen agrees with me too. AGW is real and a huge and imminent problem.

If this doesn't convince you that the science is right, then why the fuck do you "think" name dropping him will work for you?

"That is my opinion."

Yeah, but you're wrong.

"One potential way of limiting future corporate misbehaviour is to make the delivery system for their product – the grid – a national asset."

Hasn't stopped it happening in the UK.

And with a national grid to connect suppliers to consumers, zebra's idea of allowing individuals to sell to other individuals would be possible. Indeed your complaining that it won't work was predicated on the idea that there was no national grid in the USA.

Yet your current statement is to claim what you said was lacking before zebra's idea would work. But you didn't say that the synthesis of your two ideas was workable, you only berated zebra for not having a plan.

A plan as general as yours.

But yours, to you, was "in detail" yet theirs "nonexistent".

Is describing you by the group whose tactics you ape.

Rubbish. You just get riled because I keep showing up the gaping holes in your topic knowledge.

Hasn’t stopped it happening in the UK.

The UK grid is privately owned, Wow. Gaping holes in topic knowledge.

But yours, to you, was “in detail” yet theirs “nonexistent”.

You are putting things in quotes and attributing them to me.

But I didn't actually *say* these things.

That is very, very naughty.

Please stop.

Wow,

The business about a "national" grid is just more word games.

In the US, as I'm sure is true elsewhere, there are levels of government that deal with infrastructure-- like roads. There's no particular need for a "national" administrative entity, as long as federal law requires some version of common carrier status for all entities that deliver electricity.

If I want to buy wind electricity from Texas, my local grid operator (municipal or highly regulated private) would be able to arrange it because there are already physical connections. But if there is offshore wind locally produced, it might well be cheaper for me due to transportation costs. And, of course, I might even choose to pay more because it supports the local economy, and because I am a NYGiants fan and hate Dallas.

That's the wonder of the competitive market with no externalities.

Zebra, I haven't seen the 25c incandescent bulbs that used to be available in supermarkets. The newer incandescents are more expensive under the standard, though I did find some 100w halogens that were 50c each the other day. My point was the CFLs got sold based on these standards, and if there had been no efficiency standards, we would have seen incandescents being sold, with much less CFLs, and eventually LEDs taking over(looks like they are even right now). I think CFLs are much worse hazard than batteries and the other items for which they recommend special disposal. I am not aware of any landfill CFL capturing. If so, I don't feel as bad about them.
Even if they are equally safe, there is the issue that LEDs use less power than CFLs. By having CFL get this early market expansion, they are now locked in for many years, burning excess power, that would not have happened if the standards were not in place.
To demonstrate
100% incandescent initially
90% incandescent 10% CFL( 30% power usage) =93%
40% incand 50% LED(15% power usage) 10% CFL =50%

compared to
100% incandescent initially
40% incandescent 50% CFL 10% LED =57%
10% incand 40% LED 50% CFL =31%

Lower numbers now vs lower numbers in the early period.
The numbers are made up to show the effect I'm arguing, though I think 15 and 30% is right for LED and CFL.

MikeN,

If we're going to make up numbers-- maybe if there were no standards, then it would have taken 10 to 20 years longer for LED to develop as a general market product, and we would burn all that coal unnecessarily, putting lots of mercury into the environment. No motivation to invest in research and development if you can be undercut by the incandescents. Basic market principle.

So, just curious-- where do you think CFL that aren't recycled (which you can do at many, many locations) end up, other than landfills? Do you purposely break yours and drop them in sewers, perhaps?

The choice is mercury getting dumped directly into streams and the air (which ends up in the water as well) and getting into fish, which we have measured, and which is a clear health hazard, or CFL either recycled, or buried in plastic bags in a lined landfill. Sounds like one of them there no-brainers to me.

zebra

If I want to buy wind electricity from Texas, my local grid operator (municipal or highly regulated private) would be able to arrange it because there are already physical connections.

This isn't correct. The US grid(s) as currently constituted are unable to provide the increased transmission capacity required by large-scale W&S generation capacity. A substantial upgrade is required.

Zebra, of course CFLs go to landfills. I thought the reason for the recycling at hardware stores was to avoid issues at the landfills. You are the first environmentalist to tell me the landfills will take care of it. Every other time I argued against the CFLs I got back a response like 'yea, we have to get people to recycle the bulbs.' Needless to say, that was not convincing. My basic calculation was 100 million households, buying 10 CFL bulbs that last 10 years, even with a 99% compliance rate, you get 1 million bulbs a year in landfills.

The incandescents do not undercut the LEDs, since the electricity savings pay back a price difference. I am even regretting buying those halogens, though it's possible the LEDs will burn out faster with light switch usage.

MikeN,

I don't know what kind of "environmentalists" you have been talking to. It's just numbers.

As I said, even putting aside CO2, there's a net gain with CFL because of the direct pollution effects of coal. Landfills are one of those things people don't really understand. If you do it right, and eliminate stuff that can be redirected, it is a reasonable although aesthetically unpleasing solution.

Have you ever been to a landfill? CFL, even tens of millions of them, are a tiny part of the volume.The mercury in them is not going to hurt anyone. But the mercury from coal is everywhere, even in what we once thought of as pristine wilderness lakes.

