by Planning Engineer (Russ Schussler)
In October of 2024, the isolated small city of Broken Hill in New South Wales, Australia with a 36 MW load (including the large nearby mines) could not be reliably served by 200 MW of wind, a 53 MW solar array, significant residential solar, and a large 50 MW battery all supplemented by diesel generators.
Many people falsely believe that wind, solar and batteries have been demonstrated to provide grid support and deliver energy independently in large real word applications. Few people realize that we are a long way away from having wind, solar and batteries support a large power system without significant amounts of conventional spinning generation (nuclear, gas, coal, hydro, geothermal) on-line to support the grid.
Broken Hill Outage – Wind, Solar and Battery Can Not Support the Grid
The recent outages occurring in Broken Hill help illustrate the inability of wind, solar and batteries to support electric grids without significant help from machines rotating in synchronism with the grid. (Note – wind power is produced by rotation but not in synchronism with the grid).
Around 20,000 people live in the Broken Hill area. Over $650 million in investment made Broken Hill home to a 200 MW wind plant, a 53 MW solar array, and a large battery that could provide 50 MW of power for 100 MWh through advanced grid forming inverters. Broken Hill is home to over 6,000 small-scale solar systems providing a per capita energy small solar production level almost twice the Australian average. The area also contains two poorly maintained diesel-powered gas turbine generators in the area, one which was off-line for maintenance.
Broken Hill became renewable energy industry’s Potemkin Village:
In 2018, Broken Hill City Council announced its goal to become Australia’s first carbon-free city by 2030. Three years ago, then mayor Darriea Turley welcomed the announcement that AGL was proceeding with plans to build a grid-scale battery, which the company claimed would be a reliable backup power source for 10,000 homes. “This is a great opportunity for Broken Hill and renewable energies,” Turley told the ABC. “What they will see is when there is an outage, the battery would click into operation.”
In October of 2024 this area was separated from the larger grid when the interconnecting transmission towers went down in a bad storm. Loads in Broken Hill are limited to about 20 MW of mining load and 17 MW that serve the local town for a combined load of 36 MW. The over 300 MWs of renewable energy from wind, solar and battery storage, along with a diesel generator were not able to provide reliable power to support the town alone.
A 25 MW gas plant or a 25 MW hydro plant would have done a much better job than the combined efforts of 200 MW of wind, 53 MW of solar, the 34 MW of distributed solar and 50 MW battery. The consequences for Broken Hill were serious. The Australian ran an article entitled: Broken Hill: Powerless and left to live like mushrooms where it described the situation:
The power comes on from time to time, but goes out just as quickly. It gives us just enough time to power our phones and read emails from energy providers sent the day before, alerting us to the fact the power was about to go out. They also warn we don’t have much time, and to avoid using unnecessary electrical devices – air conditioners, fridges or fans that need a power point.
In theory the area could be served, but in reality as noted by Jo Nova , “The fridges in the pharmacies failed, so all medications had to be destroyed and emergency replacements sent in. Schools have been closed. Freezers of meat are long gone… Emergency trucks are bringing in food finally “
Haven’t I Seen Many Reports Where Large Systems Ran Just on Wind and Solar?
It is common to see articles describing how wind and solar served all or nearly all of areas load during some time period. These descriptions are all misleading. They may accurately describe how many kWhs of energy wind and solar produce as well as how many kWhs of load were served, but they do not provide information on all the conventional rotating machinery that was also deployed to support the grid with needed essential reliability services. They imply (or sometimes falsely state) that just “renewables” served the load, but in fact benefits from conventional rotating machinery connected on-line where needed in order to support the grid and maintain stability. Broken Hill produced much more “renewable” energy then it used and exported large amounts. But despite the huge green resources, Broken Hill has remained dependent on the interconnected grid to support its own small load.
It means nothing to talk about how much wind and solar has contributed if you don’t also share how much rotating machinery was also interconnected on-line. So, the question remains, “has anyone demonstrated that wind, solar and batteries alone can effectively supply reliable service to a general load of any significance?” I’ve never come across anything like that, perhaps because what’s been done so far is nothing to brag about. Partial and misleading information makes for better press.
