Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and 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 - blu_ice

Pages: [1]
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: Today at 08:05:00 AM »
@Jim Hunt:

I liked the video and as simple as the model is, I am convinced that it is right: to protect the vulnerable you need to vaccinate the "mixers" first, those who are in contact with many people. Problem is: it is not so easy to say who the mixers are, other than some obvious professions like policemen, teachers, shop assistants. But yeah, they should get priority


Total populationwide IFR is cca 1% for COVID, at least 10x that of the flu. For above 60s it is at least 3% and above 70s 5-10%. That is not "stunningly low".
Other than that, please stop running amok on the freezing thread.

Policy and solutions / Re: Ships and boats
« on: February 25, 2021, 05:37:42 PM »
There's always wind/sail

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: February 18, 2021, 09:18:57 PM »
There is a new UN Report out - "Making Peace With Nature" the aim being to,produce "A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies”.

Its about everything mankind is screwing up and how to fix it.
One of the graphs is about fuel consumption.
Another looks at pathways for emissions.

They are sobering. I attach both .

click to enlarge images

The rest / Re: SpaceX
« on: February 17, 2021, 02:03:05 PM »
Just now.  Saturday Starship flight TFR!
Space TFRs (@SpaceTfrs) 2/17/21, 7:58 AM
Brownsville (TX) SpaceX high-altitude flight TFR:
From February 20, 2021 at 1300 UTC To February 21, 2021 at 0030 UTC
Altitude: From the surface to space…
Infographic at the link.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cryptocurrency
« on: February 13, 2021, 11:31:16 AM »
What a load of BS, sorry. As if Bitcoin replaces banking and gold mining. Both banking and gold are needed for more than just speculation and/or dubious store of monetary value. Besides, banking and gold are far more pervasive than Bitcoin. Scale Bitcoin across the global population and those numbers will explode a hundredfold or more.

Let's face it, ARK Invest meant to say:
Because Elon Musk supports it, so it can't be bad.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cryptocurrency
« on: February 10, 2021, 09:53:07 PM »
As you posted in the Tesla thread they have mined 18,5 out of 21 million available coins. And along the way that needed the amount of energy Switzerland used in 2018.

The amount of money that translates to varies but lets go with 50k per coin that is a little over a billion. Double the amount and it is two billion.

If doubt our ´real money´ had anything like that relative energy cost. Block chain is computationally intensive and that eats energy. The minting process is highly optimized. In the Netherlands there are about 1,5 billion coins in circulation which is about half which was minted.
Coins do not last forever but they do last a long time. When i was young i collected the oldest coins of every type so oldest 1 or 5 cent pieces. I think the oldest i had was from 1905 and in great condition. Most of them last a very long time.

The printing part is also highly optimized with only a small number of companies doing that. They are buying high grade inks and all kinds of other stuff on an existing market which offers a whole range of inks papers and papers and plastics. When printing they also print way more of the small notes  that get used all the time.

If you were to compare metrics you would have to work how much money the coin or coupon represented over time which punches way higher then crypto because they get used a lot and they are designed to last a certain time.

Crypto is a BS technocratic fake solution.

So you do not trust your governments and banks so you create an alternative currency which only works if the governments and banks allow it.

For a whole lot of people in countries below Switzerland it is not even an option. So it is a toy and a harmful one.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: February 05, 2021, 10:26:58 PM »
Ok, so this is the company I talked about:

This is a Hungarian geothermal company. There were significant cost overruns, and quite a few unexpected difficulties that cost lots of time (and money). You can read a bit about the projects. They provide heating to cca 40 thousand homes and a number of industrial end-users (eg. Audi Hungary, which employs 11000 people).

These projects used EU-funds/grants and cheap government loans and despite this although profitable, its rate of return is really not very high...

My experience is that geothermal is great, it's clean, wonderful for heating, but much more difficult than people presume.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: January 31, 2021, 08:10:53 AM »
Baseload is fiction? Pretty amazing. I attach (just as an example) Denmark's energy demand intraday throughout the week. The same would be true for almos all countries.

There clearly is a constant demand ("baseload") and there are peak demand periods during the day. Baseload is NOT meaningless

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: January 28, 2021, 08:20:44 AM »
Ok, let's say that coal goes. It's out.
1) You will need to partially replace it with gas peakers as renewable storage is not solved. Let's say not all, but half of it will be replaced by gas.
2) Energy consumption per capita is still growing in the developing world, you need to address that somehow. If you are overly optimistic you can say that all of it will be wind/solar and peaks troughs are not a problem. it's a stretch, but let's say.
3) Oil: All those cars on the road will consume oil for at least 1-2 decades. Plus 95% of cars/trucks, etc produced are NEW oil consumers. So even if you are very very optimistic you could say that oil consumption will be stable until 2030.