Sorry, I tend to have a strong opinion on this-- I used to be a an avid freshwater fisherman, and between mercury pollution and acidification of wilderness lakes, that stopped being an option. Maybe in a couple of generations it could get back to the "normal" I experienced when I was younger.

"" Is describing you by the group whose tactics you ape. "

Rubbish. "

What? Your tactics? Certainly.

"You just get riled because I keep showing up the gaping holes in your topic knowledge."

No, I get annoyed with a blithering idiot making bollocks claims. Like that one there.

"You are putting things in quotes and attributing them to me."

Nope, they're quotes, but I'm not attributing them all to you. They're approximations or rephreasings. Your claims about your own claims were they were in post 84(?) "in detail".

You're just riled because you're bullshitting and still not getting away with it.

"The UK grid is privately owned"

To begin with it wasn't, and it was still happening then. Guess you're just pissed I'm showing the gaping holes in your logic, eh?

And we still have a national grid. You never demanded nationalisation in the UK, and you only whined about the USA not having one, not a government owned one.

Indeed I can't even see where you claimed that it had to be government owned to "work".

More gaping holes in your argument?

"Zebra, I haven’t seen the 25c incandescent bulbs that used to be available in supermarkets"

You haven't seen the half-penny chews either.

Nor the 2p loaf.

"Even if they are equally safe, there is the issue that LEDs use less power than CFLs"

Oh noes! Something better than what you whine about not fining any more is much better than it but not as good as later technology?!?!?!

Why is CFLs being worse environmentally than LEDs a problem?

"You are the first environmentalist to tell me the landfills will take care of it."

Take care of what?

"" If I want to buy wind electricity from Texas, my local grid operator (municipal or highly regulated private) would be able to arrange it because there are already physical connections."

This isn’t correct."

How the hell do you know? There are many states that are interconnected right now. How do you know which one zebra is in? Or are you in full retard denier "No it isn't" mode?

“You just get riled because I keep showing up the gaping holes in your topic knowledge.”

No, I get annoyed with a blithering idiot making bollocks claims. Like that one there.

“You are putting things in quotes and attributing them to me.”

Nope, they’re quotes, but I’m not attributing them all to you. They’re approximations or rephreasings. [worthy of Kellyanne Conway, that] Your claims about your own claims were they were in post 84(?) “in detail”..

Maybe #74?

The whole argument is about the future.

In the future, there will be very large scale W&S.

Integrating this combined resource will require a major evolution of the grid.

Without the major evolution of the grid, his pick’n’mix ‘free market’ proposal cannot exist at meaningful scale.

This is a technical problem that invalidates the ‘free market’ scenario..

“” If I want to buy wind electricity from Texas, my local grid operator (municipal or highly regulated private) would be able to arrange it because there are already physical connections.”

This isn’t correct.”

How the hell do you know?

It is well known that the US has an infrastructure limitation than needs to be addressed urgently. See eg. Joskow (2017):

Smart grid investment on the high voltage network has only a limited ability to increase the effective capacity of transmission networks. A large increase in transmission capacity, especially if it involves accessing generating capacity at new locations remote from load centers, requires building new physical transmission capacity. However, building major new transmission lines is extremely difficult. The U.S. transmission system was not built to facilitate large movements between interconnected control areas or over long distances; rather, it was built to balance supply and demand reliably within individual utility (or holding company) service areas. While the capacity of interconnections have expanded over time, the bulk of the price differences in Table 1 are due to the fact that there is insufficient transmission capacity to move large amounts of power from, for example, Chicago to New York City. The regulatory process that determines how high voltage transmission capacity (and smart grid investments in the transmission network) is sited and paid for in regulated transmission prices is of byzantine complexity (Joskow 2005). It is clear, however, that the combination of FERC cost allocation policies, the requirement to receive siting permits from each state in which a new transmission line is located, and not-in-my-backyard political constraints hinder efficient investment in long distance transmission lines. FERC has been trying to resolve the issue of “who pays” and “how much” for new transmission lines for years, most recently promulgating Order 1000 in July 2011. This rule has many constructive features, but it will take several years to see how and to what extent it is implemented. Nor does that rule address state siting requirements or NIMBY constraints. Congress gave the Department of Energy authority to designate National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors to respond to the diffusion of siting authority among many states, but the DOE’s procedures have been rejected by the courts (Watkiss 2011). The best solution to the siting problems would be to move regional transmission planning authority from the states to FERC. However, the political barriers to such a change are enormous. Thus, underinvestment in multistate high voltage transmission facilities is likely to continue to be a problem for many years.

This is what policy-makers need to sort out. Or you won't get functional W&S at scale, which is a necessary precondition for Zebra's approach even to be possible.

Should be Joskow (2012).

"Maybe #74?"

Yeah, where there was no detail, just generalities.

"" How the hell do you know? "

It is well known that the US has an infrastructure limitation"

A non sequitur. I asked how you knew which state zebra was in to claim there was no connection with Texas.

There's problems with national rail, but we still have a national rail network.

How do you know that zebra was incorrect about their cliam when you don't even know where they are or the actual state of the power connections?