Advocates and Academics Tend to Ignore the Real Problem
As described here, academics and advocates don’t usually get around to the crucial question as to whether the grid can survive without rotating machines. The first question Academics address is “can wind and solar provide the needed kWh?” If their studies suggest this is nominally possible, they jump to the conclusion that such resources can replace conventional generation. Clearly in Broken Hill, the resources there were sufficiently large to provide energy/kWhs far in excess of the demand. But having enough kWhs is not enough to reliably serve loads.
Academics sometimes go a little deeper sometimes and address a second question which is the intermittency of energy production associated with wind and solar. Looking at when energy is needed and when it is produced, the claim is that batteries paired with these resources can support the grid by providing energy when it was needed. In Broken Hill, the problem does not seem to be intermittency. Wind and solar energy were available in abundance during the blackouts. The energy just could not be reliably integrated with the grid. Having enough kWhs at the right time and place is not enough to reliably serve loads.
The real problem is that wind, solar and batteries do not readily provide essential reliability services. Wind, solar and batteries provide energy through an electronic inverter. In practice, they lean on and are supported by conventional rotating machines. Essential Reliability Services include the ability to ramp up and down, frequency support, inertia and voltage support.
The question of essential reliability services is the sticking point for integrating large amounts of wind, solar and batteries. It is common to see cost comparisons between “renewables” and conventional generation, invariably suggesting that wind and solar may be cheaper. But when you add in the large overbuild needed to deal with intermittency, add in the costs of batteries to deal with intermittency and also the significant amounts of rotating generation needed for grid reliably, the costs of “inverter based renewable” generation greatly exceed the competition.
The Bigger Picture
Last year Chris Morris and I looked at “world leading” efforts in Australia to transition towards greater levels of wind and solar. We observed:
“Many are looking towards Australia and seeing bold, innovative steps to increase the penetration levels of wind and solar resources. A grid revolution around the corner? Or just the madness of crowds?”
Australia has spent large sums of money to make solar and wind work better with the grid and improve reliability. Recent outages and grid performance in Australia indicate that many great challenges are still ahead before a grid powered primarily by wind, solar and batteries can provide reliable power. The physics of the grid require more than the kWh’s of energy from wind, solar and batteries, even with state of the art inverter technology.
For over a decade now, I have explained many of the problems encountered in attempting to add increasing levels of generation from wind and solar resources. I will briefly highlight some of the problems with links that can be followed for more detailed descriptions and further links and even greater detail. Unlike conventional rotating generation, wind and solar do not readily supply inertia and other essential reliability services. As penetration of wind and solar resources increase, grid reliability decreases. The challenges of increasing wind and solar increase exponentially as you increase their share of generation. Policy makers, academics and others seeking to increase wind and solar are focusing on the wrong problems and failing to study the real operational problems inherent in inverter based generation from wind and solar.
Proponents of increasing wind and solar seek to counter such concerns by noting that with technical advances wind, solar and batteries can be made to perform “similarly” to conventional rotating generation resources and provide pseudo inertia and some degree of reliability services. Using the term “similarly” rather loosely, looking far ahead to the future and ignoring the great cost of such efforts, it is true that wind and solar will be able at some time to perform similarly to conventional generators. But similar is not good enough and that time is not now or in the near term.
Most academics and policy makers focus exclusively on the issue of intermittency, which can be solved usually at very high costs. Those who venture beyond to the real challenges undertaken by a smaller community of “experts” are often misled not distinguishing between what is “possible” and what is “probable”, as I described here:
(E)ngineers, academics and scientists jointly grapple with the critical such as providing synthetic or virtual inertia through inverter technology to aid the Texas grid. There is some hope that advanced computer controls can be developed so that asynchronous resources perform similarly enough to maintain the grid at higher penetration levels. It should be recognized that the talk is of possibilities not probabilities. Here the National Renewable Energy Laboratory concludes “Ongoing research points to the possibility of maintaining grid frequency even in systems with very low or no inertia”. The unsaid part of that statement is that it may not even be possible to maintain grid frequencies with low inertia. It’s also certainly in the mix at this point, based on the statement from National Renewable Laboratory, that in the next 20 years the best we may be able to do at higher penetration levels of asynchronous renewables is maintain frequency in a highly inferior manner with a boatload of reliability problems, with increasing blackouts at untenably high prices.