That still leaves you with the same oil emissions as now, some more for gas (partially replacing coal) than now, and zero from coal. That would still be 25 bln t co2 emissions vs 35 currently.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: January 26, 2021, 05:53:29 PM »
Re: WiFi air conditioning

I take it this means that the HVAC install has wifi capacity built in ? or ... ?

I replaced an HVAC setup with a new one couple months ago. The thermostatt wanted to be connected to wifi during setup. I refused, got it to work anyway. I have no desire to have HVAC talk on the net.


The Internet of Things.  Handy to make the AC less wasteful by, for example, letting the house remain closer to ambient temperature while you are away, and using your cell phone to let it know when you are on your way back so that the inside temp is tolerable when you arrive.  Also useful for demand-control during high use periods, if you opt-in to allowing a degree or so leeway during extreme weather.

But yes, it is a problem when the internet connection goes down, especially for appliances that have no means of manual control. Or when someone else uses the connection to wreak havoc.... Skipping the WiFi connection to some appliances is often a good choice.

Coal in the US was largely replaced by natural gas, leading to reduced CO2 but higher methane. Solar and wind took up the increase in energy demand in the last few years, but did not replace existing demand - yet. In China and India coal has not been replaced at all - yet. There are good reasons to be optimistic about a transition in electricity production, as Ken Feldman and others (and Bob Wallace when he was active here) have been pointing out for quite some time. And yet, seeing is believing. I would rather see these changes taking place rather than understand that they are about to happen. I would like to see countries both developed and developing installing huge amounts of wind and solar and shutting down fossil fuel generation prematurely, so that fossil fuel use in electricity generation actually drops rather than plateaus.
As for other sectors the picture is much less rosy. In transportation we have an economic solution of EVs, currently more expensive but soon to reach parity with ICE cars. It's already being adopted by some consumers despite the cost, but globally the numbers are still minuscule.
Sales of electric cars topped 2.1 million globally in 2019, surpassing 2018 – already a record year – to boost the stock to 7.2 million electric cars. Electric cars, which accounted for 2.6% of global car sales and about 1% of global car stock in 2019, registered a 40% year-on-year increase.
It appears the economics are there for a fast transition to occur in global sales and later in global stock. But how fast is fast? I think it will take two decades at the least to replace most stock, and that it should take one decade at most.
A lot of industry can be shifted to electricity, but not all. Construction? Agriculture? Shipping? Some of these can be shifted by using cheap electricity to produce synthetic fuels. All this will take lots of time and lots of money. The electricity system should be transitioned very very fast, and result in very cheap prices for renewable electricity, to encourage the transition of the other industries. But mindsets change slowly and investment decisions affect results years ahead, so this may take at least another decade after transitioning of electricity, which itself could take two decades to mostly complete even if politicians across the globe do the right thing, which they often don't.
Some industries cannot be transitioned at all using current technology and economics.
In the meantime, warming accumulates, with natural feedbacks kicking in and taking up some of the slack in emissions. And summer Arctic sea ice will very probably disappear in the meantime, adding to the forcing due to a strong albedo feedback. Cleanup of energy will sharply reduce amount of aerosols, whether as a spike or as a long process doesn't matter too much for the end forcing result.
Should we be optimistic? Maybe. I think yes. Are we safely out of the woods? Hell no. The main ingredient here is time, which we don't have much of.


First the good news...

John Kerry commits US to climate crisis fight


Kerry, the former US secretary of state, acknowledged that America had been absent from the international effort to contain dangerous global heating during Donald Trump’s presidency but added that “today no country and no continent is getting the job done”.

There will need to be a “wholesale transformation of the global economy” if the world is to reach net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, Kerry said. He said it was necessary for coal to be phased out five times faster than recent trends, the planet’s tree cover to be increased five times faster, renewable energy to be ramped up six times faster and a transition to electric vehicles to be 22 times faster than present.

“We need to all move together, because today very few are on a trajectory of the steep reductions needed to meet even current goals, let alone the targets we need to avert catastrophic damage,” Kerry said.

Optimism is fine - but needs a dose of realism to motivate kicking arse to make it happen.

Thank you Ken, that is exactly what I was writing above. The 20s and 30s will see pretty much as much in emissions and likely more warming (due to Arctic feedbacks) as the 10s.


I am pleased to see someone else argue optimistically that BAU has changed dramatically. Too many around here believe in climate catastrophe is imminent.


Being realistic is not equivalent to expecting climate catastrophe. I, for one, am quite cynical about politicians, but at the same time expect humanity to completely give up fossil in due time. I expect no catastrophe whatsoever. But I expect decades of warming still, because going to zero carbon is a very long process.

- 95% of cars sold in 2021 are using gas/diesel. Those cars will still be on the roads in 2050 (in India, Africa, etc).
- many industrial processes are hard to decarbonise
- gas turbines are needed to counterbalance volatile solar/wind
- newly built coal plants will NOT be closed for a long time (at least a decade) due to sunk costs

Will emissions start to go down some time in the 20s? Hopefully yes (but considering that oil will at least be stable, gas will go up, coal down and industrial and agri likely up that is not sure at all). Shall we hit zero by 2030-40? Absolutely not. Not even by 2050.