Still got holes.

Shouting "SQUIRREL!" doesn't work.

"[worthy of Kellyanne Conway, that]"

Yeah, I suppose you don't know what paraphrase is, or that quote marks aren't necessary, but not forbidden.

Just your general lack of education there.

"
This is what policy-makers need to sort out. "

So we're talking about the UK or the USA? BEcause you come back with a claim about the UK with clams about the USA and clams about the USA with "But in the UK...".

You know, the gish gallop so beloved by deniers when they're bullshitting.

And why zebra called you a denier.

Because you gallop like one.

And why zebra called you a denier.

Because you gallop like one.

Except I don't.

Except you do.

And in denial of it too.

Zebra, if the landfills are safe, then I feel better about it. I always threw out everything like batteries in the regular trash. However CFL bulbs I took to Home Depot. I will probably continue that, but nice to know it's not as much a hazard if I don't.

MikeN,

Glad to hear that you recycle.

Landfills should be the last resort, of course. But if we get rid of the crazy packaging and offer easy recycling for other materials, they will take a long time to fill up.

For cities, some advocate trash-to-energy of some kind. I don't have enough info to know if it's a good idea, but it is done in some countries.

Wow,

It does seem to be hopeless.

What's strange is that I say "one characteristic of Denialists is giving references that contradict their argument", and then we get #82.

It's possible that BBD really doesn't see how circular his argument is, or how it fits with the childish psychology I mentioned earlier.

It should be X!
Someone should make it X!

But beebee, nobody knows how to make it X. Here's something we know how to do, and it will help.

It can't possibly work!

Beebee, why not?

Because it isn't X!

What can you say to someone who is so stuck?

"Zebra, if the landfills are safe"

The only one calling them "safe" is you, "mike".

Zebra just says they're there.

"What can you say to someone who is so stuck?"

It used to be worse.

IMO it's intransigence rather than denial, though.

Wow,

The landfills are actually "safe" if they are constructed properly and maintained. That's with respect to leaching out of heavy metals from something like a CFL. Also, there should be methane capture.

They are disgusting blights on the landscape when operating, of course, but I drive by one that has been capped off and it is not offensive; it is a grassy hill with the methane pipes here and there. Someday, they may put a golf course on it.

"Mike" is trying to make out "safe" as in "use it because it's just as good as recycling".

Didn't notice, or didn't care?

Wow,

As long as he continues taking his bulbs to HD like I do, I don't care. The real problem with landfills is all the other stuff.

This is one of those synergy problems; if you reduce the senseless waste (like plastic bubble packages) that creates large, irreducible volumes, and recycle organic (food) waste, through composting or biogas production, it is much easier to sort out the more problematic materials.

I just saw something about steel production; China uses a good deal of metallurgical coal because it produces raw steel, but in the US the vast majority (75% ??) is remelted scrap.

In Japan, as I understand it, people really sort all their trash down to very fine resolution.

But the US does have lots of space at this point, so it is a difficult economic argument to move things in that direction.

It’s possible that BBD really doesn’t see how circular his argument is, or how it fits with the childish psychology I mentioned earlier.

I see you assert this repeatedly. I have noticed that not once, ever, have you *demonstrated* it.

You just say stuff when you are in a corner. Exactly like Wow. You two increasingly deserve each other.

It can’t possibly work!

Beebee, why not?

Because it isn’t X!

Because it REQUIRES X, you imbecile.

What can you say to someone who is so stuck?

God, my sides.

>“Zebra, if the landfills are safe”
>The only one calling them “safe” is you, “mike”.
>Zebra just says they’re there.

No he didn't just say that. He said they can handle CFL bulbs so mercury is not a problem. Try to get the context before you opine. I know you asked, but it should have been obvious. Why do you think landfills are 'unsafe'?

>As long as he continues taking his bulbs to HD like I do, I don’t care. The real problem with landfills is all the other stuff.

Based on what you've said, you shouldn't care if I throw the CFLs in the trash.

MikeN #100,

Not correct.

Recycling means that you don't have to produce new mercury.

See what I said about making steel from scrap rather than making new steel. New steel means coal mining, which means more pollution.

Recycling is always better because it decreases consumption of natural resources and usually uses less process energy.

"The landfills are actually “safe” if they are constructed properly and maintained."

Yeah, but you're still better off using recycling constructed properly and maintained. At the very least it reduces the cost of the product next in the cycle.

It still doesn't make it "as good as recycling".

"See what I said about making steel from scrap rather than making new steel. New steel means coal mining, which means more pollution."

See what I mean when I said he wanted to misuse "safe" to mean "Don't recycle".

"Because it REQUIRES X, you imbecile. "

But it still isn't X you fucking idiot.

Moreover, making X happen doesn't cause Y. Just making X doesn't solve a damn thing, because to solve it REQUIRES Y.

I see. So as far as safety from mercury, it makes no difference if I throw CFLs in the trash, and the value of recycling them is in the recycling of mercury? Is getting 5mg mercury per bulb really worth the effort, or do they take the whole compound and reuse it for another bulb?

My understanding was landfills tend to recycle metals, and was more likely than protecting from mercury.

Ah, yes, the moronic rightwingnutjob goes straight to the other end of the false dichotomy.

