If most of the electricity used to charge your electric car is made by burning coal, is it still worth it, in terms of CO2 release, to buy an electric car?
Yes. And you will also save money on fuel.
Don’t believe me? Want me to show you? What, are you from Missouri or something? Fine. I’ll show you.
A few years ago, when there were no affordable electric cars that were real cars, we decided to look into buying the next best thing, a hybrid. We wanted to get the Toyota Prius because it looked like a good car, had long proven technology, and all the people we knew who had one were happy with theirs.
I mentioned this to an acquaintance, also noting that I expected that we would save money on fuel. His response was that we would never save as much money on reduced fuel use to justify the extra cost of this expensive car. Just look in any car magazine, he said. They all make this comparison in one issue or another, he said. You are crazy to do this, he said.
I disagreed with him about the crazy part. Failing to do something that you can afford to do that would decrease fossil CO2 emissions was the crazy decision. You know, given the end of civilization because of climate change, and all. But, I was concerned that we would simply not be able to afford to do it, so I resolved to look more closely into the costs and benefits.
Sure enough, it was easy to find an article in a car magazine that analyzed the difference between buying a new internal combustion engine car vs. a Prius, and that analysis clearly showed that there wouldn’t be much of a savings, and that we could lose as much as $500 a year. Yes, each year, the Prius would save gas money, but over a period of several years, the number would never add up to the thousands of dollars extra one had to spend to get the more expensive car. Buy the internal combustion care, they said.
But the article said something else about “green energy” cars that set off an alarm. It said that cars like electric cars would never catch on because they were quiet. Everybody likes the sound of the engine, especially when accelerating past some jerk on the highway, even in a relatively quiet and sedate car like a Camry.
Aha, I thought. This article is not about making rational decisions, or decisions that might be good for the environment. It is about something else entirely.
Hippie punching.
Then I thought about my acquaintance who had suggested that the Prius was a bad idea. And the hippie punching theory fell neatly into place.
So, I continued my quest for information and wisdom. I learned years ago that when you want to buy something expensive, contact a seller that you are unlikely to buy from to ask a few questions. Don’t take up too much of their time, but start your inquiry with a business that sells the product you want, but that you will walk away from in a few minutes. That lets you discover what the patter in that industry is like, what the game is, how they talk to you and what you don’t necessarily know, without it costing you dumb-points along the way. This way, when you talk to the more likely seller (in this case, the Toyota dealership on my side of town, instead of the other side of town) you are one up on the other noobs making a similar inquiry.
So I made the call, and said, “I’m really just interested in trying to decide if the Prius is worth it, given the extra cost, in terms of money saved on fuel.”
“OK, well, it often isn’t, to be honest. And I won’t lie to you. I sell the Prius and I sell non-hybrids, and I’ll be happy to sell you either one.”
Good point, I thought. He doesn’t care. Or, maybe, he just tricked me into thinking he doesn’t care! No matter, though, because I’ve already out smarted this car dealer with my “call across town first” strategy.
As these thoughts were percolating in my head, he said, “So, it really depends on the numbers. So let’s make a comparison. What car would you be buying if you didn’t get the Prius?”
“Um… actually, it would definitely be a Subaru Forester. That’s the car we are replacing, and we love the Forester. No offense to Toyota, of course…”
“Well,” he interrupted. “Everybody loves the Forester. But, it does cost several thousand dollars more than the Prius. So, I’d say, you’d save money with the Prius.”
Huh.
We bought the Prius. From him.
And now the Prius is getting older. It is still like totally new, and it will be Car # 1 for a couple of more years, I’m sure. But as the driver of Car #2 (an aging Forester) I am looking forward to my wife getting a new car at some point so we can further reduce CO2 emissions, and I don’t have to have a car, for my rare jaunt, that is likely to need a towing.
And, when I look around me, and ask around, and predict the future a little, I realize that by the time we are in the market for a new car, there will be electric cars in the same price range of that Prius, if not cheaper. So, suddenly, buying an electric car is a possibility.
And, of course, the hippie-punching argument that we will have to deal with is this: Coal is worse than gasoline, and all your electricity for your hippie-car is made by burning coal, so you are actually destroying the environment, not saving it, you dirty dumb hippie!
There are several reasons that this argument is wrong. They are listed below, and do read them all, but the last one is the one I want you to pay attention to because it is the coolest, and I’ve got a link to where you can go to find the details that prove it.
1) Even if we live in a state that uses a lot of coal to make electricity, eventually that will change. Of course, my car might be old and in the junk yard by then, so maybe it is still better to wait to by the electric car. But in a state like Minnesota, we are quickly transitioning away from coal, and in fact, the big coal plant up Route 10 a ways, that makes the electricity for my car (if I had an electric car), is being shut down as we speak.
2) Even if the electric car is a break even, or a small net negative on carbon release, it is still good, all else being nearly equal, to support the energy transition by buying an electric car and supporting that segment of the industry.
3) It is more efficient, measured in terms of fossil CO2 release, to burn a little coal to transmit electricity to an electric car than it is to ship the gasoline to the car and burn the gasoline in the car. This sound opposite from reality, and many make the argument that making the burning happen in your car is more efficient than in a distant plant, but that is not ture. While this will depend on various factors, and burning gas may be better sometimes, it often is not because the basic technology of using electricity driven magnetic energy is so vastly more efficient than the technology of using countless small controlled explosions to mechanically drive the wheels. Electric motors are so much more efficient than exploding liquid motors that trains, which are super efficient, actually use their diesel fuel to generate electricity to run their electric motors, rather than to run the wheels of the train.
4) Reason 3 assumes an efficiency difference between internal combustion and magnetics that overwhelms all the other factors, but it is hard to believe this would work in a mostly coal-to-electricity setting. But there is empirical evidence, which probably reveals the logic of reason number 3, but that I list as reason number 4 because it is based on observation rather than assumption. If you measure the difference between an internal combustion engine and an electric engine in a coal-heavy state, you a) save money and b) release less CO2.
And to get that argument, the details, the proof, GO HERE to see How Green is My EV?, a tour de force of logic and math, and empirical measurement, by David Kirtley, in which David measures the cost and CO2 savings of his Nissan Leaf, in the coal-happy state of Missouri.
I’ll put this another way. The best way to be convinced that an electric car is a good idea in a state where most electricity is generated by burning coal is if someone shows you the evidence. Where better to examine this evidence than in the Shoe Me State of Missouri???
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Zebra, that was one of the three assumptions I made, that the trait in question(rude behavior) exhibits this differential.
BBD, Zebra said charging and peaking. Using wind and solar for charging grid storage is certainly possible. Peaking could work if highest demand is when solar is most needed. Is summer afternoon really a minimum? I would think that’s when the AC is used the most?
Your ability to read.
# 281
But only if you have already built it. According to some armchair experts here, it is not necessary.
