Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - DrTskoul

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15
1
(Note that tiny [by comparison] Tesla will be making 500,000 pure EVs a year by 2018.)

Tiny Tesla's net worth is now greater than GM's.  That means that investors expect Tesla to eat GM's lunch.

If the EV-olution happens and happens rapidly I wonder how quickly the legacy car manufacturers can turn things around?  Right now they aren't building up their battery supply line.  And they've done almost nothing to solve their rapid charging problem.

Tesla will eat GM's lunch?...

2

Aaah, that's what I wanted to say:

Civilizations fail when incompetence is no longer noteworthy.


Thank you... incompetence and stupidity...

I see polarization of politics is universal...common sense less so.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Which side of the political spectrum sees the most fragmentation In small powerless parties in Europe?? And in the US ?

3
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 20, 2017, 06:04:04 PM »
Nobody can stop anybody spouting any sort of deranged ideas. My point is nothing of what he did after he left had any positive impact to ExxonMobil. Also the application to get an excemption from the sanctions was filed during the Obama's tenure. All businesses have the same recourse in applying for excemptions for various sanctions around the world. As you said we'll see.

It's a fact that Tillerson is the ex-CEO of the world's largest fossil fuel corporation.

It's a fact that as CEO of Exxon, Tillerson signed a deal with Russia's state oil company that would have benefited his ex-employer greatly had Obama not put the brakes on it via sanctions.

It's a fact that Tillerson, as CEO of Exxon, applied for those sanctions to be lifted in order to allow that billion-dollar deal to go through.

It's a fact that Tillerson was chosen as Secretary of State by a Putin-obsessed, Russian-aided POTUS despite having earned not such much as one second of diplomatic experience.

That's not loosely-connected innuendo; that's not "deranged" struggling to connect imaginary dots; that's not baseless conspiracy theory. Those are just the facts as we know them.

Raymond retired, parachuting gracefully away. Tillerson moved into a position of enormous power and influence. Will he help Exxon by lifting those sanctions? We don't know. But given the corporatist agenda of the administration so far, no one will be surprised if he does. And given the open corruption and utter lack of transparency in the Trump regime, we'll never truly know who would profit...

I was not clear. The deranged ideas referred to Lee....

4
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 20, 2017, 02:09:09 PM »
You're alright with naiveté, though??

Touché....call it a character flaw

5
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 20, 2017, 01:19:10 PM »
I just hate easy, conspiracy theorist like,  slogans.. whichever side they come from..

6
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 20, 2017, 01:17:50 PM »
Nobody can stop anybody spouting any sort of deranged ideas. My point is nothing of what he did after he left had any positive impact to ExxonMobil. Also the application to get an excemption from the sanctions was filed during the Obama's tenure. All businesses have the same recourse in applying for excemptions for various sanctions around the world. As you said we'll see.

7
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 20, 2017, 12:57:34 PM »
That's BS and you know it

NO.

Rex will help ExxonMobil ( that's the name ) as much as his predecessor Lee Raymond ( the arch bastard ) helped them after he left. Which is a big fat zero....

9
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: April 20, 2017, 12:00:33 PM »
Miami Florida:

H/Tip Andy_in_SD@Scribbler

The Nightmare Scenario for Florida’s Coastal Homeowners

Demand and financing could collapse before the sea consumes a single house.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-19/the-nightmare-scenario-for-florida-s-coastal-homeowners

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 20, 2017, 11:18:12 AM »
Granted this is valid for 5 days most, but I wonder if this is the recurrent configuration Ding was referring to: highs persistent over Greenland Canada and Arctic with lows pulling warmth from the continents (in summer). Just a comment, not sure it is even close :-)
Wayne Davidson's new cold North pole....

11
Quick off the cuff thought - I'm piqued by the idea the 30s/early 40s temperature bump could be a result of decreased aerosols (SO2 in particular) tied to the reduction in industrial zctivity and fossil fuel consumption during the depression.

Too small of contribution. If climate is that sensitive we are 100% irrevocably screwed....

12
Make no mistake, after months of research, I left Bernie and joined Hillary. I still like her positions. I make excuses for things she's done I don't like (I've made lists in earlier comments). I dislike Bernie's polarizations and simplifications, and the attack language adopted by his supporters. It has caused a deep rupture in my friendships, but I can do no other. I don't like bullying.