You are just deliberately clueless "mike" and making shit up to troll.

"My understanding was landfills tend to recycle metals"

Recycling recyles. Landfill fills land.

A landfill may recycle too.

But your understanding is only sufficient for you to talk bollocks.

And I guess for your stupidity to be unfulfilled, I should have said "A landfill facility may recycle too". The facility run may do more than one thing, but a landfill site only has to throw it in the ground.

PS you know that landfill? Totally gets mercury on it from the coal power station's pollution. Didn't ever hear you complain about the mercury then, did we.

Because it REQUIRES X, you imbecile. ”

But it still isn’t X you fucking idiot.

Think of it like this:

You need a teabag and boiling water to make a cup of tea.

You can keep adding teabags to your mug, but unless you add boiling water, you don't get a cup of tea. A cup of teabags isn't a cup of tea.

The grid has to co-evolve with the scaling W&S resource or long-distance transmission capacity becomes insufficient to distribute the increase in generation capacity and so enable a free market to operate where generators sell directly to end-users.

I'll repeat that: a free market in electricity must have enough transmission capacity for generators anywhere to be able to supply power to meet demand anywhere else.

No, think of it like this.

I need hands before I can open doors, so to get out of the house, I need hands. However, "Open the door" is 100% correct to say when asked "How do you get out of the house?".

Now, you gish gallop off to a new field:

"a free market in electricity must have enough transmission capacity for generators "

You previously said there had to be a national grid run by government.

Now you're saying it must have enough carrying capacity.

Two different claims.

And again exactly the tactics deniers use to get their "argument" winning.

In their view.

“Open the door” is 100% correct to say when asked “How do you get out of the house?”.

Expanding grid transmission capacity is the hand that opens the door to the kind of free market Zebra envisions.

Now, you gish gallop off to a new field:

You previously said there had to be a national grid run by government.

I have argued that the balkanised mess of the US grid can only plausibly be upgraded at the necessary rate to permit rapid scaling of W&S by government intervention.

Two different claims.

No, my argument is that one may be the only way to get to the other.

"Expanding grid transmission capacity"

Is only required if you have insufficient capacity currently for the change. You haven't shown any proof that this is required.

And, like I said, it's a new gish. Because that has nothing to do with being a national grid, not having to be government owned.

" upgraded at the necessary rate to permit rapid scaling of W&S"

The current grid already withstands the current load on it.

Why do the electrons from wind and solar become some different kind of electron?

Wow,

"the current grid already withstands the current load on it"

Wow, you are trying to reason with someone who doesn't understand that!!

Be careful; this way lies madness....

>Why do the electrons from wind and solar become some different kind of electron?

Why don't you put some thought into it before asking?

I did. Why didn't you put some thought into it before trying to ape my line?

Oh, that's right, you can't.

MikeN,

On your CFL question: You need to do some research of your own if you are interested in the chemistry at that level-- I have no idea how they do it. Maybe then you could make a real contribution to the discussion.

I'm not contributing, I''m taking knowledge from you.

zebra

“the current grid already withstands the current load on it”

Wow, you are trying to reason with someone who doesn’t understand that!!

Be careful; this way lies madness….

The grid has to balance regionally. Supply must equal demand. Hold this thought.

If you have a large solar resource in the SW and a large wind resource in the Dakotas, Iowa, Minnesota and Montana, it generates vastly more electricity than there is regional demand. It is supposed to do this because it is supposed to be powering the US - especially the high-demand regions of the East and West Coast.

So how do you get shitloads of electricity from A to B when B is a long way away?

BBD 121,

"Will the circle be unbroken?
By and by, Lord, by and by.
There's a better world a-waitin'
In the sky Lord, in the sky."

Wow, I now accept your intransigence diagnosis as the main issue-- he can't let go of it and step back for an objective view, which leads to endless circularity and confused thinking.

BBD, why would anyone build "vast" generating capacity where the product can't be sold?

BBD, why would anyone build “vast” generating capacity where the product can’t be sold?

Are you serious? Er, Zebra, that is the proposal for decarbonising the US grid. Tapping the nation's best sited W&S resources is a necessity to generate enough electricity.

Just how much don't you know about this?

You clearly have no idea how grids work, you clearly haven't read *any* of the literature and you now reveal that you don't even understand the broad-strokes stuff.

I would just like to add to the mix something that is done in other countries all the time and that can work well here.

Restrict access to electricity during certain periods. There would be two modes: Regular (at night, with more minutes per night during mid winter, etc.) and occasional (like a brown out).

The restriction doesn't have to mean that electricity is not available at certain times, just that the box inside the house or building only allows certain amounts of electricity to be available during certain times.

It should not be hard to restrict a regular amount of between 8 and 12% over the day, concentrated to a maximum of 90% in the middle of the night (enough to light things, keep minimal cooling/heating systems on standby mode) and to have an additional 5% during those weeks when it is cloudy in the south and not windy anywhere, etc.

The high tech version I envision is not done in other countries. Rather, the generators simply turn off late at night and stay off until some time in the morning, and everybody and everything adapts.