2015-20 warmed +0,29 C vs 2005-10. Considering Arctic feedback, it is hard to see how that will not be more in the next decade, since emissions are higher now than 10 yrs ago. We are already +1,2 C above pre industrial. This means that by 2030 we shall hit at least +1,5 C. If you are optimistic then you can argue that warming will slow after this, so maybe +0,2 C and +0,15 C and +0,1 C the following decades. This still means that we will reach around +2 C by 2060 - provided that there are no sudden climate impacts.

I don't think this will make the Earth unlivable. I even think that it will be positive agriculturally for many NH midlatitude countries as they will warm by another 1,5-2 C.


Because businesses are exiting coal at a rapid rate, sparked in part by Blackrock:

Also, the Dems can use reconciliation in the Senate to achieve most of Biden's goals:

Manchin will go along with a great deal of it as long as he gets some "pork" for West Virginia.
Interstitial should have mentioned these things instead of his or her innate pessimistic view

Oh, that's cute. Have you  heard about China and India?

Especially China. They added plenty of new coal capacity in the very near past and those plants will keep producing Co2 for a long long time. (1/3 of their capacity was built between 2010-20 and more than 40% between 2000-2010). 60% of India's capacity was built in the past 10 years. They won't close those for a long time, too much sunk cost.

Then: transportation. Most of Asia will not drive Teslas. They will drive gas and diesel cars. They don't buy new cars every 2 years. And after that, Africans will drive those used Asian cars even in 2040-50. We will need oil for decades for transportation, although likely less as time goes on

Then: renewables. To balance out renewables you need lots of gas-turbines. Better than coal but still co2 emissions.

Building/industry: we do not even know how they would reduce co2 emissions.

Agriculture: we know how to but they  are pretty reluctant to do it.

So blu ice IS totally right. This will be a very hard and slow road to reduce emissions. And BTW when a politician says "carbon neutral by 2050" it means: "yeah, I'll pay lipservice and do something that does not hurt much, but basically I don't give a damn"

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 17, 2021, 02:22:11 PM »
Neven, that’s very low level text book concern trolling.  Etienne obviously didn’t mean to say what you are attempting to imply he said. Please desist.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: January 14, 2021, 11:22:37 AM »
be cause & gerontocrat:
I notice that the most cogent arguments you can make against my linked article are, basically, to foam at the mouth.
Tom, what kind of reaction did you expect?

Trump lost the election fair and square, then discredited the results, pressured election officials and when all this failed, sent his violent mob to the Congress to stop the legal process of declaring Biden the new president. Fortunately only 5 people died. Even more fortunate is the strength of the American democratic institutions, although I doubt we have seen the end of this.

To us living outside the US, Trump behaved like a caricature 1960's African dictator. (Apologies for all Africans, but the post-colonial decades were not very stable on the continent.)

The post you linked compared attempted coup to protests against police brutality. Stupid claims rarely get smart responses.
Scum like Trump and his Acolytes often use "equivalence" to defend evil. A protest against police who have made a sick joke out of "to protect and serve" is presented as equivalent to the (bungled) attempt to impose a fascist dictatorship.

The idea is to force me to debate this, which forces me accept that equivalence. My answer is no. The man that wrote that article is evil. End of. FIN.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: December 31, 2020, 09:29:16 AM »
For anti-vaxxers:

I don't know about your country but in my country infants get COMPULSORY multiple shots against a number of diseases. I can not fathom why adults would not get the vaccine. This is a classic case of freeriding for antivaxxers.
Every society has rules that you must adhere to and those rules were created so that we could all live a better life. If you drive a car after drinking half a liter of whiskey and go thru many red lights you will be arrested and put into jail - because you endanger everyone else. This is the same with the vaccine: if you don't get vaccinated you endanger everyone else.
Solution is simple: if you don't get vaccinated (have no "vaccine passport") then you don't get to fly, you can not go into any place where there are more than 10 people, etc. Your choice.

As for the "risk" of these vaccines: If for some weird reasons you don't trust the relatively new mRNA technology, you can choose from a variety of adenovirus vector vaccines (AstraZeneca or Sputnik V, etc) that have been around for much longer.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: December 28, 2020, 03:20:49 PM »

I don't trust Govts much and the reasons I don't trust them are in full view now for anyone who wishes to look. They simply don't give a shit about the general population.
Still, surely the companies want to retain the image of safe provider of vaccines and drugs in order to maintain their profits.... in that regard, I think the vaccine is probably a far better option than not having it.... so... I will probably get it asap.

For my sins I spent my whole 35 year career working in the “ethical” pharmaceutical industry, initially in a small company with some interesting technology and latterly with increasingly “big” pharma. During that time I worked in basic research as a pharmacologist before progressing to a development role and latterly into business development.