Let's avoid taking sides on this. Sidd makes many valid points, and the subject of this forum is "corporate Democrats". I am eager for people to avoid circular firing squads, and participate in absolute opposition to the existing power structure on the Republican side.

I find it inexcusable to excuse Ryan and Gorsuch, I will say that. Otherwise, if my efforts encourage people to take "sides" I apologize.

Please look up Shaughnessy Naughton, a person I've supported (with the science march coming up Saturday, which just happens to be earth day and my birthday as well) like Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey. The latter is a near-perfect example of an unsung hero of true public service.

As a woman, I would love to absolutely reject "hair and makeup". But as a realist, I know despite Indira Gandhi, Goldar Meir, and Angela Merkel, in this country we're stuck. Men can be ugly (Trump!); women can't.

+inf and happy birthday...

13
In the simulation they run 100 nuclear detonations and obtain the first image attached. If 100 nuclear weapons can lower the global temperature 1.2C for almost a decade then a naive calculation results that 1 nuclear weapon would lower the temps for .012 for probably much less time.

There where 520 atmospheric nuclear weapons test in the time period in question. Lets say that only 10% of those were in simulated cities, forests or other environments were enough particulates were present. Then that's 52 tests at .012 degrees each that's .624 degrees. Of course they didn't happen at the same time but that very back of the envelope calculation gives a good idea of the total forcing.

Getting to be OT.  However their sims assumed lots of fires due to nuclear weapons. No significan fires from testing.

14
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: April 19, 2017, 08:39:36 PM »
Thought this might be a sign of fresh water break-out at Z/79N



Neat picture...

15
Might be getting OT :)

16
From Sceptical Science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/nuclear.html

The majority of large yield tests were in the early sixties..most of cooling in a war would be from the resulting fires and their smoke and ash. Not from the nuclear explosion themselves...

17
From wikipedia:

As of 1993, worldwide, 520 atmospheric nuclear explosions (including 8 underwater) have been conducted with a total yield of 545 megaton (Mt): 217 Mt from fission and 328 Mt from fusion, while the estimated number of underground nuclear tests conducted in the period from 1957 to 1992 is 1,352 explosions with a total yield of 90 Mt.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests

Then on the Nuclear weapons testing page they say this about atmospheric weapons testing (my emphasis)

Atmospheric testing designates explosions that take place in the atmosphere. Generally these have occurred as devices detonated on towers, balloons, barges, islands, or dropped from airplanes, and also those only buried far enough to intentionally create a surface-breaking crater. Nuclear explosions close enough to the ground to draw dirt and debris into their mushroom cloud can generate large amounts of nuclear fallout due to irradiation of the debris. This definition of atmospheric is used in the Limited Test Ban Treaty, which banned this class of testing along with exoatmospheric and underwater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_testing

I imagine the bolded type of testing had the potential for the most cooling because it ejects the most particles.

How does a nuclear weapons test compares to large volcano eruptions? If they are similar on matter ejected and height of ejection then Nuclear weapons might have played a significant role.

I think they were a blip re cooling

18
Another scam seems to be biofuels, especially North American wood chips used to replace coal in the UK and palm oil for biodiesel.  Corn ethanol is not even net energy positive, let alone climate friendly. Seems that corporations are making out like bandits sucking up the subsidies for all these "climate friendly" biofuels.

Sugarcane ethanol, grown in Brazilian conditions, does seem to be quite climate change positive.

Started a new subject to cover biofuels.

+1

19
do you mean above ground nuclear testing? the purpose of below ground is to prevent atmospheric impacts.  I would have to look at it but my sense is that the amount is insignificant compared to global coal emissions at that time.

My thinking is that if  many nuclear weapons cause nuclear winter, a few may slow down global warming. I get the feeling that nuclear weapons had at least at small part in the cooling after 1945.

Depends how high will the dust cloud go. Some volcanoes are more efficient in doing so. What percentage of nuclear tests were surface vs underground?

20
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: April 19, 2017, 07:06:47 PM »
I don't really understand the graph. I have an understanding of what "rig count" means, but what is "rig count lag", and how do they project values into the future?  Production, it appears, is self explanatory.  (An internet search of "rig count lag" didn't help!)  If there was no "lag", would the green and blue lines be close to each other or would there be no future values, or both?
(Thanks in advance.)

