Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Can you show where they're claiming to be "100% solar-powered"?

There's a full "green" audit here, but I know the sneering attitude here regarding ANYTHING green (Reefmagnet, this is a clear demo of how anti-AGW is often simply anti-green, period), so I don't expect it to persuade you.

Well, this might surprise you that as a bit of an electrical wizard I can totally understand the claim to be 100% renewal powered.

As I see it, if some power consuming system is added to a grid that consumes, say, 100 units of energy annually and a source of renewable energy generation that produces an average of 100 units of energy is also added to the grid as part of the deal then I would be happy to declare the consuming system is using 100% renewable energy. As I see it, excess renewable energy can supply other needs when the wind's a blowing and the sun's a shining. Which kind of acts as a virtual battery storage as when the wind stops a blowing and the sun stops a shining, the green system can draw from "dirty" sources that would have otherwise been consumed by all the other stuff that had used the clean renewable stuff when it was freely available.

Now to put my alleged "anti-AGW" cap back on. Power generation 101 requires base, intermediate and peak generation capacity. Renewable generation like solar or wind (hydro can be a rare exception) cannot provide reliable base load power. This means that stinky old fuels like coal and oil, or using nuclear power, are the only real world choices for base load power generation fuels. Each grid will have its optimal ratio of base, intermediate and peak generation capacity. Which could be similar to those numbers quoted by Jackdale previously, but the fact is that base load generation powered, in good part, by fossil fuels will be around for a long time to come.

Disclaimer: Above assumes economically viable geothermal generation or kickass batteries aren't figured out real soon.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Everything has optimal limits.


I would suggest those limits for CO2 that natural cycles keep in place over the past 800,000 would be about right: 180 to 300 ppm.

Dammit we're done for at 400+ ppm and rising.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well, this might surprise you that as a bit of an electrical wizard I can totally understand the claim to be 100% renewal powered.

hey RF, I was responding to Kenomac's assertion that the station claimed to be "100% solar-powered". (they haven't made that claim as far as I can tell)

I just made that side callout to you because I believe it was you who said that you felt that the AGW debate was taking energy and attention from other more pressing needs. The attitude in the last 5 pages is a pretty clear demonstration that the anti-AGW stand is often just an offshoot of a general anti-green sentiment.

Anyway, you get the idea that you can treat the grid like a bank account. . Cheers.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Not quite. Jack's two posts mix apples and oranges.

The first is a summary of energy generation in GWh. The second is a summary of installed capacity in MW.

So...because coal and NG provided about 90 percent of energy needs, and are only about 82 percent of the installed capacity, their reliability and responsiveness and resilience seem to be about 110 percent of other sources.

Exactly. I've mentioned it before. For some reason, every time this type of discussion comes up, certain people always quote "installed" or "nameplate" capacity and ignore the fact that actual wind generator very rarely exceeds 30% of nameplate capacity and for solar, half that.

As against coal and gas which generally run around 50-60% (not to mention nuclear which is often around 90%). Coal and gas would be running at a higher load factor if it weren't for the requirement to keep then spinning at low loads on those rare occasions when solar and wind are producing meaningful quantities of power.

Note that JD's concept of wind MW "replacing" coal doesn't mean that an equivalent number of coal station are shut down. it just means that they are kept running and burning fossil fuels without putting any power into the grid so that they can be spun up rapidly when the wind stops blowing (like right now!). Somehow, that wasted fuel is never taken into account when discussing the effectiveness of wind energy.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Anyway, you get the idea that you can treat the grid like a bank account.

Right. Except after you make your withdrawal of fossil fuels, you might then be able to afford to run your CTrain (if the wind's blowing) but you'll be getting an overdraft notice soon thereafter.

Moving along, I was curious if you actually read this article posted above concerning the IPCC:

We have Bigger Problems than Climate Change; So sayeth IPCC AR5 | Watts Up With That?

I'm not suggesting your agreement with the author on the merits, but it does present an analysis that assumes acceptance of the AGW findings you are so devoted to, and then goes on to discuss what economic impact the projected temp increases may have. I thought this was the sort of discussion you've been so dramatically claiming is absent from the debate? Then again, I know you've been busy coming up with your latest round of labels, stereotypes and overly simplistic generalizations, so maybe you haven't gottten around to it yet.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Dammit we're done for at 400+ ppm and rising.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

We have not had those levels for 3-5 million years.

We have never had CO2 increases of this magnitude. During the PETM, around 5 billion tons of CO2 was released into the atmosphere per year. The Earth warmed around 6°C (11°F) over 20,000 years, although some estimates are that the warming was more like 9°C (16°F). Using the low end of that estimated range, the globe warmed around 0.025°C every 100 years. Today, the globe is warming at least ten times as fast, anywhere from 1 to 4°C every 100 years. In 2010, our fossil fuel burning released 35 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. In 1751, there was 10 million tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 released per annum. That is not sustainable.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Wow. 3 pages of intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and irrelevance.

This is a giant turd.
...
massive snip.
...
I sure hope the last three pages have had entertainment value, because it was devoid of information or logic. I fear it's brought the global IQ down by almost a point. Global dumbing.