I got to know and to work with many scientists and business colleagues across the industry and I can honestly say that I never encountered anyone who didn’t reflect the “ethical” element of the industry’s title.

Yes, the profit motive was always a key driver and I suspect this is more the case than it was in my day but, in my experience that pressure was never allowed to undermine the integrity of the science.

From my perspective the collaboration that has developed in the past year to fight Covid is amazing, bringing together the contributions of academic researchers, the medical profession, biotech minnows and the global power of big pharma, putting us at the point where it really seems possible to tame this viral threat.

Each of these elements has been necessary but without the scale and expertise of the industry, in clinical trials, regulatory affairs, scale up and manufacture, the prospect of being able to vaccinate the billions of folk needed to achieve herd immunity in a period of months to a couple of years would have been a pipe dream.

Clearly the winners will profit but that’s equally or possibly more true of the successful biotech innovators and their academic colleagues. In my view there’s no case to question the commitment of all those involved to deliver safe and effective treatments.

There will be mistakes made and all treatments have side effects but it would be a tragic waste of an incredible global scientific endeavour if such fears were to undermine the positive outcome that is achievable.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: December 23, 2020, 01:14:59 PM »
Neven, I am extremely disappointed you have allowed your Forum to devolve into a conspirational hotbed of hysteria. This was an excellent scientific resource, the busiest thread is now related to the common cold, and anyone who goes against the media's hysteria is evidently put on moderation despite this having nothing to do with the Arctic Sea Ice.

I had not logged in for two weeks, I am logging in now to let you know my disapproval and condemnation of this behavior -- by allowing the hysteria to foment in your forum, you are approving and contributing to the problem, and by proxy are responsible for the worsening mental health of so many on this Forum.

It is time for you to put an end to the COVID thread, the intention of this Forum was nothing remotely close to what that thread has made it become. They are making up "new strains" or whatever blah blah blah because the antisocial nincompoops that now compose a decent chunk of society would rather dwell in their basements permanently than allow the rest of the world to continue functioning. Check Rodius posts, where he has willfully and gleefully embraced giving up all his rights, despite the fact that the lockdowns in OZ have not worked and cases are still circulating undetected as evidenced by the Sydney clusters.

I think the real deplorables have now revealed themselves and Neven has an obligation to shut down the COVID thread, because it has derailed the rest of the Forum as evidenced by the lack of posting in any of the sea ice threads. Or, you can let people stew in hysterical negativity here all day long, although if that was the point in the creation of this Forum, maybe it isn't such a departure from its intention after all?

If it wasnt so serious I would think you were funny.

Making up new strains?
These made up strains are made up through testing of the virus itself and been deemed a new strain.

Lockdowns in Oz not worked?
Well, Melbourne had 700 cases a day and quite a few people dying a few months ago. Lockdowns and masks etc applied and now we have.... wait for it.... no cases.
We can do whatever we want, whenever we want. The only rule is to wear a mask while in indoor spaces in public, like the supermarket.
Adelaide had the start of an outbreak, one week of lockdown, no cases there now.
Sydney has a cluster outbreak, any guesses as to the probable outcome there?
It seems a bit odd that you say Covid goes undetected in Sydney when they have detected it, are doing 30K tests a day and finding a huge 10 cases because of it. Water treatment plants are testing for traces of Covid and don't find any until today, 30km away, so now they are going to test all 140,000 residence in that area to find it.

But the US with its "lets go for the mythical herd immunity" has 3000 people dying a day and worsening. Covid is the biggest killer in the US. But hey, no real lockdown and freedom of movement abounds.

I have no idea how your line of thinking comes up with Covid being equal to the common cold. Sure, coronavirus is also responsibly for the common cold, but... also MERS which kills a whopping 40% of those infected with it.
Serious, you are being critical of a thread that produces research and science that supports the thinking while you produced.... Murdoch media articles lol.

Feel free to log away for another two weeks.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: December 16, 2020, 02:21:55 PM »
NeitT makes a point that some are missing. Until now, people buy cars based on the max miles they expect to drive, not the average. Then they expect to fill up, take a pee and roll on in less than 15 minutes.

That buyer behaviour must change and the expectations must change or batteries and chargers must improve  b4 electric takeover. I am vaguely optimistic that batteries and chargers will improve faster than most of us imagine.


The point is absolutely valid.  Which is why fast charging on long distance routes are a must so that a driver can do long distances.

The mindset is wrong, providing a charge point is available for a sufficient period that a car is parked then high powered chargers are not required and I would argue as detrimental to the future of a cleaner grid.  We want cars to charge slowly throughout the day when solar is strong or at night when demand is otherwise low. 

My expectation is for large roll out of mostly 7kw and some 22kW chargers at home, street and carpark locations, with the higher power available at services. 

The only changes in behavior I expect is a lack of visiting petrol stations and remembering to plug in the car at night/work.  For this reason I believe the number of charge points available will be more important than the speed at which they charge.  For most people it will become no different to charging your mobile phone. 

