Diogenes wrote:Congress: Obama Admin
Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans
A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.
Refugees in northern Syria and Iraq suffer as region sees first snowfall in 25 years
Heavy snowfall and freezing conditions in the northern Syrian province of Deir Ez Zor have added to the difficulties of locals in the area displaced by fighting.
The arid province, which is mostly desert, gets barely any rain and some areas had not seen snowfall in more than a quarter of a century until freezing conditions hit over the weekend.
Diogenes wrote:Congress: Obama Admin
Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans
A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.
Or it could just be this. Where was that Chicago Climate Exchange located again?
Money and Power Drive Obama's Climate Agenda
Publicized reversals by such global-warming heavyweights as the United Nation’s Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA’s James Hansen now state that global temperatures have not substantially risen for nearly two decades. Yet, Obama gears up to invest billions of America’s tax dollars in the green abyss, even while other countries across the globe are backing away. European nations have already experienced a severe hit to their economies and negative blowback from their citizens.
Scientific facts that Mr. Obama and his assemblage of global elitists prefer that you not know come from Edmund Contoski, an environmental consultant for more than 40 countries. In Liberty Unbound, Contoski writes: “The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from nature, not from man.” Based on scientific data, “Not only are worms contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere,” Contoski further notes that, “volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world. Even natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined.” Nature itself foils the environmentalists as The U.S. Department of Energy admits that once emitted that 98% of all the carbon dioxide emissions are again absorbed by nature. Contosky then queries, “Termites emit ten time more CO2 than humans, should we cap-and-tax them?”
Diogenes wrote:Refugees in northern Syria and Iraq suffer as region sees first snowfall in 25 years
Heavy snowfall and freezing conditions in the northern Syrian province of Deir Ez Zor have added to the difficulties of locals in the area displaced by fighting.
The arid province, which is mostly desert, gets barely any rain and some areas had not seen snowfall in more than a quarter of a century until freezing conditions hit over the weekend.
Why should I be interested in looking at anything you did until after you've shown some indication that you understand how water vapor works as a negative feedback system?
since you're apparently not interested in actually learning anything, i did the hard work of typing "fudge data" into a box for you.
here are some of the first results ( apparently it heavily favors the "sckepticalscience.com" website):
Sounds like decent news. The obvious questions are what is the power factor of each generation type, I.e how many MWh will each actually deliver in a year - intermittency again. And questions on regulation - is there regulation artificially depressing the load factor on gas/ raising it on renewables? And of course, the figures can't be understood without knowing whether there is any subsidy being paid.
Even ignoring CO2, there is enough real pollution from coal burning and coal mining that only those economically impacted can have any regrets about its passing. But sadly it makes cheap power. So I guess the Americans on food stamps are among the economically impacted - was that 46 million? I'll check in a minute....
(Something is trashing my posts if I navigate away while typing)
Yes, I'm about right - the number was 46.5 million in 2014. The recent peak was 47.6 million, and the latest figure is 43.6 million.
If I read the article right it sounds like the solar capacity is an underestimate as it doesn't include 'distributed solar', i.e. roof panels and the like. Apparently that was about 2GW in 2015 which is not exactly peanuts. May have misunderstood though..
We need better batteries (or equivalent), that would help. Still, getting there.
We could very much use some decent strategies to help people out where their jobs are destroyed by new tech coming in. I think that is true generally but in the case of things like coal mining and so it is possibly more acute. How to create jobs to replace jobs destroyed by technological change? Tricky.
Yes, I agree on the distributed solar 2gw, that's what it said.
It also said the range of power factors at 30-70%, from renewables to fossil plants.
Yes on batteries too. When the per kWh costs of plant+fuel for non-renewables is more than plant+batteries for renewables, it has to be game-over. Plant for fossil is still less than plant for solar, plant+fuel seems to be similar or slightly higher than solar plant. However batteries are an order of magnitude too costly. So Solar power alone can't be non-intermittent economically.
I think the right measure is probably cents/(kWh cycle), which I think needs to get down below a cent to make grid batteries for Solar competitive. Let me get my envelope out....
Edit: I think batteries need to get to $80/kWh with an 80% lifetime of 10000 cycles to get to about 1 cent/kWh-cycle. I think the ball park at the moment is $200 and 1000 cycles, which comes to about 7 cents per kWh-cycle. I'm assuming the costs include extra initial capacity to cover degradation, and periodic additions when capacity goes below spec.
Last edited by RERT on Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Which seems pretty comprehensive and is reasonably recent.
I'm sure there are other sources about.
I'd say short answer is, if you want to store a lot of energy from solar (or elsewhere) Pumped Hydroelectric Storage is the way to go. It stores a lot of energy for a decent amount of time and is cheap to set up and maintain. You would need to set up other things for quicker response to changes in demand but otherwise looks pretty good. Going to take a fair bit of effort for anything else to compete. Of course how and where you install it is an issue but if you can sort that out..
Still be good to have a load of other options too, more R&D needed.