OK, I give up. I thought you two were just misguided. Obviously I was wrong.

Anyone who continues to support the claim that something like the LRT can be "100% powered by wind" after the last 3 pages is not just gullible.

The clear fact is that wind cannot provide reliable base load power. It is currently not providing ANY power to the Calgary LRT.

To perpetuate the green meme that wind can replace base load power is just dishonest.

That's it, I'm out of here permanently.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by StuM

To perpetuate the green meme that wind can replace base load power is just dishonest.

That was never the claim made by the LRT. or anyone here. You're mistaking your own strawman for the truth. As I said in the bit that got snipped, we get the baseload issue.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

...In 2010, our fossil fuel burning released 35 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. In 1751, there was 10 million tonnes of anthropogenic CO2 released per annum. That is not sustainable...

Don't know where you go the 10 million tons per year in 1751 from, but it's obviously incorrect.

To that figure you may need to add the CO2 from burning biomass, which yields 100 tons of CO2 per acre. Native Americans burned several millions of acres of forest and grasslands each one to three years as a forest and game management practice. Such a practice is not carbon neutral, as some may argue, except in the long term, because re-growth can take decades to hundreds of years depending on the type of vegetation burned.

Are those numbers you quote world wide stats? US? Canadian? Link to your source, please.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Right. Except after you make your withdrawal of fossil fuels, you might then be able to afford to run your CTrain (if the wind's blowing) but you'll be getting an overdraft notice soon thereafter.

Moving along, I was curious if you actually read this article posted above concerning the IPCC:

We have Bigger Problems than Climate Change; So sayeth IPCC AR5 | Watts Up With That?

I'm not suggesting your agreement with the author on the merits, but it does present an analysis that assumes acceptance of the AGW findings you are so devoted to, and then goes on to discuss what economic impact the projected temp increases may have. I thought this was the sort of discussion you've been so dramatically claiming is absent from the debate? Then again, I know you've been busy coming up with your latest round of labels, stereotypes and overly simplistic generalizations, so maybe you haven't gottten around to it yet.

It would be an easier read if the author could maybe stop smirking and just lay out the details. But anyway...

Having read it yourself, you know the article's only concerning itself with one benchmark in the report - the economy. As obsessed as we are with money, there are other measures for quality of life. Many of the people who will be displaced or impacted by some of the anticipated consequences are collectively less than a rounding error in economic terms. Extensive famine in some 3rd-world failed state won't really register on the DJIA. I don't think an economic yardstick properly captures loss of natural habitat or accelerated extinctions.

Maybe the author will do us the favour of reviewing and writing on the impacts assessed in the rest of the report.

And would you help ensure that more doubters/deniers see this article so they can stop accusing the climate scientists of predicting the end of mankind?

btw, I don't think I've ever said that AGW is the only problem we have, nor do I think I have I said it's our most immediately pressing issue. So I'm sorry if I'm not living up to some alarmist stereotype you might be saddled with.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That was never the claim made by the LRT. or anyone here. You're mistaking your own strawman for the truth. As I said in the bit that got snipped, we get the baseload issue.

Actually jack did say that the train was run solely on renewable power back in post 897

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That was never the claim made by the LRT. or anyone here. You're mistaking your own strawman for the truth. As I said in the bit that got snipped, we get the baseload issue.

Da-yum...just...da-yum, LE...your mental filters are broken...

From jack...post 897:

Our local light rail transit system uses wind power for its electricity.

...and from post 908:

Then in 2012, Calgary went all-in on renewable energy, purchasing 100 per cent renewable power for all of the city’s operations. This investment meant two wind farms got built, totaling 144 megawatts of installed wind capacity.

While the CTrain is still 100 per cent powered by wind...

and,

Facts
In 2001, the CTrain became the first public transit system in Canada to claim all of its electricity from emissions-free wind power generation.

(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTrain)

...not to mention other comments in the several pages of discussion on the topic that you pooh-poohed in an earlier post.

Disingenious. Da-yum.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually jack did say that the train was run solely on renewable power back in post 896

Nope - you inferred "solely".

Our local light rail transit system uses wind power for its electricity.

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2003338

Post 897


Stu then quote-mines, get caught, and the thread turns into Stu and his buddies doing spins that resemble Linda Blair.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Da-yum...just...da-yum, LE...your mental filters are broken...

From jack...post 897:



...and from post 908:



and,



(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTrain)

...not to mention other comments in the several pages of discussion on the topic that you pooh-poohed in an earlier post.

Disingenious. Da-yum.

Direct, referenced quotes, my friend. They are called evidence.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

OK then, provide a reliable source which shows that the Calgary LRT and City operations are run on a grid which is not connected to any fossil fuel powered base load power stations. Not just a press release from a green power advocacy group.

This was the funniest post as Stu tells me not to use the same web site that he used for quote mining in this post:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2003468

Google works wonders.

115. Calgary’s wind-powered LRT an incredibly successful system: Nenshi | Green Energy Futures