The next assumption is that there will be, on average, more generation from renewables than demand and that there will be a net annual surplus. That is a hell of a big maybe.
I said in the UK and N Europe, not in the US. Please *read* what I say (including the example quote at #298).
MikeN,
“assumption”
Sure. But you could assume anything about anything. If you read the “edge” debate carefully there is a lot of information about issues with measurement. It’s not just in social/behavioral sciences, but biases in those areas are particularly tricky to discern. And bias in the measurement instrument can lead to a difference in the variance between groups, not just in the central value.
I have read some of this stuff with respect to education, but I claim no expertise– I’m good with instruments for the physics lab, not measuring how much of a jerk someone may be. So again, maybe someone like Dean could elaborate some more.
Of course, speaking of people being jerks, discussions with BBD….
The problem with BBD on this subject is that he can’t answer the simple question I posed: What’s the problem?
The problem for BBD and the current utility companies is that changing the paradigm means changing the paradigm, which disrupts a business model that relies on economic rents not productivity.
“Peak demand” is an artifact of the system, not a natural law. But the language that BBD clings to is designed to obscure that fact.
In your case of AC, for example, AC with thermal storage means the “peak” can be spread out and occur during the time when the sun is shining.
“I think BBD meant there is no fully-interconnected national grid in the US.”
That is the case (thought there are quite a lot of interconnected states, the difference may be the size precludes any useful 6000km links with AC so it’d wait for HVDC). But he specifically said “nothing like that in the UK” maybe he meant “nothing like what we have in the uk”.
We connect to Europe with HVDC.And we do that because of our nuclear power stations. Hinkley C requires a doubling of our link to France because our total Hinkley generation would be too much to replace when (not if, when) it goes unexpectedly down. And we just don’t have the backup generation, so we double the link to France. We also plan to link to Denmark for the Scandanavial renewable generation they have.
And the line will pay by allowing us to sell overproduction of nuke power to Europe at night. Which only works because there’s so little use of nuke power.
““Peak demand” is an artifact of the system, not a natural law. But the language that BBD clings to is designed to obscure that fact.”
As is baseload. It was invented to describe how much unresponsive non-dispatchable but cheap and efficient generation of coal power was needed to cover the mimimum. You need at least that nameplate capacity.
Following demand much better, renewables of solar and wind save 40% of nameplate build-out. So even if you were to demand as much as double production to cover catastrophes that occur, merely for different reasons, with coal, gas or nuke stations, but insist on it solely for renewables and deliberately ignore that this is the case for non-renewabes too, it’s still only 20% more in reality, if you simplistically just plonk nameplate for nameplate.
Something nuke fluffers like Mackay don’t mention (like their other erroneous assumptions) and those who want to believe nuke fluffers (like BBD here) don’t bother to find out.
“But only if you have already built it.”
But you have to build it for ANY new energy plant. Morons here refuse to acknowledge that WE ALREADY HAVE BACKUP..
And by morons, I mean you.
Apparetly you were incorrect, Rick. Dumbass here says “I said in the UK and N Europe, not in the US.”
” Peaking could work if highest demand is when solar is most needed.”
Night time pricing is below cost to make power “needed” at night.
Much demand is based from businesses, specifically industries, who can change their power use to make best use of spot prices, and thereby fit demand to supply.
It’s why the UK has or had Economy 7. To make home electric heating use oversupplied (because coal power generation and nukes both supply energy whether you want to dispatch it or not, being non-dispatchable) power and create an artificial demand at night.
Another think dumbass here doesn’t comprehend because it’s not part of the Hot Air narrative.
zebra
A vast, hyper-complex real time computational transaction system which balances the national US grid from second to second. What could possibly go wrong? Especially in the age of Russian and Chinese cyber-warfare?
Fortunately for your children, I very much doubt that any US government (even this one) would ever permit such a massive, fundamental threat to national security.
All your sententious (but tellingly vague) twaddle about ‘paradigms’ is just cover for the standard peddling of free market snake oil.
Tut, tut. I was talking explicitly about peak demand in the UK and N Europe being winter early evening. Your fundamental dishonesty is showing.
– industrial activity has not stopped but a sizeable percentage of the population has gone home
– it is cold and dark and lighting and heating are maxed both in domestic, street and industrial contexts
– it is time to prepare the evening meal so big spike from electric ovens, microwaves, kettles etc
– TVs, tablets and gadgets are all switched on
That is peak demand in the UK and N Europe. It happens in early evening during winter. Go check. All you will find is references confirming exactly what I said. Bollocking on *irrelevantly* about AC just confirms that you are as stuffed as Wow on this point.
This was and still is a lie. See unequivocal demonstrations above.
W & S do not in any real sense ‘follow demand’. They are not dispatchable. Plant operators do not control the wind, the clouds, the diurnal cycle or the seasons.
Why all the endless lies? Clearly there is a fundamental issue here.
Just crazy shit. W & S are highly variable. So actual output is a fraction of nameplate capacity. This is called capacity factor. It is a measure of how unreliable renewables output actually is.
To watch wow try and turn this into a totally false claim about demand following is, frankly, jaw-dropping.
Zebra – why don’t you tell wow to stop the blatant crap? Please explain your weird silence in the face of all the garbage and lies on this thread.
“A vast, hyper-complex real time computational transaction system ”
Ah, now, when deniers want to complain about hysterical doommongering, they can point to you, BBD. Well done.
“which balances the national US grid from second to second”
It’s already done, BBD. Hell, Europe does it. Ask any business owner in the industrial sphere.
“I was talking explicitly about peak demand in the UK and N Europe being winter early evening.”
Being a lower peak than summer?!?!?!??!? AC is a bigger thing than you can possibly conceive.
And moreover this could only be the case if you’re mangling electrical demand and heating demand, which IN THE UK means gas burning heaters.
And, yet again, it’s windier by quite a lot in the UK in winter.
Oh bugger.
For you.
“– TVs, tablets and gadgets are all switched on”
LOL! How fucking clueless! Yeah, right. The big time power users are people watching Eastenders…. FFS. You moron.
“” Following demand much better, renewables of solar and wind ”
This was and still is a lie. See unequivocal demonstrations above. ”
No, it’s what you want to BE a lie but refuses to be.
“W & S do not in any real sense ‘follow demand’. ”
Yes they do.
“They are not dispatchable.”
Neither is coal or nukes or all but specifically designed stations.
“To watch wow try and turn this into a totally false claim about demand following is, frankly, jaw-dropping. ”
Only because you will not admit reality.
Again, 100% like dick.
And, again, 100% like dick, you’re an incredibly false lying little shitstain who cannot and will not accept anything against your preconceived politically and monetarily derived demands.
“Zebra – why don’t you tell wow to stop the blatant crap?”
Because it’s not crap its a truth you WILL NOT accept.
Just like dick WILL NOT accept that his ECS of 1.6 is wrong.