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: December 01, 2020, 07:55:28 AM »
For Fucks Sake.
I listen to medical professionals when it comes to covid not the leader of a technology  company .
In NZ that would be first and foremost.
The entire musk said X on covid reminds me of the false experts pushed in the climate change debate.
Musks opinion on Covid has no more weight than mine as a random commentator on a blog.
Musk is not who anyone one with a reasonable number of  functioning brain cells would look to for leadership on a question  so far outside of his acknowledged  expertise.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 26, 2020, 08:14:59 PM »
I agree about electricity being far from the whole story. And yet, primary energy includes waste heat. To replace gasoline with renewable electricity, one would use far less primary energy. To replace a coal plant with solar, one would use far less primary energy.
This should have been useful primary energy, or amount of "work" done by type of energy source. As it is, it artificially inflates inefficient sources and puts down efficient sources.

BTW, should primary energy from solar include all the sun's energy that passes through the PV panel? If not, one should not include waste heat released during coal electricity generation.
A main reason I use primary energy consumed is because so much is wasted. These postings could be seen as Stage 1 - simply posting the sources of energy consumed. The main purpose is to show that solar+wind in the USA is still a minor, though growing, player in the market while coal is quickly dying.

Stage 2 would logically be an analysis of energy consumed analysed between waste and useful(?) output.
But you tell me where I can find a generally accepted calculation of the wasted energy from the average US coal plant, and natural gas plant?

Stage 3 is then the calculation and demonstration of that an increase of n gwh from renewable energy can lead to probably at least a reduction of 2n gwh consumption of primary energy from fossil fuels.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 26, 2020, 07:06:50 PM »
The EIA also does a table of electricity production in KwH (attached)
Thanks, I think this is the only useful chart. BTU and primary energy are not applicable on an apples-to-apples comparison for wind and solar, and tend to minimize their contribution.
I completely disagree.

Energy for electricity production is less than half the total use of energy in the USA. If the object of the exercise is zero carbon energy, then only showing electricity production exaggerates, i.e. more than doubles, the contribution of renewable energy and the progress made so far to zero-carbon energy.

BTU is a unit of energy. KwH is a unit of energy. As long as the tables are consistent, the choice of unit does not matter.

EDIT - as can be demonstrated by the attached graph

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 26, 2020, 03:55:27 PM »
Electricity consumed in trillion BTU. Why not kWh? These folks are weird.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 21, 2020, 02:08:05 PM »
sorry if this is already posted ...


Tesla Opens World’s Northernmost Supercharger Station

70 DEGREES NORTH - Long-distance winter drive through remote areas with electric cars in northernmost Europe is becoming safer and more reliable as a comprehensive network of Supercharger and high-power stations are switched on.

Varangerbotn, some 400 kilometers inside the Arctic Circle, is the most faraway location Tesla has turned on the power anywhere on the European continent. The two nearest Supercharger stations are Puoltikasvaara (Sweden), 623 km to the south, and Sørkjosen (Norway) 562 km to the west.

... These are not the roads where you wanna run empty of battery. With an expanded network soon up and charging, that challenge is solved.

Ten new Supercharger stations inside the Arctic Circle in northern Scandinavia are in the pipe. The network is geographically well distributed throughout the region and the chosen locations are at the main crossroads. In northern Norway, Supercharger stations are to be opened in Karasjok, Kautokeino, Skaidi, Alta and Evenes. In Finnish Lapland, Karesuvanto and Inari are chosen, while Abisko and Jokkmokk in Sweden’s Norrbotten county are soon to come.

As previously reported by The Barents Observer, local power companies in Troms and Finnmark county, with financial support from the Norwegian state, are deploying a network of 17 high-power 175 kW chargers and eight 50 kW fast chargers. By November 20, nine of the stations are opened, while most of the remaining will be connected to the grid before Christmas.

No roads throughout the region will have more than 100 km between each charging station. Troms and Finnmark county is twice the size of Belgium.

In Varangerbotn, the three V3 250 kW stalls by Tesla are placed with space enough to easily accommodate future Cybertrucks with trailers and possible Semi trucks. A station with 150 kW fast-chargers available for other electric cars is placed next to Tesla’s stalls.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 19, 2020, 01:09:25 PM »

The whole of Europe and the waters around Europe do not experience the same weather at the same time.

No but very large swathes of it are similar.  You only have to look at the weather maps for major blocking events to see that.  Blocking high's often cover the entire EU.

It is extremely rare for an area to experience low wind for more than 3-4 days.

The UK experiences this once or twice a year for 4 to 7 days.  It is a recorded phenomena and has been in the news more than once.

It only has to happen "once" for the grid to have to accommodate it.  I also tracked the renewable power into and out of the last one.  It was low on both sides.

We have been talking about all that "excess" renewable energy.  Well first we need to put in Excess capacity then we need to use the normal and provide the excess over the same grid to power storage.  Grid upgrades needed for that as our grids are not made for it.