Grid supporting inverters and the capabilities of emulation today are far from what is needed. Hopes for the future may be admirable, but here is a huge gap between what might one day be, and what is practical and proven to be workable today
There is Often a Big Difference Between Theory and Practice
In theory the battery should have worked at Broken Hill. It was reported:
There has been confusion, in particular, about the Broken Hill battery, which owner AGL says on its website is capable of establishing a micro-grid in such circumstances, and could – at least in theory – have kept the lights on with the help of the huge 200 MW Silverton wind farm about 10 kms away and the 53 MW Broken Hill solar farm just across the road.
Many have touted that micro grids will make it easier to utilize wind and solar. Such is not the case, wind and solar work best connected and leaning on a large grid. See this posting to better understand Microgrids and the fuzzy thinking surrounding them. In any case, microgrids are not a way to skip past the challenges and basic needs of all grid, as the problems are based in physics and that remain unchanged. Coordinating a microgrid is extremely challenging as can be seen in how the plentiful rooftop solar worked against the overall reliability of the system and required curtailment.
The Australian called the blackout a “green power warning”. Mayor Tom Kennedy cautioned that policy makers, should learn from this experience how useful those resources are “almost useless” without baseload power. Solar panels were not only useless, but actually hindered efforts to establish reliability such that customers were urged to turn them off. “(Wind and solar) are worse than useless (in a crisis like this), because it’s detrimental to having a consistent power supply”.
Nick Cater wrote in the Australian:
Some $650m worth of renewable energy investment within a 25km radius of Broken Hill has proved to be dysfunctional. The technical challenges of operating a grid on renewable energy alone appear insurmountable using the current technology.
Conclusion
Australia has been much hyped recently as a pioneer in renewables, but the cracks are showing. There are many other stories of emerging problems that could be shared. Germany was the leader before. All that hype has crumbled, showing the Energiewende as a pipe dream with a poison pill. There is a simple point that is being widely ignored: wind, solar and batteries do not support the grid much. There are many tricks employed to help proponents and policy makers overlook this simple fact but eventually reality will hammer the point home.
Many excuses for this outage will likely emerge. I’ve heard that changing the battery setting made it more effective than it was initially. Undoubtedly inverter-based technology will continue to improve and wind and solar with the proper settings and equipment will be able to better contribute. While inverter-based generation with computer control may one day provide a lot of options, such technology will also provide tremendous complexity and challenges as well. Who will know how to make so many elements with unlimited potential operating characteristics behave well together across a multitude of potential unknown and unpredictable situations? Experience with the grid has come from many decades of study and practice. As the penetration of inverter-based resources increases I suspect every outage study after the fact will continue to find that the inverter setting could have been better.
Many can argue that the grid at Broken Hill could or should have worked better (although the failure was likely beyond their worst fears). That’s typically true for any grid during any outage. To quote Nick Cater again., “If wind, solar and storage can’t keep the beer cold in a small city like Broken Hill, how will it perform when called upon to power the rest of the country?” Policy makers pushing for standalone power systems built primarily on wind, solar and batteries are lurching towards disaster and will only avoid calamity to the extent that they are unsuccessful in their goals of removing conventional rotating machinery or are able to lean on the despised conventional technology of their interconnected neighbors.
Thanks to Chris Morris for his help and assistance with this piece
‘The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we’re seeing about 90% less temperature rise than expected… In other words, for at least the next two decades, solar and wind energy are simply expensive, feel-good measures that will have an imperceptible climate impact.’ ~Bjorn Lomborg
…and, had such an incredible cost, e.g., ‘…one nuclear plant producing 1,800 MWs of electricity occupies about 1,100 acres, while wind turbines producing the same amount of electricity would require hundreds of thousands of acres.’ (from a letter delivered to President Obama, signed by 15 state governors)
As noted Wagathon – Technological advances producing greater output will small footprint – except in the case of renewable energy. Larger footprint producing less energy
Your “latest study” quote from Lomborg was written in 2015. You can look it up.