Rigs drill, after drilling there is a lag from completion to fracking to production. Some producers drill fast ( to increase drilling rig productivity) and the complete frack and produce when economically favorable or to space out productive wells. Try searching for DUCs... drilled but not completed wells.

21
Policy and solutions / Re: Biomass
« on: April 19, 2017, 06:20:06 PM »
Thanks...  ::)

22
Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: April 19, 2017, 06:18:28 PM »
Anyway, that was a rhetorical question. OT over.. we are becoming a little too sensitive

23
Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: April 19, 2017, 06:16:45 PM »
COAL. Not biomass and forests. So I will not reply on this thread. What self-discipline Sir Governor Neven ?

These are COAL plants that they are converting. How do you have handle overlapping technologies? With overlapping threads?

24
Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: April 19, 2017, 02:16:06 PM »
Burning biomass does not de-sequester fossil fuel carbon.  As long as we have a good replant process we should be able to burn some biofuel without hurting ourselves too much.

Much less hurt than burning coal.

And I think we tend to overlook the carbon that trees and other plants do sequester in their root systems.  A tree can have as much mass below ground as above.  If we cut off the top for fuel we're only taking half of what that tree has pulled out of the atmosphere.  It could be that by harvesting mature trees and replanting in their place we actually get more carbon underground than leaving the tree to stand then eventually die and rot, releasing its above ground carbon.

Long run we probably ought not plan on making biomass from  trees a major part of our fuel system.  But during the transition it's probably better to burn biomass than coal.

Do you think we currently are not greedy enough to have a good replanting process?

Is the mass of wood consumed in balance with the growth of new trees in the area they were harvested?  Right now the few of them burn wood pellets from wood use byproducts!! All good with that.

However, past history with other resources has shown the tendency to over-build and this would result to the felling of trees exclusively for power generation. It is a moral hazard.

[EDIT] this already happens now

It took half a century for an acorn to grow into the 20-meter-tall oak tree standing here in a North Carolina hardwood forest near the banks of the Northeast Cape Fear River. But it takes just seconds to turn the oak into fuel for the furnace of a European power plant.

"It basically tells the Congo and Indonesia and every other forested country in the world: ‘If you cut down your forests and use them for energy, not only is that not bad, it's good,’" says Tim Searchinger, a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C., who has studied the carbon impacts of wood energy.

Oak trees in North Carolina are heading for a U.K. power plant largely because of a single number: zero. That's the amount of CO2 that European power plants can claim they emit when burning wood. It's not true, of course, and in some cases wood-burning furnaces actually puff more CO2 from their smokestacks per unit of electricity produced than those burning coal or natural gas. (In part, that's because wood can have a higher water content than other fuels, and some of its energy goes to boiling off the water.) But under the European Union's ambitious 2009 plan to produce 20% of its electricity from renewable resources by 2020, regulators endorsed an earlier decision to designate wood as a carbon-neutral fuel for the purposes of emissions accounting.

In response, some countries—including the United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands—have built new wood-fired plants or converted coal-fired plants to wood. The United Kingdom has been one of the most enthusiastic, with the government providing subsidies for wood pellets that make them competitive with fossil fuels. At the country's largest power station, a 4000-megawatt behemoth in North Yorkshire, owner Drax Group has converted half of the furnaces to burn wood pellets.

U.S. exports, nearly all from the southeast, grew from zero in 2005 to more than 6.5 million metric tons in 2016, according to Forisk Consulting, a firm in Athens, Georgia. Pellet exports are expected to grow to 9 million metric tons by 2021.

 

25
How about a bunch of smart cars that decide amongst themselves

Possible.  But my guess is that most people, after a few years, will decide that there is no advantage to them in owning a car.  They'll opt for more money in their pockets and fewer hassles.

I can see larger volume stores like Costco and grocery stores with their own fleet of delivery vehicles which pull into the warehouse, get loaded with the prepacked containers to be dropped off, and zipping off on a computer designed route.  Texting their delivery address a few minutes before they arrive. 

Smaller volume stores might use a 'UPS' generic delivery service that routes a vehicle to their site, picks up what they need to deliver, then continues along it's route picking up and dropping off stuff as it goes.  Food delivery vans might have separate compartments for hot and cold food.  Pizza delivery vans might do the cooking minutes before arrival.