Storage can only become viable once there is an excess of renewables to harness

Indeed and it must be charged "before" and "after" it is used and before it can be used again.  Two minor lulls in a row, no storage.

EVs are significantly more efficient than FF and provide an asset to load shift energy usage on the consumer side.

No argument.  But I did that calculation.  If all 40m UK EV's averaged 50kw/h and gave half their power to the grid, then we'd cover half of the shortfall for a 4 day lull, where the UK renewables were generating, on average, 2.5gw of power.

So those vehicles use half their power, give up the other half to power the grid and, on day 5, do what?  Charge?

And where does the other half of the energy required come from?

These are the things we have to be able to model and allow for.

The argument revolves around how much can renewables meet without significant storage, my view based on models is that if the total capacity factors of renewables reaches 100% of demand  and the UK keep 5GW Nuclear then 85% of demand will be met in realtime with 22% curtailment. 

Could be.  But you have to remember, the vast majority who are shouting for 100% renewables are 100% opposed to Nuclear!

So the reality is storage and interconnectors need to utilise this 22% that would be curtailed to meet the remaining 15%.  There is no single solution but what is clear is the supply is sufficient to feed into imports\exports, load shifting, short term batteries, medium term storage and longer term gas storage. 

This does not seem insurmountable, the bit that concerns me for the UK is getting rid of domestic gas.

No the reality is that the interconnects don't exist, nobody wants to pay for them and it is going to take decades to fix the interconnects and the grids to be able to support them.

Meanwhile we keep on removing baseload power and replacing it with variable power.

A car crash waiting for it to happen.  My concern is that the first time it happens the word Renewable will become a pariah and will destroy everything that has been built to date at the very worst possible time when we need it the most.

Hence, pragmatism.

As for UK gas.  Yep, that is the difference between France at 50gw and the UK at 30gw.  We have gas fields and France doesn't.  It has to go, but that just makes the problem even bigger.

Policy and solutions / Re: Aviation
« on: November 18, 2020, 07:28:05 AM »
Not until people say "I am responsible for  destroying the planet" instead of blaming it on anyone else, will change happen.

Yes, the rich consume more resources than the poor. However, global aviation is responsible for only 2,5% of CO2 emissions, and even a part of that is freight aviation  (ups and amazon sending all the goodies to you).
So we are talking about at most 1% of total emissions. 10 times as much is emitted by passanger traffic, ie. average Joe driving around instead of biking, walking, whatever.
Aviation by the rich is a red herring. Reduction of superfluous consumption, change of habits by all is needed, besides government regulation aiming to reduce emissions. But look what happened when France wanted to put some 10 cents per liter tax on gasoline: the people revolted. People don't want change. people want to live their cozy lives....

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 15, 2020, 05:38:26 PM »
At the end of 2019, the wind farm in Germany reached a power of 61.4 GW connected to the grid, in the night of November 11th the electricity production was 3 GW. Fortunately for the Germans that they still have their coal-fired power plants and even worse their lignite power plants, otherwise they would have frozen to death in the night. Sorry guys but it is not yet for tomorrow that our energies will be clean. Only sobriety will save us, not the Corucopian dreams.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 15, 2020, 05:09:27 PM »
In August, China+India produced more electricity from coal than all the 41 countries of the OECD combined did from coal plus natural gas.

Yes. the pace of change is accelerating in the OECD countries, but it is Asia that matters most. Yes, we have a promise from Xi Jing (but let's wait for the 5 year plan announcements in March to see what is planned to happen in this decade).

I cannot see +1.5c or even +2.0c as a possible outcome for GMSTA increase. It's gotta be more. We have too much evidence of continued investment in fossil fuels and too many Governments that will not bite the bullet. Do you know any Government that will break existing contracts for energy from fossil fuels (as is required to reach the much-trumpeted 2030 target for emission reductions) ?

That is not to say the change to renewables should not happen as fast as seizing every opportunity allows.

But it is to say that where one can plan (for oneself or one's kids), plan for a much hotter remainder of the 21st century.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 12, 2020, 04:57:43 PM »
Visual inputs are challenged in heavy fog, rain and snow.  Having a technology to compensate for some of the loss would be very useful.  Just as a car keeps its headlights during daytime driving (i.e., they are not removed, just turned off), Lidar could be utilized only when needed. 

(There was a time when carriage lanterns were only carried [or 'installed'] when nighttime trips were anticipated.)

Some four-wheel-drive vehicles have a winch permanently attached to the front bumper, even if it is only rarely needed.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: November 11, 2020, 03:37:47 AM »


- vertical mixing of ocean water reducing ice formation
- wind action scattering ice floes and helping to spread ice
- wave action by storms breaking more sea ice
- more transportation of ice potentially out
- other effects on ice formation and destruction

The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: November 06, 2020, 09:40:19 AM »
Yes, with his speech last night, what some are calling the most dishonest in his presidency (which is saying a lot), the don when full out criminal.