He, like you, points to papers that he can twist to support him being right and ignores and calls “crap” and “lies” and “unsupported” anything and anyone who tries to tell him different.
“Why all the endless lies? Clearly there is a fundamental issue here.”
Yes, I assume that your continuous and immobile bullshit claims are because you’re a nuke fluffer.
“So actual output is a fraction of nameplate capacity.”
And for nukes it’s 60%.
For solar it’s about 40%.
Oh, and for wind, it can be over 100%. Power goes as wind speed cubed.
BBD,
The US grid is at this moment frighteningly vulnerable to cyberattack. So please, stop being absurd. Distributed generation and the upgrades that my approach would entail would make it more, not less, robust.
I have no idea what your description of the specific “peak demand” conditions of the UK has to do with what I said.
In the past, I have pointed out, in contrast to your ideas about the US having a “national grid”, that each geographical area will find its own solutions to particular needs.
So, if your need is heating, use thermal storage heaters– I’m pretty sure they are off-the-shelf in the UK. Or heat pumps. Or use gas for heating and cooking…it’s more efficient than burning gas to generate electricity. If you need streetlights, convert to LED, which will give a significant savings in energy consumption. And for heaven’s sake…tablets come battery included!. What, the great humanitarian disaster would be if people had to remember to keep them charged?
You are confusing (as is intended by the terminology) demand for some function with demand for electricity.
And speaking of dishonesty: Nothing I have suggested precludes using nuclear if that’s what your particular geographic area decides. Or coal, if you are willing to absorb the cost of externalities.
So, again, what’s the problem?
BBD,
I have critiqued wow on style (ranting) and clarity of language (some of which is the result of the ranting style, I suspect), because I can’t understand the points some times.
But I am not interested, as I have said, in arguing definitions and he said she said gotchas.
And most of the time when wow is being clear, I don’t see anything I need to contradict, as far as my main theme goes.
” and clarity of language”
Some of that is because I think much faster than I type and I can be several sentences beyond where the characters appearing are, so there can be runon sentences, changes of tense, and other time-based errors in grammar.
If it appears that it would be read by the person it is written to, since this effect usually comes when talking to someone, not expressing to a general audience, if that person has clearly demonstrated that they prefer not to comprehend anyway, I can’t be arsed going back over my post to clear it up.
Though on occasion I’ve used the wrong word or initialism and had to correct that, since it would necessarily cause confusion about the subject, which is accepted as existing (in most cases, but not all), rather than the argument, which will not be by the one in denial.
The dumbass thinks that solar doesn’t follow demand (or wind), yet how can Germany be a net importer of power yet a net gain in the monetary balance of trade on power if it were not for the FACT that solar produces most when market spot prices are highest? And why would the market price be highest when demand is only middling, and not when demand is highest?
Other problems with nukes include: have a jellyfish invasion bloom = No electricity. Have a heatwave (meaning lack of cooling water at times of highest demand) = no electricity. Have a drought (meaning water levels too low to provide cooling, as is arranged and elided by the capacity factors the US claim for their power stations) = no electricity.
Solar power may be very slightly reduced if you don’t have enough water to wash them clean occasionally, but they don’t stop working without water….
zebra
Rubbish. Hundreds of millions of more notes (smart meters) multiplies the vulnerability by magnitudes.
The risks of making every aspect of the grid a part of the internet of things are off the scale.
What about the blatant lies? Speak up, or be complicit by silence.
RTFRs at #284 and stop peddling free market snake oil in terms so vague and opaque as to make criticism difficult. Although I have little doubt at this point that this is a feature not a bug.
zebra
All guff:
Pure fantasy island.
* * *
See wow at #316 and #317.
Utter garbage. I’m busy as you can probably tell. Please sort the mess
BBD #324:
Happy to help out.
Wow says nuclear capacity factor is 60%.
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
It is much higher than that.
For the largest USA nuclear facility it was 90.4%.
Nuclear capacity factor is much higher than 60% in the USA and it is much higher than 60% worldwide.
Wow is wrong about his definition of dispatchable also.
Wow also doesn’t understand TCR or what linear extrapolation is.
Wow is wrong to name call.
Wow is wrong about a lot of stuff.
But thats ok.
People can be wrong and often are.
BBD is wrong to start using the lie word again.
I am sure Wow believes he is correct – although he is woefully wrong.
That makes him wrong – but not a liar.
Since I have no idea if Wow is being knowingly deceptive, I cannot say he is a liar – so I will just stick with this.
Wow is wrong.
“. Hundreds of millions of more notes (home PCs) ”
With that change, do you realise how dumb tour claim is? When posting on the internet?
“Wow says nuclear capacity factor is 60%.”
Right. It is.
“For the largest USA nuclear facility it was 90.4%.”
By deducting the outage in summer because it was planned. It’s out in summer because it cannot be kept cool enough.
Not like I’ve failed to point this out before or anything….
“All guff:”
Aye, every single complaint you’ve made against renewables is complete and utter guff.
“What about the blatant lies?”
Where? Just because you’re an idiot who insists that something MUST be a lie because you read something different somewhere and interpreted it yourself, 100% like dick does with the IPCC AR5 report, you are whining about something only YOU think is a lie.
Have raised this with you before, but truly critical to discuss ‘fully burdened’ benefit streams. The fuel trade-offs (savings) are only a portion, and frequently the lesser portion, of payoffs.
Here, for example, are four EV value streams (http://getenergysmartnow.com/2012/03/26/naming-electric-vehicle-value-streams/):
* The Woolsey Effect: Contributing to national security by reducing reliance on oil from places like the Middle East.
* Gas Station Anxiety Relief: reducing number of times having to go to the gas station & (with hybrid extended range) reducing the tension of ‘my fuel is down’ need to get to the gas station ASAP. (Example over weekend, my teen-age daughter left my Ford C-Max Energi with close to zero gas. Well, was able to plug in & run off to a meeting w/mileage to spare … w/out that electricity range, would have had to run to gas station and enter meeting with (likely) hands smelling of gasoline).
* The Sound of Silence: For >90% of drivers/passengers, I suspect, the silence is a real benefit.
* Breath of Fresh Air: In driveway, in parking lot, etc, nice nice to have face-level fumes.
Lots of additional value streams — for example, reduced maintenance (especially on EVs, but also on HEVs (reduced brake liner replacement, for example); ego/status symbol (the vehicle ‘as statement’ isn’t only Corvettes & Hummers); etc …
“Wow also doesn’t understand TCR or what linear extrapolation is.”
I know. You don’t.
Your complaint is exactly the same as Dick’s complaint against you for not accepting we don’t know ECS is about or below 1.6C.
And despite this being pointed out to you, you do not and will not, and CAN NOT make the connection.