That's what the 60s science fiction was all about.. predicting it for the 2000s along with flying cars...

26
Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: April 18, 2017, 06:19:14 PM »
Coal is pretty much dead in the UK

Through a 50% jump in natural gas usage in 2016. Coal supplies less than 10% of electricity. Wind stalled in 2016, but there were increases in solar and biomass (although a lot of controversy over burning wood pellets from US forests).

https://theconversation.com/the-year-coal-collapsed-2016-was-a-turning-point-for-britains-electricity-70877

Huge controversy in my mind. It takes years of past and future CO2 stored and emitting them instantly. Not sustainable!!

27
Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: April 18, 2017, 02:38:04 PM »
Edison, GE unveil new battery systems at California gas plants

April 17 (Reuters) - A major California utility and General Electric Co on Monday unveiled a first-of-its-kind battery storage system that will enable instant power output from a natural gas peaking plant to accommodate the state's changing electricity needs while decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.

The system, which was installed at two separate Southern California Edison "peaker" plants this month, will give the utility increased flexibility as the large amounts of renewable wind and solar power required by state mandates have made energy generation cleaner but far less predictable.

Peaker plants are small power plants designed to come online quickly when power demand is high, such as on a hot summer day. But they are also among the least efficient resources available to the utility.

The 10 megawatt batteries, which contain cells made by Samsung SDI, are capable of providing power immediately, eliminating the need for the plant to burn fuel in "standby" mode. Prior to integrating the batteries, the 50 megawatt plant would take about 10 minutes to ramp up to a desired capacity.

28
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: April 18, 2017, 01:05:43 PM »
Big oil is starting to challenge the biggest utilities in the race to erect wind turbines at sea.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Statoil ASA and Eni SpA are moving into multi-billion-dollar offshore wind farms in the North Sea and beyond. They’re starting to score victories against leading power suppliers including Dong Energy A/S and Vattenfall AB in competitive auctions for power purchase contracts, which have developed a specialty in anchoring massive turbines on the seabed.

This, and the apparent large scale sell off of service/gas stations, seems to me to be a major tell.  It suggests that oil companies have decided that it is time for them to start their transition from oil companies to renewable energy companies.  Offshore wind is a great fit for companies that have been involved in offshore oil extraction.  And selling off gas stations means that they can pull out their capital and leave someone else with the expense of shut down and cleanup in a few years.

EVs with 200+ mile range and selling for the same price as (or less than) their ICE twins should happen within five years.  Battery power buses are here and battery powered trucks seem to be arriving.  Petroleum demand could easily fall by 50% over the next 15 years and dive toward zero over the following 10.

(Commercial fleets will move to electricity very rapidly.  Look at the thousands of perfectly usable airliners parked in deserts because they use too much fuel.)

Oil companies have been trying to shed cost.  Gas stations are the first to go in situations like that... I don't think it has anything to do with their transition..

29
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewables Reach a Tipping Point...
« on: April 18, 2017, 12:51:48 PM »
To follow on from sidd's comment, a fully integrated North East US + Eastern Canada grid would seem to provide the best option at first glance. Quebec Hydro provides the big hydro battery, with a great mix and diversity of possible sites for wind and solar across the North East US and Eastern Canada.

Same could be true for Western Canada and the Northwestern U.S.

Yes.  But not just the US Northwest.  Everything west of the Rockies needs to be tied together.  Between Western Canada hydro, PNW hydro and wind, Idaho hydro, Wyoming wind, Southwest solar, Nevada (and potentially SE Utah) geothermal there's a lot of generation variety that could create a large grid with only modest needs for storage.

The backbone of that large grid is already in place.  There's a HVDC line running from LA to the PNW (Pacific Intertie) which mainly brings hydro to SoCal but can, as well, take SoCal/SW solar north.  There's also a HVDC line running from LA to Utah (Mountain Intertie) which was built to carry coal generation to SoCal.  That is being freed up.

Plans have been drawn to connect the north ends of the Pacific and Mountain Interties in order to create a transmission loop which increases reliability.  And then add a spur into Wyoming to pick up the very excellent wind available there.  Companies are looking at adding pump-up hydro storage in Utah which could then serve the entire grid.  Cheap land with lots of abrupt elevation changes.