Basically he sounds like a football team who is loosing in the second half, so insists that they won because they were briefly ahead in the first half.

It's such a blatantly fraudulent 'argument,' that I can't believe that even most of his supporters are buying it...but then...

The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: November 05, 2020, 01:01:54 PM »

....Regarding climate change, do you believe it's a hoax? That it's not really important?
If Altai believes climate change is a hoax and/or is not of importance then why is he here on this forum?

NYT reckons Biden has the best chance of getting to 270 electoral college votes. Currently 5.3% more votes than Trump - my guess on the spread poll was 5.5%, just enough.

But without the Senate, reversing the damage done by Trump et al, let alone advancing the climate action agenda....

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: November 03, 2020, 07:01:34 AM »
You guys are worse than  cnn. And what does the airco has to do with it?

To misquote the "Good the Bad and the Ugly":

"You know my friend, there are two kinds of people in this world: The ones who listen to science and reason, and the ones who are misled by populists"

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: October 31, 2020, 09:50:08 PM »
Interestingly I realized that the last 'freezing season' melee started from my post (which was then quoted by A-Team).

Well, I fairly rarely post on the forum anyway. More concentrated on reading what others contribute. :) I considered posting a reply, but decided to let it go.

My interpretations are based on the data provided by others. They have done the hard work, have the know-how, time and commitment for it.

My contribution is largely negligible. No reason for anyone to get worked up on that.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: October 31, 2020, 06:28:48 PM »
This is the exact opposite of what you claim the moderator wants.  Yes, he does quibble with a few of A-Teams assertions about what's valuable or not.  A completely reasonable contrast of opinions, and not at all an attack.

However, your over the top mischaracterization of Orens's words actually is an attack on our esteemed moderator and is not supported by evidence--and thus is corrosive to the community many have built here.

Indeed one of the best moderations I've ever seen and in addition to that it was brave and consequent.

It really has to be said loudly and if the man (oren) wouldn't be thus fair, the other man (brr...)
wouldn't be able to post anything at all since long, which would be very much preferable IMO that I'm sure is widely shared.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: October 31, 2020, 02:50:55 PM »
One thing you learn quite quickly as a programmer is that what you yourself think is easy is pretty much black magic to all non-programmers. In spite of having worked in software development for 30 years, I have absolutely no knowledge or experience in graphics programming and the images that  A-Team and BFTV and Uniqorn and others keep posting here seems like black magic to me. I enjoy it but don't try to convince me that it is easy.

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: October 27, 2020, 10:29:39 PM »
Dnem is right. Japan is on the right track, childbearing needs to slow as fast as possible, and most countries are far off from this target. Off the top of my head, population is still growing by about 80 million per year (130m newborn, 50m passing away). So global childbirth needs to fall by 60% just to reach temporary stability. All of humanity's resources should be spent on making the transition to sustainable living, rather than spend the resources on children who will have a bleak future on a dead planet when they become adults.
And still, one reads articles about the catastrophe Japan is in, rather than the catastrophe the rest of us are in.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: October 27, 2020, 12:27:42 PM »
Tumbling numbers of pregnancies and marriages in Japan during the coronavirus pandemic are likely to intensify a demographic crisis in the rapidly ageing nation, Reuters reports.

Japan has the most aged society in the world, with more than 35% of its population expected to be 65 and over by 2050, a trend that poses risks for economic growth and straining government finances.

I know this is OT here but this drives me nuts. Transitioning to a stable population structure means passing a larger cohort through old age. It has to happen sometime or your population grows infinitely. I understand that it can be done more or less rapidly, but I guarantee you it's not going to get easier to tackle the demographic transition later in this century. Get on with it!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: October 26, 2020, 08:50:08 AM »
Hi all,

Its been some time, and I havent been regularly following...

When I was often contributing here, I'd argue that the summer minima were not the most serious indicator, and that a failure of the refreeze, which raises the SST from -30C or thereabouts (ice) to -1.8C (water) would have a much more dramatic effect on the atmosphere. That seems to be afoot.

I am well out of my depth with data-handling and graphing, but I'd like to throw out there that the most useful graph that could be produced in the current extraordinary conditions would be one showing the total ice extent area as an average over the preceeding 365 days, on any particular day for which we have data.

Perhaps it may be more practical to pick the first day of each month. Either way, I'm fairly sure that the lowest reading would be the last one, and this would hold the record only until the next one becomes available.

I think this might be helpful for the general public, for them to appreciate the current dire state of affairs.

(If this has been graphed already, please excuse my current state of ignorance)



Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: October 24, 2020, 04:44:32 AM »
Too me the argument has changed substantially now that they signed a contract. Depending on the contractual terms a big chunk of money to build those plants is already spent. The financial arguments are much harder to make now. 18 of the 40 billion is for nuclear technology. At this point if I was Poland I would build it too. At least they have a plan to shut down the coal. At the same time they also committed to spending several billion on renewables. That should reduce emissions sooner rather than later.