For precisely the same reason why dick thinks he’s right and he could still be correct to claim ECS is 1.6C or lower. And just like his insistence it only means due to CO2 doubling, and NOT due to “whatever caused the MWP”.
Another reason why you’re a bloody retard, BBD.
There are also relief for power production (and cost to the consumer, though this necessarily means reduced profits for the companies doing the selling):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSdnycHfLnQ&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=91
Btw, having an EV in a coal-dominated market provides another useful payoff: creating higher value from off-peak power. See discussion here: http://getenergysmartnow.com/2013/10/28/dispelling-electric-vehicle-myths-1-about-that-co2-footprint/
Wow #327 says “By deducting the outage in summer because it was planned.”
Nope – wrong again.
They did not deduct anything.
If you read the link you will see they divided by 365 days and 24 hours per day, as well as by the nameplate capacity.
If they had deducted the outage in the summer, the denominator wouldn’t be 24 hours per day for 365 days per year.
Nope – the plant output was 90.4% of the power it could provide for the entire year of 2010 if you compare the total output to the nameplate capacity for each hour of the entire year.
You are wrong Wow.
You are wrong Wow.
Call some more names – it is so persuasive.
Wow #331:
You are quoting me – not BBD.
You are wrong about even your quote attribution.
Wow – you are wrong.
“They did not deduct anything.”
No, they do. They don’t count arranged outages or planned ones in their availability figures.
UK gets, as does just about every other nuclear powered country, 60%. Some of the smaller countries with less experience gets less (e.g. pakistan gets, IIRC, a smidge over 40%), but the USA gets 90% by disclaiming, unlike all the others, outages that were planned for, or unplanned outages that arise either within the nominal outage period (therefore they can for short periods get MORE THAN 100%), or unplanned extensions of outages, because they account things differently.
Like I said, this may be because they do that or did that with earlier coal powered stations.
If you expect to be offline one third of the time or running half or less capacity for three months, then you can just figure in your expectations into your “nameplate” and then find yourself as close to 100% as your calculation of how much non generation you will achieve will allow.
And also note that even the USA get 40% or thereabouts on new designs. Each plant is a unique one-off, part of the reason for the massive cost. And they have no figures to work with on how to drop the claim of power production to account for “known outages”.
To an extent, especially on a count of “how well are you doing compared to your competitors”, this calculation makes sense. But only if you compare like with like. And that isn’t what you do when you proclaim 90% compared to Solar 40%.
Or when you compare UK nukes at 60% with the USA’s claims of 90.
For the same reason you can’t compare “murder rates” or assaults reliably without accounting for the different terms for those crimes in different countries.
Yet still it’s done. And like with nukes, for political and partisan reasons.
Wow #336:
You never cease to amaze me.
You said “They don’t count arranged outages or planned ones in their availability figures.”
I think you are totally incorrect.
However, I am willing to be corrected.
Cite please.
I know you are lying about this because (a) it’s impossible and (b) you have blanked three separate requests to provide a link backing it up.
Repeated several times, despite clear evidence shown that it is a false claim.
You’ve been shown umpteen times that wind and solar are not and cannot be load following and the claim that capacity factor represents an efficiency is a total inversion of the truth (a lie).
All wrong.
“I think you are totally incorrect.”
I know that is your opinion.
“However, I am willing to be corrected.”
Evidence to date has indicated otherwise. Go read up the DUKES report. I keep calling it DAWES for some reason, though.
BBD,
Last chance.
I gave you a list of some strategies that people use to reduce electricity usage or shift the time of purchase.
This has nothing to do with you continuing to dodge my question.
I am simply proposing that consumers be allowed to achieve their goal– whether it be maintaining the temperature of their house, or being entertained by electronics, or whatever, by whatever means they choose.
That means that I, as a consumer, can buy electricity from wow’s windfarm, and use some of the methods I suggested if I feel it is necessary, to maintain my comfort.
As I said, this does not preclude you from buying electricity from a nuclear plant, perhaps because you value the security and convenience that gives, and don’t want to be bothered with changing household technology.
The only change from the present would be as I described– the grid operates under rules that allow all buyers and sellers of electricity to have equal access.
Last chance: What’s the problem?
People with your inclinations will buy from the nuclear plant, people like me will buy from wind and solar.
What’s the problem?
” And for nukes it’s 60%.
For solar it’s about 40%.
Oh, and for wind, it can be over 100%. Power goes as wind speed cubed.”
All wrong.”
Where?
“from wow’s windfarm,”
Solar.
I suggested it be lined with some turbines to the north, but planning permission makes it a new proposal. Adding more panels is currently considered a better proposal.
For example, BBD, see:
http://ele.aut.ac.ir/~wind/en/tour/wres/enrspeed.htm
Wow #340:
I need a cite.
I googled and came up empty.
Give me a cite to this dukes report.
Or quote from it.
I think you are wrong.
And this stops winter demand peaking in UK and N Europe (my original correction to Wow’s rubbish, please remember) how exactly?
You didn’t say. Probably because (as I pointed out in my admittedly rushed response) none of what you suggest actually does anything except smear an evening peak into a seasonal one. It’s still a peak in demand and it lasts for several months, during which solar is pretty much out of the game.
Facts trump rhetoric, as usual.
You never, ever responded to my correct and substantiated point that before we enter the sunlight uplands of a free market energy utopia, we have to evolve the grid. A project that will cost ~$2tn and take decades – and require federal intervention in the US. Something you keep, well, dodging. Perhaps when you concede that point, we can move on.
What’s the problem?
One has but to google ‘capacity factor’ and look, Wow.
Here’s some entirely representative figures from a solar power company:
SPV = 10-25%
Wind = 25%
Hydro = 40%
Coal = 70%
Nuclear = 89%
CCGT = 38%
As you can see, everything you said was wrong. Just as I keep telling you.
“I need a cite.”
Sure you do. And if it doesn’t fit what you want, like every other cite that did that and disagreed with you, you went and denied it or just wen “That’s your opinion”.
Kinda sucks to be you, really.
“One has but to google ‘capacity factor’ and look, Wow. ”
And one only has to look at actual reports and see you are talking, once again, out of your crap hole.
And, like every fact that you do not want to know, and yet again, 100% lke dick there, you completely ignored the post:
For a dumbass who says “you merely have to read” you don’t bother fucking well reading, do you. Because you’re as much a denier as mick or dick.
BBD,
Bye.
And that 10% is capture efficiency.
I.e. turning 1200W/m^2 to electricity.
And that 90% is again deducting “expected loss” so that’s still an unexpected and uncontrolled loss of 10% when you cherry pick the current top gun.
For which the owner is going to be rather certain to push forward, even if they had to do a “dieselgate” to provide it.
Wow #331 said “And just like his insistence it only means due to CO2 doubling, and NOT due to “whatever caused the MWP”.”
According to the Ljungquist 2000 year temperature reconstruction, the temperature rose about .7C over a 400 year period, from about 550 ad to 950 ad.