The Pacific Intertie runs close to where most of the Nevada geothermal is located.  And there is at least one lower voltage line running to the NorCal coast where some excellent offshore wind resources are located.  The land is secured. It would just mean increasing the size/voltage of the line.

Then there's a spot in New Mexico where the three main US grids (Western, ERCOT, and Eastern) come with about 60 miles of each other.  If Texas/ERCOT would cooperate we could tie all of the US lower 48, lots of Canada and Northern Mexico together and share power over a very large area.

Assuming that Climate Change does not screw with Hydro.....

30
Policy and solutions / Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« on: April 18, 2017, 12:50:39 PM »
Scotland seems on track to be the main British Isle producer of clean energy.

It's going to be interesting watching how nuclear develops in the UK.  It's fairly likely that no new reactors will be built.  If someone would toss another HVDC line in the water and hook into Portuguese/Spanish solar that could be the end of nuclear.

The seek to connect to Iceland and Norway via high voltage interconnects. Based on their current path, there are going to be times that they import a lot of energy. They used to have 100% redundancy..

31
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: April 17, 2017, 11:28:16 PM »
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58f52397e4b0da2ff862741e?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
President Donald Trump reportedly called Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Monday to congratulate him after Erdogan narrowly emerged victorious from a referendum to inflate his political powers, Turkish officials told state media and Reuters.


One autocratic pig to another....

32
Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: April 17, 2017, 06:46:17 PM »
The new weekly numbers for Mauna Loa just came out from NOAA, showing almost the same level as one year ago. Does anyone have any theories as to why the CO2 growth has been so slow this year? Surely it should still be tracking upwards by at least 2ppm, even after el nino and the last two years of 3ppm. Anomalous winds at Mauna Loa? Natural variability?

Week beginning on April 9, 2017:      408.85 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:      408.81 ppm

For the same reason we've had weeks in the past year with a differential of +5 ppm -- week to week variability can be considerable, especially this time of year. Wait a week.

High variability...

33
Glaciers / Re: Canadian Glaciers
« on: April 17, 2017, 06:42:13 PM »
Cross posted from Weird Weather:

From NYTimes : Climate Change Reroutes a Yukon River in a Geological Instant

In the blink of a geological eye, climate change has helped reverse the flow of water melting from a glacier in Canada’s Yukon, a hijacking that scientists call “river piracy.”

This engaging term refers to one river capturing and diverting the flow of another. It occurred last spring at the Kaskawulsh Glacier, one of Canada’s largest, with a suddenness that startled scientists.

Much of the meltwater from the glacier normally flows to the north into the Bering Sea via the Slims and Yukon Rivers. A rapidly retreating and thinning glacier — accelerated by global warming — caused the water to redirect to the south, and into the Pacific Ocean.

34
From NYTimes : Climate Change Reroutes a Yukon River in a Geological Instant

In the blink of a geological eye, climate change has helped reverse the flow of water melting from a glacier in Canada’s Yukon, a hijacking that scientists call “river piracy.”

This engaging term refers to one river capturing and diverting the flow of another. It occurred last spring at the Kaskawulsh Glacier, one of Canada’s largest, with a suddenness that startled scientists.

Much of the meltwater from the glacier normally flows to the north into the Bering Sea via the Slims and Yukon Rivers. A rapidly retreating and thinning glacier — accelerated by global warming — caused the water to redirect to the south, and into the Pacific Ocean.

35
Do you have the link for the previous picture ??

See this thread reply #1, #3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 25, 26, 34, 40, 42, 45, 46, 47

How many do you want?

 :P. Smart aleck..  ;D I thought I was in a different thread with multiple hundreds of messages

36
I was referring to global atmospheric dimming as a geoengineering stopgap to 4C above.

Global dimming.... nothing can go wrong with that

37
Super-fast charging could happen sooner than you think.  Elon Musk has tweeted/teased that the next version of Tesla Superchargers will be significantly greater than 350 kW and could bring down the charging time of a 300-mile battery pack to 15 minutes or less.
https://electrek.co/2016/12/26/tesla-supercharger-v3-zev-credits/


And Wal-mart might just have the wherewithall to go big on EV charging, in locations where it make sense.
Wal-Mart, Advanced Microgrid Solutions to Turn Big-Box Stores Into Hybrid Electric Buildings
Advanced Microgrid Solutions has landed the world's largest retailer as a partner: Wal-Mart.