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: October 22, 2020, 01:41:28 PM »
That offshore wind could reasonably be built by the end of 2024 or 9-16 years earlier.

OK now compare like with like.

Will they be able to deliver an offshore wind farm which runs 24x7 whether the wind blows or not.

No, they can't.

So Nuclear, for Poland, is energy security in a solution to the inherent energy risks in a renewable energy age.  They will continue to pay this money to assure their energy security until another viable solution, which does not require the reliance on power from another country, becomes available.  Once that is available I would fully expect them to cease Nuclear energy build.

Let's talk apples to apples.  Poland building Nuclear is nothing to do with how quickly and cheaply, you can put up Wind farms or the relative energy cost of average annual generation of wind energy.

It is what to do when the wind doesn't blow on a cold winters night, without having to be reliant on another country.

If anyone had been rolled over once by the Nazi's and a second time by the USSR, within a decade, they would think twice about trusting another country for their energy security.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming more livable
« on: October 21, 2020, 11:37:48 PM »
I'm not even talking about possible grasshopper problems and other nasty surprises.

Yes, I am sure Sahara dwellers will be very sad to see grasshoppers after looking at the sand for thousands of years

I'm sure you can do better.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: October 19, 2020, 05:09:12 AM »
On a personal note, I am taking my 12 year old and 7 year old on a 3000km bike ride from Melbourne to Townsville from March to get out of the house and breath the fresh air fro a few months.

3000 km with a 7 yr old on bicycle? How long is it going to take?! Half a year??? Shouldn't they be in school?

That is school for an Australian! Australians are expected to be able to cope stuck abroad in a plague pit for the two years it takes to get a booking in the quarantine hotel. Basic training for this starts young ;)

I homeschool the kids. They are both autistic and don't deal with school at all but thrive at home.

My 12 year old is a strong rider and I am towing my 7 year old with some help from an electric motor for head wind days and moderate climbs (I will walk the steep hills, not that Oz has many). The set up I have allows me to detach the 7 year olds bike so he can ride solo every day until he gets tired, then I attach him back to my bike for the rest. He is a strong rider for his age. He comfortable does 15km to 20km every second day already.

The route is not direct, we will be weaving a little bit. I did a relatively detailed plan, it turns out it will be about 2700km.... 30km to 50km per day, slow start. I predict it will take about 90 days, give or take a week.

I nest not derail this thread, I didn't expect the response.... opps.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: October 19, 2020, 12:48:11 AM »
The best renewable energy type is to use less energy.
Imagine if everybody did that in the rich countries. But I guess that you want even MORE  ::).
This thread is for discussing developments in renewable energy. You want to discuss reducing consumption. A new thread was made for you to discuss this. If no one else wants to discuss reducing consumption with you don't hijack other threads. Reducing consumption is better for the environment. No argument from me. Reducing consumption is not the topic of this thread! Please continue to post about reducing consumption in an appropriate thread. I read many posts from you and others about reducing consumption. I don't have anything to add to that conversation so I don't post there. If you want to talk about renewable energy than post here.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 16, 2020, 01:15:28 PM »
The latest price cut is a typical Elon style marketing move to create some controversy and generate headlines. That's free advertisement for Tesla. Even Lucid probably benefits from it as they get some free advertisement too.

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: October 16, 2020, 11:29:36 AM »
Slightly different viewpoint.

In the US, we're told that France has solved the long-term nuclear waste storage problem.  Turns out, no one has.


The US went through all of the site surveys and actually settled on a site and began construction more than a decade ago.  Construction on that site was stopped due to political opposition

And that is the position.  Nuclear Glass is the correct stable structure for long term storage.
Geological storage of the glass containers is the correct method of containing the glass until the threat expires.

The reason we are not actually doing it?

Political pressure.

Whether or not it wants to be admitted, the whole point is that environmental political pressure is stopping the storage of massive amounts of existing nuclear waste.

The reason for this is that if they allow the storage of this waste, the fear is that it will allow a Nuclear industry to explode because it will allow the cost of decommissioning to be quantified.

So long as that cost remains unknown, FUD can be applied to stop more Nuclear.

That's the reality and it cannot be explained away with "we don't know".   We DO know and have known for decades.  "We don't want" is where we are today.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: October 15, 2020, 11:36:20 PM »
In a STEPS scenario, renewables will meet 80% of the growth in global electricity over the next decade.
While this is good news, it's far from good enough. Renewables should meet 100% of electricity growth, plus at least 5% of current electricity generation, if we are to achieve decarbonized global electricity within two decades. Instead, non-renewable electricity generation is expected to grow throughout the coming decade.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: October 15, 2020, 10:30:48 PM »
The IEA report also says...

As things stand, the world is not set for a decisive downward turn in emissions…

click the image to make it readable

Pages: [1]