Then the temperature fell about .8C over a 700 year period, from about 1000 ad to 1700 ad.
According to the consensus, this was all totally natural – not caused by human CO2 emissions, as the emissions were fairly constant at 280 before 1750.
The magnitude of the .7C rise and the .8C fall, is fairly close to the current temperature rise from 1700 ish to today of about 1.0C, about .2C of which is the 2015-2016 el nino.
I find that all very interesting for those who say that natural variability should cancel out over fairly short periods.
How do we know we are not in a period like 550 ad to 950 ad?
That could explain 7/8 of the 0.8C modern rise (excluding the el nino).
Of course, I understand the current rise happened a little faster.
And I do believe that human emitted CO2 is part of what caused the modern warming over the last 250 years.
But what if 1/2 of the modern warming is natural?
What does that do to calculations for TCR and ECS?
I think science will address this issue in due course and I am happy to wait and see what the answers turn out to be.
zebra
Point of order: I need to put a stop to this creeping misrepresentation. I do not advocate for nuclear vs renewables (that’s another of Wow’s incessantly repeated lies). What I am *trying* to get over here is that for high penetrations of renewables you are going to need a new grid. And no, I don’t think we can leave that to the free market. This was – and remains – our original and unresolved argument.
The change from the present necessary to integrate enough renewables to represent a meaningful energy transition will require an major evolution of the grid. So no, not ‘the only change’ at all. This is where we diverge, massively.
We crossed.
Better luck next time.
Wow
You’ve confused an idealised model with an actual turbine (or array) which rarely operates at close to peak efficiency because of variability and lulls in wind speed. It is the latter which mean that wind farms only ever produce a percentage of their nameplate capacity when output is averaged annually. IIRC offshore wind is about 40%, which is still 60% shy of your claim (and that’s ignoring the ‘it can be over 100%’ which is just nuts; capacity factor can *never* reach 100% let alone exceed it).
Once again, I marvel at how cocksure you can be given the chasms in your knowledge.
“According to the Ljungquist 2000 ”
That is your opinion. But you cherry pick to support it. And elide any information otherwise. Just like BBD.
Speaking of which,
“Point of order:”
Nah, you lose it when you do not listen and do not argue with honesty or intelligence but barricade yourself against anything that does not support your preconceived requirements of reality.
You know, what deniers do.
You therefore lose the ability to request a point of order.
SPV = 10-25%
Wind = 25%*
Hydro = 40%
Coal = 70%
Nuclear = 89%
CCGT = 38%
*IIRC offshore wind is about 40%
Not at all. Zebra was confused – possibly by your endless lying – and need to be set straight about where I was coming from.
Wow
You do realise that zebra is a free marketeer, don’t you?
“You’ve confused an idealised model ”
Wrong. Energy of a moving body is mv^2. If the air is moving, it has that energy. And per unit time, the amount of air that passes varies with v.
Therefore the energy extracted will be varyable to the third power of the wind velocity.
Whether it captures 1% of the energy from the wind that passes the blades or 10% or even 100% does not change the velocity dependency being the cube law, any more than the square-cube law is wrong because mass and area are “idealised models”.
You claim “all wrong” and one example shows you were incorrect at least in one of those multiple claims, therefore “all” at the very least was wrong.
But, like any good denier, you do not care and refuse to accept any error.
Which is why zebra said “Bye bye”, and why you don’t get to claim “point of order”.
When you are entirely dishonest in reality you do not get a pass on being treated as valid in any of your asinine claims, since you have shown either that you are incapable or unwilling to be convinced of an error even when it’s plain as day.
You got REALLY shirty about dick doing it.
But you engage in it yourself without a glimmer of self-reflection and shame.
RickA
I already told you at #209. Why am I having to repeat myself?
You cannot have high natural variability and low climate sensitivity at the same time. High natural variability happens because the feedbacks to radiative perturbation of the system net positive and are fairly strong.
So they will amplify small changes in natural forcings, producing a significant degree of natural variability.
Those same feedbacks would *also* amplify radiative forcing from CO2. So it is physically impossible to have a climate system that is both relatively insensitive to CO2 forcing yet exhibits significant natural variability.
Read that as many times as are necessary for you to understand it.
If natural variability accounted for a significant amount of the total modern warming, then the sensitivity to CO2 forcing is probably higher than currently estimated (>3C).
Meditate on this.
“You do realise that zebra is a free marketeer, don’t you?”
Talk about ad hominem…
Moreover this seems to be an unwarranted extension.
And even (and this gets to why ad hom) it were the case, WHY DOES THAT INVALIDATE HIS CLAIMS OR QUESTIONS????
It does not.
Dick is wrong not because he’s a denier but because EVIDENCE is against him or his CLAIMS are unsupported or so badly supported that the “support” is to all intents and purposes wrong.
He’s wrong for his arguments and claims, NOT because he’s got money invested.
His investments may be WHY he keeps bleating on about how we shouldn’t do anything, but that is not why his claims in support of that position are wrong.
You’ve spent so much time arguing AGW deniers, you’ve become a denier yourself. Their tactics (such as they are) have become so much a part of what you experience they are now “normal” and you ape them without even noticing, since every argument you see is framed against that as the norm.
When dick is right, he’s right.
And you don’t decide to believe nukes are shit because dick is a denier, do you.
But you DO want me to disbelieve zebra just because his political ideology is “free market”?
Wow
Go tell the wind industry that it can’t calculate its own capacity factor correctly.
You have no idea how ridiculous you can be at times (or you wouldn’t do it).
“But what if 1/2 of the modern warming is natural?”
But what if ECS were 3.4, dick? You’d be wrong.
Will you therefore insist that you must be wrong because the answer to that question to you were “Well, in that case, it’s not 1.6 and I’m wrong”, would it.
Because you’d insist that the rhetorical question is leading and therefore unsupported.
Yet you claim, without support, that 50% of the warming is natural, in a JAQing off on the internet.
Accept mine instead, or admit that this “technique” is a load of bollocks and should rightly be ignored. AND THEN STOP TRYING IT.
Wow, wind speed variability determines capacity factor. You are hopelessly muddled again.
Please stop.
“Go tell the wind industry”
I don’t have to.
Once more you are mistaking a correction of your asinine stupidity for a criticism of those whose job it is to work there.
THEY KNOW that siting can cause MORE THAN 100% of nameplate. And they know too why: because the average of a mean to a higher power is higher than the average to a higher power of the mean.
Fuck, anyone who’s done A level maths should know it.
m-bar squared != m-squared-bar.
Go ask a teacher or google up maths on averages to find out for yourself.
Or tell every mathematician that they’ve got it wrong.
You *agree* with zebra that we can just sit back and let the frigging market fix it for us???
Seriously?
We should be told.
Utter bullshit!