On Tuesday, the San Francisco-based startup announced it is working with the retail giant to install behind-the-meter batteries at stores to balance on-site energy and provide megawatts of flexibility to utilities, starting with 40 megawatt-hours of projects at 27 Southern California locations. ...
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/wal-mart-to-turn-big-box-stores-into-hybrid-electric-buildings

As long as the fast charging form factor is adopted by other EVs too...

38
10% seems rather high to me. 95% of customers local that can charge at home rather than paying for it elsewhere (probably at over the home cost to cover cost of installation and profit margin)? 5% distance travellers?

Next set of calcs please: the roofspace of large supermarket and 200 car parking spaces covered with solar panels. How much power can this PV generate per day? Then compare with the usage taking account of 10 charging stations being fully used at peak charging demand times and much less used at other times of the day.

A lot of people will not initially have the capital to install a charging station. If it is that cheap the parking lot charging stations will be covered with a tiny increase of delivered price.

Solar panel average 8-10 watts per square foot ( Dr. Google ). Assuming adequate sunshine for 6 hrs, a large super Center with 130000+ sqft roof will support enough power for 15 cars charging at all times during those 6 hrs. 

39
Breaking News
What was only a Nunatak (Nunataq) a few years ago is now a 7 km2 island of the coast of Kjer Gletscher, I decided to name it Trekanten in Danish (The Triangle) a more correct Greenland name wil be found, a lot of facts about this devellopment can be seen above in this thread:

Do you have the link for the previous picture ??

40
Did some quick calcs.

An average Walmart store consumes around 2 million kWh per year or 5,480 kWh a day ( 229 kW average power).

A single EV car chargin is around 6 kW. If we assume there are 20 charging stations operating at peak power for 6 hours ( conservative low estimate for all EV clientele ) then the power draw for EV is 13% of the store's consumption averaged over day. Averaged over the 6 hours of use assumed above it is closer to 30 - 50%.  That is for only 20 charging stations.

41
Wouldn't "convenience stores" be more likely to offer EV charging, compared to gas stations owned by oil companies?

Most gas stations make very little money from selling gas.  Their profits come from their convenience store sales.  Gas sales serve to get people to stop at their minimarts.

Pull the pumps.  Put in rapid charge stations.  EV owners will spend more time waiting for their cars to charge than gasmobile drives spend waiting for their tank to fill.  Sales per customer should increase.

It may be a decade or more before we can charge an EV in ten minutes or less.  Charging will mean a lot more 'captured customer' time for merchants.

Won't this mean people will charge vehicles at supermarket/mall/cafe/restaurant rather than at convenience store where they want to rush in and out quickly? I would have thought bad news for convenience stores. But maybe charging stations cost too much and will have to charge exorbitantly for anyone late back? Or will they have ability to move either the cars or the charging equipment to next car in a line when charge requested/paid for is complete? Autonomous cars would presumably solve this without charging station needing more expensive equipment?

By the time we depend on Autonomous electric cars to charge themselves at a limited number of charging stations we are toast!!! Btw has anybody done the calcs to see how much energy is needed to simultaneously charge 10% of a large supermarket's Parking lot worth of cars? What percentage of the store's power usage will that represent ??

42
Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: April 17, 2017, 03:04:34 PM »
Absence of carbon capture and storage is ‘biggest challenge to’ 2C limit

"There is a clear divergence from current trends and the scenarios. Most scenarios require thousands of CCS facilities by 2030, but there are only tens currently proposed"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/absence-carbon-capture-storage-biggest-challenge-2c-limit

None will actually happen. A requirement for CCS or closing the plant will result in closing the plant. Renewables have gone past the tipping point that made CCS obsolete before a carbon price high enough ever got implemented (except in Norway, where there has been a high enough carbon tax since 1991 to make it commercial in one niche).
https://www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/sleipner%C2%A0co2-storage-project

Early closure of bankrupt facilities is what will prevent carbon budgets being exceeded if anything does.

(Petra Nova is not CCS, the CO2 is used, not stored)

What is the difference between underground utilization and storage?

Regarding CCS demise,  you assume a) that every single bit of FF use can be replaced by b) renewable penetration is going by to happen fast enough that CCS is not needed.

The bankrupt facilities let them die. However natural gas based power generation is far from bankrupt. You want to capture as much of that CO2 as possible... no?