The version I'm thinking of has a component that means nothing ever happens, everyone on the smart grid simply doesn't notice it, much like today people don't notice when the power company turns off their AC for brief periods during hot days where that service is available. The second mode impacts people so your dryer turns off in the middle of a cycle a few times a year. We can live with that.

Obviously the smart grid is very smart, so the OR electricity is never turned off, elevators always work (though escalators may be restricted) etc.

BBD,

The plan is to build vast generating capacity where the power can't be sold?

Seriously, you need to either get some meds or stop taking them, whichever.

Greg,

That's one of the things I project would happen with my plan as well.

The only difference is that people would set it up for themselves based on pricing. The "high-tech" aspect is that it would be real-time and flexible. If you really need your clothes dried that night , you click the app and pay a one-time premium.

Zebra, the problem with pricing is the way it is similar to tolls. It rewards (and feeds off of) privilege, and that is widely opposed. Even working class people should be able to dry their cloths at night, or at least, suffer the same exact level of inconvenience when they can't as rich people.

Greg,

A noble sentiment. When we get to where it's true about health care and nutrition and education, perhaps we can discuss laundry. :^)

zebra

The plan is to build vast generating capacity where the power can’t be sold?

Seriously, you need to either get some meds or stop taking them, whichever.

That's your response? The logical fallacy of argument from personal incredulity, delivered with a sneer?

It will not do, Zebra.

The facts damn you. Decarbonising the US grid requires large-scale exploitation of the prime US W&S resources which are distant from demand centres. So, substantial long-distance transmission capacity must be added so power can be sold. As I have been trying to tell you right from the outset.

I'm sorry that the facts conflict with your vision but that's just how it is, sometimes.

BBD,

You are stuck in a circular logic loop.

You aren't discussing my proposal, you are simply repeating this same assertion with slight variations of language.

-The only thing that can work is what BBD says!
-But why can't zebra's proposal work?
-Because the only thing that can work is what BBD says!

And...

Denialism.

Can we call this a day now, Zebra?

I get that you don't understand the problems with your own argument and cannot counter what I say with anything substantive, just empty assertions.

If there is money to be made, perhaps the infrastructure will take care of itself.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/investors-are-building-their-own-green-pow…

MikeN,

Now we are getting to the interesting part of the discussion. (Finally)

How does the government deal with this kind of set-up under my paradigm?

Would they be required to give equitable access to other generators, because they have now become grid operators? Would the transmission line have to be spun off? Or would conventional anti-trust rules suffice to prevent them from gaining excess (monopolistic) market power?

(Of course, you are correct in the first place-- why wouldn't there be investment if there's money to be made with your product, and some local utility can't block you from selling it, as they can now.)

Todd de Ryck (#50): This paper was just released and is available for free download for a short time (not certain how long)...

Too late; they now charge $37.95 for the PDF.

"The grid has to balance regionally."

But the region is not an isolated system. Making arbitrary lines that must contain 100% of the necessary resources is merely insisting on what you know isn't necessary so that you can insist someone's idea won't work,

Regions don't balance food production and consumption, Nor finance and loans. Or even armed services.

"If you have a large solar resource in the SW and a large wind resource in the Dakotas, Iowa, Minnesota and Montana"

Then you need only to connect the regions via proxy, If Iowa can sell to their neigbour to the SW, who can sell their now excess production further SW, then further and further, nobody in California needs to be directly connected to Florida for them to share power resource.

"Supply must equal demand. "

And demand can and has been changed. The very idea of "baseload" is a method to change demand. Spot prices the current system to change load under solely commercial precepts.

Demand can be changed by pricing.

And it can also be changed by changing how people do things.

Changed from incandescents to CFLs? Demand changed.

Supply can change, but you refuse to accept demand can be.

"Are you serious? Er, Zebra, that is the proposal for decarbonising the US grid."

THAT IS YOUR PROPOSAL it is not "the" proposal. Just yours.

136

"that is your proposal it is not the proposal just yours"

And that's why my proposal "can't work": because it isn't his proposal.

"Will the circle be unbroken?"

At this point, I doubt it is possible.

We actually have a good contribution from MikeN demonstrating one way things can work.

But there are many as you say. Since the grid already exists (as rights-of-way in various forms), the regional grid operators themselves could simply upgrade relevant sections to create a chain of transportation.

Look, it is obvious that BBD has never taken even physics 101 electric circuits section, and may never, as you say, admit ignorance and learn something.

THAT IS YOUR PROPOSAL it is not “the” proposal. Just yours.

No, it is *the* proposal. See MikeN's WSJ link above. It's what is necessary to move from the constraints of localism (not enough W&S to meet demand year-round) to national decarbonisation of the grid.

The decarbonisation of the electricity supply is itself only a step along the way to the full decarbonisation of total primary energy, which is the ultimate requirement to avoid severe climate impacts. It is another reason why the prime W&S resources in the US have to be exploited at large scale.

* * * * * *

@ zebra

Since the grid already exists (as rights-of-way in various forms), the regional grid operators themselves could simply upgrade relevant sections to create a chain of transportation.

It might be simpler to *require* them to do this rather than leave it to chance, because it needs to happen starting *now*. The task is huge, and time is running out rapidly. This was my original point about the need for government intervention in the existing mess.