100% nameplate capacity is the plant operating at 100% of its capacity 100% of the time. That is a physical impossibility. You are being completely silly now.
Please stop.
Typical industry figures:
SPV = 10-25%
Wind = 25%
Offshore wind = 40%
Hydro = 40%
Coal = 70%
Nuclear = 89%
CCGT = 38%
We can’t use methods that release fossil carbon into the air to move things, heat things, see things. At every single level.
People easily forget in this kind of conversation that it does not matter where the electricity comes from or how it is made, when deciding to change over to an electric vehicle. You change to the electric vehicle. Meanwhile, you change the way you make the electricity to use sun, wind, etc.
We don’t wait for one system to some how perfect itself for another system to start being developed. That is known as circular illogic. Using that logic to slow down the energy transition is a circle jerk.
As it were.
http://getenergysmartnow.com/2013/10/28/dispelling-electric-vehicle-myths-1-about-that-co2-footprint/
Well once again we have reached an impasse.
I don’t think high natural variability and low climate sensitivity are ruled out by the evidence (yet).
I will not rule out 1/2 natural and 1/2 human until the evidence rules it out – which has not happened yet.
So we wait and see.
I guess we will all just have to agree to disagree.
See you guys on a different future thread.
Bye.
“Wow, wind speed variability determines capacity factor.”
But you have to assume the speed of the wind to arrive at that, idiot. And site it at a better place than “average” and you get much more power.
With coal, it burns based on the coal’s calotrific value, less losses in the system. Therefore capacity is always less than 100%. Entropy.
Wind has NO calorific value, since it is not burned. Therefore if the place is windier than average, a 1.5MW rated turbine may return on average a power rating of 2MW.
Much like a 200W solar panel is rated at 200W in the UK, but if you placed it facing North, it won’t get that. And if you place it on a turntable, it will get more. In the case of a solar panel, though, that is the capacity claim, not the actual theoretical power, which would be the (1400/4) that is the total insoation, since not all photons will produce an electron.
And, indeed, one reason why solar heating is more effective than solar PV electric heating. And, happily, is still VERY effective in winter, even in the UK.
One thing we don’t do well with, though, is jellyfish swarms. They tend to plug up the water intakes for our nuclear power plants and, as the planet warms and may predator species die off, those jellyfish bloom more and more often in summer in the UK and remove nukes from producing until the inlet is cleared.
Face it, by your standards, nukes just cannot do a damn thing, they’re a massive white elephant and only retards and morons would push them as the right solution to ANYTHING.
Greg
“I don’t think high natural variability and low climate sensitivity are ruled out by the evidence”
Your think is not supported by reality, however.
Someone thinks you should be beheaded as an infidel. Should we wait to find out who is right?
Wind = 25%
Offshore wind = 40%
That’s as good as it gets.
This has become a painful waste of time and will remain so until you go.
Remember, if there’s a heaven, and there’s people who think there is, then if you deserve to die, you will be meted out the correct punishment, and you should have been beheaded. And if you did NOT deserve to be killed, you will go to heaven and your killer will be the one punished. Again, the right result will happen after we let the event take place.
So should we just let you be beheaded, because either you did deserve it or you didn’t and heaven’s pleasures await for you?
After all, they’re of the opinion you are satan’s helper, and you, I assume, though I could easily be wrong here, do not think you are working for satan. So we should do nothing to stop them trying. After all, it’s just an opinion, and we should not do anything about it now. Nothing has been proven about your deserved fate.
“Wind = 25%”
And that means it doesn’t vary with wind speed cubed????
You’re a fucking lunatic, dumdumb.
Whats 25% of 1? Now what’s 25% of 8? Now what’s 25% of 27? Now what progression were those results? Did they go up LESS THAN by the cube power ratio?
Or are you a complete dumbass, just as ignorant and willingly so as dick or “mike”?
“That’s as good as it gets. ”
Ah, so you claim that the experts don’t know how to calculate the output of a system. Best go tell them they should be claiming 20% of the profits.
Fucking moron.
Zebra, of course the assumption could be weak. I didn’t bring up IQ. It was a joke about Wow, then Dean accused me of bad stats and I clarified the assumptions needed. He never responded to my question about where the bad stats is, perhaps because it got lost in the thread explosion.
BBD, I get the impression you and zebra are almost entirely in agreement. What is the disagreement as you see it, and what do you think is zebra’s view of it?
“I didn’t bring up IQ. It was a joke about Wow, then Dean accused me of bad stats and I clarified the assumptions needed. He never responded to my question about where the bad stats is, perhaps because it got lost in the thread explosion.”
The bad work is thinking that IQ scores measure something remotely related to intelligence. The don’t.
All you can do when you compare performance on IQ tests across groups is to say that there is a slight tendency for one group to perform differently than another. That may be indicated by the scores (although you need to remember that IQ scores are not raw data, they have been massaged to fit the mythical “normal distribution”) — you can’t (or shouldn’t, as the only person putting breakers on is yourself) draw conclusions past that.
So the statistical conclusion given the assumptions is valid? You said it was bad stats before I said anything about IQ, though perhaps ‘retarded’ is defined by IQ.
>bad work is thinking that IQ scores measure something remotely related to intelligence.
If I have a group of people with IQ 50 and a group with IQ 150, do you expect them to perform equally well on intelligence tests?
MikeN,
I thought about your question some more and I think you need to be more explicit with your comments. (Some people write too much, some too little.)
If you have a group of people who score low on IQ tests, it is very likely that they will score low on IQ tests. This is kind of a “duh”.
The question which I think you started with is whether you can infer something about an individual based on statistical information.
I suggested that you carefully read the reference you gave…the “edge” debate. They, who are real professionals, start out being very clear about distributions and what they tell us. So, they tell us that there are more males who score in the high end with respect to “three dimensional spatial rotations” for example, but there are females who score equally high. But unfortunately, if I remember it correctly, at least one of them ended up using the more colloquial “males are better at TDSR”. For people not in the field, it is easy to misinterpret this.
The question is, if you are hiring someone for a job requiring TDSR, and otherwise equal male and female candidates are sitting on the other side of your desk, should you hire the male candidate, based on that language? The answer is no.
This is why we have people like Dean, so you should listen to his explanations on this point… as I said, this is not my expertise; I know enough, but not enough to explain it with the precisely correct language.
Did you read this?
“All you can do when you compare performance on IQ tests across groups is to say that there is a slight tendency for one group to perform differently than another. ”
Probability distributions describe populations – in your question, populations of scores on tests. If group A has mean 50 and group B has mean 150, then either
* the tests are measured on such widely diverse scales that it makes no sense at all to compare the raw score: there is simply no way to say a person who scores 155 on one is in any way “better” than a person who scored 52 on the other: in this case you’d need information on spread, and at the simplest would have to compare their relative positions.
or
* there is some massive error in measurement in one group, or the other, or both, and nothing at all can be said
(I know you tossed that out as a hypothetical question and nothing more: I’m just pointing out how to think about it).