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: What is a model?
« on: April 17, 2017, 02:59:59 PM »
Well at least we can agree that extrapolations are indeed (very simple) models, which brings this thread to a kind of conclusion

Amen...

44
Wrong thread to discuss, but composition wise they are for all practical purposes similar. Lower temperature combustion emits more CO and hydrocarbons, but other than that it is similar. And since all emissions are in the lower well mixed atmosphere, it does not matter much. CO2 is CO2 no matter the source....

45
...
Quite so.  An exponential trend is a simplistic, naive mathematical model with no direct connection to the many many years of accumulated scientific knowledge of Earth's climate system.  Which is why I'm so baffled that you prefer it.

Again distorting what I wrote...

1) Trendline fitting is a mathematical/statistical tool. As the name implies, it extracts a trend from noisy data. No, it's not a climate model, and the exponential function is not a climate model either.

2) A climate model: see the Wikipedia definition which, while not perfect, is good enough. Let's stick to it and not try to redefine the meaning of the term.

3) "Which is why I'm so baffled that you prefer it." I have no idea whatsoever what you could mean by that. But if you want to further explain your point of view, may I suggest you start a new thread?

An exponential assumes an ever increasing melt rate whule Gompetz assumes that after a spike the melt rate will reduce and approach a small number as we get to zero.  What do you think is more probable. All the easy to melt areas will melt first and the difficult to melt areas at the coldest spots if the Arctic will take longer.  Therefore an exponential is not possible. 

46

I wonder if the global recession beginning in 1929 could be to blame for the spike in Arctic temperatures? Similar to what we are seeing as China winds down its dirtiest pollutants.




it should be noted that coal was a common heating fuel during this time and that the reduction of coal use during this time was predominantly in higher temperature processes (rail transport and steel production).  These higher temperature emissions appear to have a much greater impact than lower-temperature combustion products that stay much lower in the atmosphere (and rain out much sooner).


What are high temperature emissions vs lower temperature combustion prosucts??

47
Somebody in another thread was blaming me for using an exponential function in the trendline fitting PIOMAS. This is so absurd, it reminds me of Galileo being accused of heresy, forced to recant and spending years in house arrest, for claiming that it was the Earth that orbited around the Sun, and not the other way around. Perhaps we should forbid all climate scientists from using the exponential function from now on, and ban the mathematical function because it tells of the impending catastrophe that nobody wants to recognize is our own doing?

This is one of the least mathematically literate and most histrionic paragraphs I've ever seen, on this forum or WUWT.  Please stop, you're embarassing yourself and all of us. 

Several people in this thread seem to be drawing a distinction between "modellers" and other types of scientific analysis.  That's a false distinction. Your own exponential extrapolation IS a model. It's a naive and unsophisticated model that's not based in any empirical understanding of the underlying processes, sure, but it's a model nevertheless.  EVERY mathematical description of the system is a model.  That's what models are.
+1

48
Science / Re: Trump Administration Assaults on Science
« on: April 15, 2017, 03:25:16 PM »
He is reducing regulatory burdens like mediocre administrators reduce cost. Just cut the budget and let lower employees figure out how to make it work.

When he was elected I though, hey maybe the guy actually has innovative ways to make policies that make the government more efficient. But no. Only mediocre middle management tactics to reduce cost. No innovative policies. No long term changes that make america great again.

How would he know of any innovative policies?? Has he applied them in his businesses? Has any repub governor introduced such efficiencies? Has any repub lawmaker ever introduced a bill proposing such innovations? All they know is a guttural CUT CUT.

People ascribe way too much to the word Businessman. I am really baffled by the expectations....

49
my pick was 2043
Well, the correct answer is of course, that the Arctic will experience ITS LAST year with September sea ice minimum extent ABOVE 1 million km2 the year BEFORE it experiences ITS FIRST year with September sea ice minimum extent BELOW 1 million km2, or do you expect September sea ice extent to keep BOUNCING BELOW AND ABOVE 1 million km2 for a few years?
'Cos I don't.  :)
This "bouncing" as you put it is quite probable.

It is not going to "zero" and then poof no more internal variability.

50
Northern hemisphere temperatures should show the same kink since most SO2 emission in the 70's were in the northern hemisphere mid latitudes ( Europe, Americas )

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15