Incidentally, thanks for acknowledging that the grid does indeed need major upgrades. Took a while, but we got there in the end.

"No, it is *the* proposal."

No it isn't.

Only one proposal is "make lots and lots more power". It's not the only one.

" See MikeN’s WSJ link above."

That would make it the WSJ's op-ed piece proposal, still NOT "the" proposal. Just "A" proposal.

"It’s what is necessary to move from the constraints of localism (not enough W&S to meet demand year-round) to national decarbonisation of the grid."

No it isn't. Decarbonising the grid means we stop producing power via fossil fuels. NOTHING demands that we must produce MORE power. Just replace 100W from Coal with 100W from Solar. And so on.

NOT, repeat ***NOT*** "replace 100W from Coal with 180W from Solar!".

"The decarbonisation of the electricity supply is itself only a step along the way to the full decarbonisation of total primary energy"

So you are admitting, yet in deep deep DEEP denial that "more power" is NOT, repeat ***NOT*** required to decarbonise the grid.

"Will the circle be unbroken?"

Nope. Round and round it goes inside his head.

zebra

"Will the circle be unbroken?”

Nope. Round and round it goes inside his head.

You keep saying this, but you have never once demonstrated it.

So it looks rather like a placeholder you insert when you have no substantive response.

Yes, that's what happens when the cycle keeps repeating. If you're so cheesed off at it, maybe you should not continue the cycle.

It's a repeat not a placeholder. Complaining seems to be your placeholder for an argument.

Wow

Only one proposal is “make lots and lots more power”. It’s not the only one.

No. As usual, you are confused.

Many parts of the US have much higher demand that their W&S resource can supply. Other parts have much lower demand and very large W&S resources.

So the solution is to expand W&S where the resources are plentiful and *connect it* to the regions where demand outstrips supply.

That is the proposal required by the actual situation, which is why it is what is being proposed. Denying this widely-documented fact is pretty futile, really.

"No. As usual, you are confused. "

And as usual, you go proclaiming then nonsequtur your way to a new gish of gallop.

"Oh these areas don't have enough wind and solar resources" (bullshit, by the way) is NOTHING to do with proving your demand that MORE power is produced than currently is produced must be done to decarbonise the grid.

Because you have fuck all proof of that asinine and bullshit claim.

Once again, you're lying your arse off, BBD.

Galloping off on your horse of gish on irrelevant claims because even you know you have bugger all support for the claims under contention, but WILL NOT release them.

More foaming brown denial from wow.

Conversation with you present is impossible.

Ah, yes, denial of your insanity being correct.

Count me guilty of that all you like, BBD. I don't mind the least that I'm called in denial of insanity.

Wow, that's the problem with insanity-- it creates its own reality that validates itself. Circular.

Maybe MikeN will expand on that WSJ article, and there could be a discussion that deals with the real world and real technology.

You may not agree with Mike, but at least it is something substantive that actually relates to the market paradigm rather than "the plan" that only exists in BBD's head.

"You may not agree with Mike,"

I don't agree or accept his lying shyster BS that only sees "reality" and anyone else's words as ways to deny a problem exists that he might have to pay to fix.

Remember his "Oh, good, so I don't have to recycle, it's just as good to throw them in landfill!"?

He's a lying little selfish tit.

Wow,

But it was a substantive comment that could be answered.

I would rather argue with someone who is wrong than someone who is out of touch with reality. BBD claims to want to "decarbonize" but gives a version of standard Denialist arguments.

NO, it wasn't substantive. It was misleading bollocks. you thought to begin with he was talking about how safe it was, not whether he could ditch recycling.

It was "substantive" to a different substance.

Ergo, not substantive, it was a lie by misdirection.

That's what happens when you start with a certain image before you start reading. As was clear if you had read my posts, I was asking about the safety of CFLs thrown in the trash, and I recycle them for the reason that I consider it unsafe. So answering one is answering the other.

No, "mike", I read post 99. And it's still up there.

Wow,

I said it was substantive, I was not talking about his intent.

I like to discuss real stuff-- if he is trying to be misleading but is talking about real stuff, then we can educate people on the facts and let them figure it out for themselves.

Not much point in preaching to the choir.

Yes, you said it was substantive. No, you didn't say his intent. But the substance you THOUGHT it was about, it was not.

The ENTIRE POINT of "substantive claims" is that you can argue the substance of it and arrive at a reasoned conclusion. But if you're not arguing what the substance was in reality about, then your CANNOT argue about the substantive point, only the mistaken point. Therefore it's as pointless and substance free as an unsubstantive point.

It's no good making homilies and ignoring reality. Pick reality, every time. And accept no substitutes for it.

Because to do otherwise is how you get flushed down the rabbit hole and find you circling the same subject over and over again: because you think you're arguing for A, they're arguing about B, and they're not telling you that.

Wow, that’s the problem with insanity– it creates its own reality that validates itself. Circular.

NOAA: Rapid, affordable energy transformation possible:

In identifying low-cost solutions, researchers enabled the model to build and pay for transmission infrastructure improvements — specifically a new, high-voltage direct-current transmission grid (HVDC) to supplement the current electrical grid. HVDC lines, which are in use around the world, reduce energy losses during long-distance transmission. The model did choose to use those lines extensively, and the study found that investing in efficient, long-distance transmission was key to keeping costs low.