As zebra points out, and I reference tangentially with my “population” comment: you cannot make any statement about an individual’s potential (or lack of potential) based solely on their sex and score on an IQ test.
“If I have a group of people with IQ 50 and a group with IQ 150, do you expect them to perform equally well on intelligence tests?”
Touched on above in a slightly different approach. However, this could also be considered an ill-posed question. There are at least two ways to interpret this:
A: every person in 1 group has had his/her IQ measured, on some test, at 50, and every person in the other group has been measured at 150. Again, given the huge difference, either the two tests were designed to different scales or there is something else going on. Without more information, there is no way to tell how they would perform on a common test
B: Every person in one group comes from a population with mean 50, every person in the other comes from a population with mean 150. Here we still have the issue of not enough information – the same issues as above. There is no way to tell how members of the groups would do – even if you interpret “tell” in the sense of a probability – without much more information.
But even if we have that information: the mere fact that person X scores a few points lower on an IQ test than person Y does on that same test — we have 0 information about what that might mean for their capabilities.
Zebra, I agree my statements are unclear. It is deliberate. The point I was making was not about a specific character trait, but the conclusion that different variances will overwhelm the high and low ends, even with different means. For which character trait it applies is irrelevant.
>If you have a group of people who score low on IQ tests, it is very likely that they will score low on IQ tests. This is kind of a “duh”.
Of course. Dean said IQ scores don’t measure anything remotely related to intelligence. I don’t agree with this, but I could be wrong.
Assuming we have a good definition of ‘intelligence’ and a test that can measure this, then it seems like we should expect Dean to answer yes to the question of whether a group of IQ 50 or IQ 150 would do equally well on this. Even if a good test does not exist, just a hypothetical test that does a good job of measuring intelligence, he should expect the two groups to do equally well. I do not, but I could be wrong about this. I suspect instead he means a weaker statement than ‘thinking IQ scores measure something remotely related to intelligence. They don’t. ‘
Dean, I’m confused about why you think a group scoring 50 vs 150 is a problem. Suppose it is a single test taken by 1000000 people, with people scoring 48-52 and 148-152 each being a group of 300 people.
You’ve supplied a little more context, although I doubt its reality. The limits you’re discussing now are most likely about 3 standard deviations above and below the mean (100 to 148, 100 to 52) as its safe to assume scores are scaled to have a sigma of around 16.
But now you aren’t trying to predict future performance: if these two groups of 300 each have already scored as you described, asking about the chance one group will score higher than the other is not relevant. Will one group outperform the other? Almost certainly. By the same difference? Maybe, maybe not. What we can say if that you have two groups like that, who are separated in performance by essentially a six sigma difference, repeated measurements will consistently show differences. What is that a reflection of? Difficult to say: simple intellectual variability or a serious issue with one group.
Do IQ tests measure something that translates directly to what people consider “intelligence”? No.
MikeN
See #346 (final para) and #353. (Also @ wow # 367). There was a previous thread but I can’t find it at the moment.
MikeN,
If you are being deliberately evasive and equivocal, then it is a waste of time to answer you.
If the rest of the paragraph is serious, then no, there’s no such thing as the variance “overwhelming” the high and low ends, if you have a “normal” normal distribution. You could have a bi-modal distribution, for example, but that is not what you seem to be talking about.
This is why you have to be clear in stating the question.
With respect to IQ and other such tests: They only measure performance on the test, as Dean says. This is a much-discussed topic. Again, I suggest you carefully read that reference you gave. If you haven’t done even that, you can’t really make a useful argument.
“But now you aren’t trying to predict future performance”
Even dafter they’re begging the question. “If one person scores 50 and the other 300…?”. But that’s a “24” like godview. You know because you’ve set it up that way what the reality is, but it IS NOT reality, it’s the hypothesis you set up specifically.
Moreover the entire thread of his “defence” is merely a sidestep of the arrant stupidity and bigotry of his claims he was making “supported by stats”.
It’s kinda irrelevant that he doesn’t get the stats or IQ, it;s the claims he’s made and then decided to “support” by stats and IQ, even if he’s made up the connection or segued off into.
BBD, I can prove to you your claims of 90% efficiencies for nukes is flat out wrong.
They use the nuclear reaction to generate heat to generate steam, correct? And then that steam turns turbines that then generate electricity from the steam pressure, right?
But that steam to electricity conversion is limited by the efficiency of the carnot cycle.
What temperature must the steam be at to get 90%?
Do you know how much energy is emitted by a fuel rod, how long it lasts and therefore how much total calorific energy is in the fuel for a nuke station? Is that the same as it’s “nameplate” for which you calculate that “capacity factor” to be 90%? If you do not know how much energy is released per ton of nuclear fuel and how long a ton of it lasts to get at the total energy possible to compare to the output rating, you better go find out.
>If you are being deliberately evasive and equivocal, then it is a waste of time to answer you.
To a certain extent yes. I wasn’t arguing about intelligence, though that is the implication. I was joking about Wow’s, “How do you know I’m male?” “Because you are way below average, and statistics show women are more likely to be average.” It’s a basic conclusion that if you have two bell curves and one has higher variance, then it will dominate the high and low ends.
If I wanted to argue about intelligence, then I would go into the details. I’m happy with your replies since I discovered the edge videos that I will explore later.
Wow, you don’t understand what ‘capacity factor’ is.
And after yesterday’s utter farce with you confusing figures I quoted for capacity factor with windspeed (reading comprehension, again), I’m no longer prepared to discuss this with you.
Dean, are you saying that the IQ test itself does not measure IQ very well, and retests will show substantially different numbers? I’m confused why you think the premise is flawed, of having a group scoring 50 and 150(which I though was 4 sigma away from mean, but in either case would be equal for both). If the range is too high, we can use 70 and 130, or 60 and 140.
>I’m no longer prepared to discuss this with you.
Now you realize it?
“Wow, you don’t understand what ‘capacity factor’ is. ”
No dumdumb, you don’t.
And the FACT you haven’t even attempted to say that you do know how much energy potential there is in solar or how nuclear can run the exact same design of steam turbine half as efficiently again as coal, gas or oil can, is yet more indication that you are in deep deep DEEP denial of your lack of comprehension.
“I’m no longer prepared to discuss this with you.”
IOW you cannot answer because you don’t want to know if you’re wrong.
Which is why you remain completely clueless yet so very DK certain you alone have it right.
What wind velocity is a 1.5MW wind turbine rated at to produce 1.5MW?
Question about nameplate capacity that Wow brings up. Isn’t the capacity specific to that plant, declared at construction time? So it is possible to achieve higher than that, at least some of the time, right? Wow is theorizing higher wind conditions than predicted, causing production to exceed so much that you can go over 100%. Why is this impossible? Ignore the siting he describes, since nameplate capacity should account for that, but that for some reason after construction, the windiness increases. Maybe some upwind construction produces a wind tunnel like Yankee Stadium.
The desing of nukes also do not include losses either, yet for solar and wind, “capacity” as dumdumb’s sources want it, do not exclude losses for solar from accounting.
How often is a solar power plant not producing?
And that is the figure nuke power stations claim. How often are they not producing? And reducing from that expected outages means you can’t include night time for solar.
The figures are not comparing the same assumptions.
MikeN
One has to try.
At the simples level, it works like this:
Capacity factor (CF) is limited by the maximum output that a turbine is capable of while operating within manufacturer’s specifications and warranty (aka nameplate capacity). This is a hard limit, and this is why CF cannot exceed 100%.
It doesn’t matter how many turbines you have in an array, this always holds true.
Capacity factor is the average power generated over any given operational period, divided by the nameplate capacity of the turbine (or array).
It isn’t but IRL you go from say 25% CF to 27% CF for a given year. But as I hope you can see, it is never, ever going to be possible to get even close to 100% and it would be technically impossible to exceed 100% CF.
The example I kept quoting to Wow was onshore wind vs *offshore* wind (a more optimal siting):
25% vs 40% for offshore.
Shite. Should be:
And what wind speed is a wind turbine rated at 1.5MW rated 1.5MW at?
Still waiting….
What is the availability factor for nuclear? How about Wind? What about SolarPV?
What is the load utilisation factor for nuclear, solarPV or wind?
(and still waiting on that call on the calorific value and rate of fuel burn in a nuke station!)
“you go from say 25% CF to 27% CF”
Or you have 60% by siting wind in a better place.
It depends on the turbine but all that matters is that whatever it is, the turbine cannot operate above its rated specs.
So in scenario where wind speed was constantly at or above the rated capacity of the turbine for a day, CF would be 100% but could never exceed 100% for that day.
But IRL, wind is highly variable and there will be many days when wind speed is much lower, and the turbine output will be well below 100% nameplate.
So over a month or a year or whatever, CF will always average below 100%. IRL, well-sited wind arrays on land in the UK average a CF of about 25% and offshore, 40% as it is windier.
What is declared net capacity? And how do they appear for all the sorts of power generation?
https://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/27/wind-turbine-net-capacity-factor-50-the-new-normal/
Meanwhile, what is the LCOE?
And, to come back again to the original problem you have with reality,BBD, in what way have you shown that wind turbine power does not go up as the cube of wind speed?
Wow
You can answer those questions with a bit of research.
What matters to me is that you realise that I am not lying. Just trying – honestly – to explain the facts.
That’s not in dispute! Never was.
The interaction between wind speed and the turbine is always limited by the turbine’s maximum operating capability – aka ‘nameplate’.
With that in mind, try #401 and #407 again – they might make better sense now.
Complain too to this professor, Derek Abbot.
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia. I know how you like to accept the blank word of a professor.
Derek Abbott is attacking a truly massive strawman. He posits nuclear producing *all* the global energy supply, not just electricity, total primary energy – ‘at least 15TW’.
Nobody proposes this. Something like 20% global *electricity* generation by nuclear by mid-century is considered optimistic.
“You can answer those questions with a bit of research. ”
And you haven’t.
Kinda indicative, innit.
And yes you are lying dumbass. Still not deigning to look at wind power going up as velocity cubed…. part of what you proclaimed “all wrong”.
Moreover your protestations sound more and more like dick’s posts.
“Derek Abbott is attacking a truly massive strawman.”
Bullshit.
Because even if you divide his numbers by 15 AS HE HIMSELF POINTS OUT, it’s still impossible to manage 6.5% coverage. Not mechanically possible.
Meanwhile it’s rather rich in a “dickA” way to whine and cry off about “massive strawman” with YOUR asinine rhetoric and complaints.
If renewables are such a shambles as you proclaim them, dumbass, then nuclear too is EVEN MOORE a complete trainwreck. For those same reasons, and you should be exhorting nuclear to be cut back.
Moreover, what the fuck is this strawman? France tried 75%. It doesn’t work only at 100%, dumbass little shithead.
“That’s not in dispute! Never was.”
Oh yes it was you lying little shit.
Go back to your post at 339, you little turdbrain.
er, Greg, can you deliver a sanity check to this thread?
BBD, if it is technically impossible to exceed 100% CF, even for a few minutes, then doesn’t this mean the nameplate is being set too high, for a variable item like wind?
Hank: Amazing, isn’t it? I get busy with doing the laundry and stuff, come back, and this flood of conversation!
>UK average a CF of about 25% and offshore, 40% as it is windier.
By windier, do you mean the wind is more frequent, or when there is wind the wind is stronger?
I think I see the answer to #420.
So if it were windy 100% of the time at a wind farm, it is likely that it would still be well below 100% nameplate, right?
Abbot’s first two points are weak.
20.5 square km per plant, so 15,000 locations is impossible. Has he considered multiple plants per location?
Then he says lifetime of the plant, so with 15,000 plants you have to build one per day, while it takes 6-12 years to build and 20 years to decommission. Again, has he considered that this is operating over many locations around the world?
I’m confused by this:
At the current rate of uranium consumption, the world supply will last 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, supply will last for less than 5 years.
He suggests a 40 fold increase in energy and plants, but the supply only shrinks by a factor of 16? Where did the 2.5x difference come from? Current nuclear production is 2.5% of his target, but that doesn’t explain it.
No.
Again you ignore the point. what wind speed is a 1.5Mw wind turbine rated at?
Why do you claim steam turbines work at 100% efficiency when generating from nuke power but nor coal?
What is load utilisaton. What is availaviliry factor.
What is proving in all your bollocks thhat wind tubine output does not vary with wind speed cubed?
And as to more lies from the nuke f;uffers, where do I claim 40 fold increase in energy and plants?
“20.5 square km per plant, so 15,000 locations is impossible. Has he considered multiple plants per location?”
Ah so one tailing the size of the spoil required to service uranium mining operations can contain the tailings of, what, 10 mining operations?
Do you see the dumbassery here?
Water supplied multiple times? How does the cooling work when you then run the water straight into another one?
Got any more dumbass claims?
“Again, has he considered that this is operating over many locations around the world?”
Yes, it’s part of the impossible bit.
and how do you get multiple at the same location and all around the world at the same time? Small world…
“BBD, if it is technically impossible to exceed 100% CF, even for a few minutes, then doesn’t this mean the nameplate is being set too high, for a variable item like wind?”
And for hydro power it’s set to sized for peak design, not sustained maintainable flow.
MikeN,
If the distribution on the test deviates from the standard normal distribution by so much that it allows you to discriminate between men and women subjects, then the test is biased and invalid for one or the other gender. By definition.