MacDonald compared the idea of a HVDC grid with the interstate highway system which transformed the U.S. economy in the 1950s. “With an ‘interstate for electrons’, renewable energy could be delivered anywhere in the country while emissions plummet,” he said. “An HVDC grid would create a national electricity market in which all types of generation, including low-carbon sources, compete on a cost basis. The surprise was how dominant wind and solar could be.”

Right there, Zebra. What you propose depends for its success on a co-evolution of the national grid with local / regional initiatives. I linked to a Climate Crocks article featuring the NOAA research early on in the discussion.

BBD,

Round and round we go.

If it is cheap to build HVDC lines, then, in the paradigm I propose, HVDC lines will be built, because there is profit to be made.

But, if a local utility can exclude electricity transmitted from a distant location over your HVDC lines, then HVDC lines will not be built, because there is no profit to be made.

Duh.

And please, read some history about the US Interstate Highway System-- the problems in building it, and the consequences, like promoting externalities in transportation.

You are caught in a circular logic loop. There is no "the plan", except in your head.

I don't think it says that it is cheap to build HVDC lines, just that building them with outside money would keep the energy that comes through from being expensive.

zebra

If it is cheap to build HVDC lines, then, in the paradigm I propose, HVDC lines will be built, because there is profit to be made.

Who said 'cheap'? Only you, misrepresenting MacDonald et al. (2016).

You are caught in a circular logic loop. There is no “the plan”, except in your head.

So optimally efficient exploitation of W&S resources to decarbonise TPE isn't a plan?

Who knew?

MikeN,

What is "outside money"?

Sometimes I just don't understand how people think about this stuff.

The economics basic theory/principles (not ideological nonsense) deals with this stuff pretty directly, just like physics deals with the technology.

A cost is a cost. If it isn't part of the transaction, it is an externality. Either the cost of building a transmission line is included in the price of the electricity delivered, or we have a market failure/distortion.

Please, clarify what you are trying to say.

The cost of building the interstate highway system is not included in trucking prices, though maintenance via gas prices is. I am reading the quote in #156 as suggesting that someone else)the government out of general funds) pay for the lines, and this construction would not be part of the energy costs.

"specifically a new, high-voltage direct-current transmission grid (HVDC) to supplement the current electrical grid."

And a HVDC grid is being buikt right now because it is POSSIBLE to build it and it makes it possible for energy companies to sell electricity to a larger market.

The UK and France and much of Europe have large HVDC interconnects. We have two massive links to France BECAUSE OF OUR NUCLEAR POWER.

It's not a build out because of renewables.

You are nuts.

"So optimally efficient exploitation of W&S resources to decarbonise TPE isn’t a plan? "

Who said it wasn't? But "remove monopolies and allow smaller generation actors" is ALSO a plan.

BBD,

"So optimally efficient exploitation of W&S resources to decarbonise TPE isn’t a plan?"

No, it isn't, but we have had this silly definition debate before. It is a goal.

My suggestion, as Wow states it in 163, is a way of determining and achieving optimal utilization of resources in a decarbonised system.

You, of course, are engaging in circularity, because your "optimally efficient" is "what you would get if the government builds HVDC lines analogous to the Interstate model". But you offer no evidence as to why this would be true.

And again, read about the Interstate system, and the consequences from building it.

My plan:

Pass an energy law at the federal level which requires each state to build two nuclear power plants.

Each state would be in charge of location and permitting and the state can engage in a private partnership with a utility for the actual construction and operation of the plants.

The federal law would also allow for eight regional breeder reactors and define the regions (for recycling existing waste). I would allow the states within each region to bid for the right for that plant and if no volunteer stepped forward, mandate it. Again, the state they were located in would be in charge of location and permitting but the state could work with a utility to build and operate the plant.

This plan would double our existing nuclear capability.

We should be able to build the plants in about five years.

RickA 165,

Why?

Why should I have to pay taxes to have my state build two nuclear plants?

And how would you enforce this law? SCOTUS has ruled that States do not have to expand Medicaid, for example. Why would this be different?

zebra #166:

You may not have to pay taxes.

If the state works with a utility, the customers will pay for the plant (just like now).

If the Supreme Court rules the law invalid - than so be it.

As to why?

Because we need to double our baseload power, which doesn't produce carbon. This spreads out the pain across all 50 states (maybe I would even throw in Puerto Rico).

It is time for people to put away their childish fears of radiation.

This should do it.

Once this is done, we can double again.

Then we will be at 80% and have a nice base for expansion, if necessary.

RickA,

If people can buy cheaper natural gas generated electricity, why would they buy from the nuclear plant?

"Pass an energy law at the federal level which requires each state to build two nuclear power plants."

Well that's authoritarian bollocks right there. And even nuke fluffers will be going "Fuck that, man.".

If you want government to dictate what companies have to do, piss off to North Korea, you commie.

"If people can buy cheaper natural gas generated electricity, why would they buy from the nuclear plant?"

They wouldn't, which is why dick here wants bigger government to build it.

So that the losses can be borne by taxpayers.

"Because we need to double our baseload power, which doesn’t produce carbon. "

Wind and solar, then. The power is doubled by whatever doubles it.

Or you cut demand by half by not being so damn moronic about it.

My electricity provider is Xcel in Minnesota.

I pay the same amount for electricity, whether it is provided by wind, coal, natural gas or nuclear - so there is no way to tease out what you pay for a particular type of generated electricity.

If you electricity provider adds nuclear to the mix, they may change their cost, but it would be borne by the entire customer base.

Secondly, if a carbon tax is implemented, natural gas prices will rise.

Third, if 100 nuclear power plants are built (per my plan), the cost per plant will drop - especially if they are all of the same design.

Fourth, natural gas still emits CO2, while nuclear doesn't - so perhaps people will pay a bit extra for nuclear (if they can even tell from their bill).

Fifth - we have 100 nuclear power plants currently in the USA. Why are people paying for electricity from these plants when they could get cheaper natural gas electricity? Probably because nuclear is available in their area and they have no choice.

zebra:

Do I meet your test for having at least put forth a plan?

I am not sure I remember your plan - how do you convert the entire grid from being partially privatised to wholly public again? Did you mention legislation in your plan? I cannot recall.

Perhaps you could remind me what your plan is again.

"Secondly, if a carbon tax is implemented, natural gas prices will rise."

Wrong.

The cost of using nat gas will rise, but the cost of nat gas itself won't be affected by the tax. If it DOES change, it will reduce the price of natural gas so as to keep demand up and pay off the investment.

"Third, if 100 nuclear power plants are built (per my plan), the cost per plant will drop "

No, it'd rise. The demand for that scenario far FAR outstrips the demand. Do the maths.

"Fourth, natural gas still emits CO2, while nuclear doesn’t"

Incorrect. Mining, refining, transport, decommissioning. Concrete too. Lots and lots of concrete.

" Why are people paying for electricity from these plants when they could get cheaper natural gas electricity?"

They have no choice. They're part of the mix because the USA wants plutonium.

RickA, the federal government can't order states to build nuclear power plants. It would be thrown out in court.

RickA,

I appreciate that you put forward an actual plan. And also that you were willing to flesh it out in answer to my question.

If there is a carbon tax (or some other mechanism) to reduce the use of FF, then of course nuclear can become competitive, as long as that cost of using FF is raised high enough.

But my plan says, if that's the case, why do you need the government to mandate construction of nuclear plants? Or, HVDC lines to transmit wind energy from Austin to Boston, as they say? Or anything else?

And the legislation isn't about the government owning the grid-- that sounds more like BBD. But there would be regulation that makes the various grid operators operate like a common carrier, meaning they can't generate electricity themselves, and they have to give equal access to all generators and all buyers.

I thought this was clear from the many times I have said it-- you can choose to buy from your neighbor's solar panels, or from the nuclear plant. That way the market decides what the optimal mix is. Your local grid operator has no say in that, just like UPS has no say whether you buy a shirt from Amazon or from Walmart-- they just deliver it.

MikeN #175:

I see it being done with carrots - money with strings attached.

Like the way the Federal Government got most states to lower the speed limit to 55 a number of decades ago.

There may also be tax credits involved to the utilities that build the plants on the property the states have identified they should be built on.

zebra:

How does the transmission get to common carrier status?

Isn't that going to be a taking?

I do see the concept (I think). Somehow take the transmission lines from the utilities and make them common carrier so any generator can use the transmission lines.

I just thought most of the transmission lines were owned by the utility companies and I was wondering how you planned to get the transmission lines to this common carrier status you are talking about.

"I see it being done with carrots – money with strings attached."

So government interference in private business and pork barrel funding. And a huge increase in the taxes to be raised.

Why not mandate every home gets free solar panels?

"How does the transmission get to common carrier status?"

They are chartered to do so like POTS. It would be *easier* if it were government owned? Sure.

"The utilities" only own generation. Indeed it's most often the case anyway that the generator is owned by someone who doesn't own the transmission.

See, again, POTS.

"I just thought most of the transmission lines were owned by the utility companies"

Ever bothered to check? Or just ass-pulled?

RickA,

There is no taking; there is just a splitting of the operation, as with any anti-trust action against excessive vertical integration.

If you own a transmission line and a generating plant, you spin off the generator as a separate corporation. And then you continue operation of the grid element under the common carrier paradigm.

Again, some version of this has been done in various places, for various applications.

Note to Wow: What is POTS?

zebra #181:

Ok - I can see that.

How would you split the revenue the utility currently gets for both generation and transmission?

The new corporation of just transmission has to have revenue.

I suppose the utilities could determine that pre-split.

Would the transmission entity be regulated by the state like the utilities currently are?

Who does the transmission company bill - the generator or the customers getting the electricity?

RickA,

These are trivial questions.

The grid operator is obviously regulated-- as a natural monopoly, its position has not changed just because it divests a generating operation if it has one.

Generators can charge whatever they like, and the competitive market will deal with that.

Who cares about the billing? The grid operator could do administration, of course, just like Amazon does with independent sellers. Not exactly rocket science these days.