In the meantime, the endless climate summits promulgated by the progressive movement cannot stop the continuing rise in carbon emissions coming from Brazil, Russia, India, China and the African continent. Subsidizing solar power and windmills is simply flushing the wealth of the country down the toilet.
Wagathon wrote:
In the meantime, the endless climate summits promulgated by the progressive movement cannot stop the continuing rise in carbon emissions coming from Brazil, Russia, India, China and the African continent.
More deception. The US emits more than any of BRI, and just 4% less than all of them (2022 data). About half more per capita than C. In terms of all-time CO2 emissions the US leads handily. Apportion responsibility correctly.
China the largest consumer of coal in the world,
China uses six times more coal than the United States uses…
India uses more coal than the United States…
As of 2023, China is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, so, they’re doing more for the plants than we are, but… in a lot dirtier way than we are.
Appell AKA 02
Aren’t you embarrassed to always being behind times?
https://x.com/TonyClimate/status/1810575200817443069/photo/1
Wagathon wrote:
India uses more coal than the United States…
Which country emits more CO2 per annum?
a) USA
b) India
(c) China (more than double that of the US)
China emits more CO2 than the US, India, EU, and Russia combined—and then some.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Silly discussion. Emissions should be evaluated by per capita contributions (PCC). Nonetheless, in the frame of “by country”, guess which country is the largest producer of electricity from renewables: It is the same one that produces the most EVs, windmills, solar panels, batteries, as well as new hydro and pumped storage.
I think some like to deflect from the fact that the U.S. has the highest per capita CO2 emissions of any major country. Yes, it has started going down, but it’s going to be a while before China (~1/2) or India (~1/8) pass the US in per capita CO2 emissions, if they ever do.
Mr. B. Demonstrate how any effect of CO2 is “per capita”. I’m pretty sure the effects are “per absolute concentration”. But, hey, you are the “scientist”. Show us your proof.
So let’s wait a bit before destroying our fossil fuel plants and gas pipelines, shall we? Eh, lads?
It would be helpful to provide a graph with time on x-axis and on the y-axis provide demand, and various sources of supply including storage, so that the periods where supply does not meet demand become highlighted.
Transgrid do not provide the information down at substation level of the load. That 220kV line was almost always exporting power so the load down to distribution transformers would be lost in that.
At a State level, the load, price and fuel mix as to what is supplying that generation is here
https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-electricity-market-nem/data-nem/data-dashboard-nem
That is on about 5 minute updates so effectively live. For NSW right now, it is 87% black coal and more gas than battery. They are bringing a lot up on the interconnectors from Victoria where most (64%) is generated by brown coal.
Very good idea, Donald!
“so that the periods where supply does not meet demand become highlighted.”
Other than perhaps listing curtailed resources, I don’t know that information as to available generation not used, or the magnitude of generating resources providing spinning support has ever been shared outside an organization. It would be real helpful.
As an Australian, I am pleased to see that the Broken Hill problems have been analysed in this article so that people beyond our shores can learn of the situation. The government seems to be living in a renewable energy fantasy and the sums of money being spent are eye-watering. Swathes of fertile farming land and forest are being destroyed for wind and solar projects, the thought of food production and animal habitats conveniently forgotten. The government is also categorically refusing to look at nuclear options. I think there will be many more instances like Broken Hill and there is little anyone can do except to vote the current government out.
First – I greatly appreciate the article which from professionals with actual real world knowledge as opposed to the “superior” knowledge who have deluded themselves.
More than once I have posted on skeptical science links to articles by CM and RS pointing their real world knowledge on the subject of renewables. The response has been A) we should heed Marc Jacobson, et al advice since they are actual renewable experts and B) we should fully discredit guys such as RS and CM because they are NOT renewable experts.
Comparing and constrasting CM’s & RS posts and comments with the renewable experts, its abundantly clear that the renewable experts have no clue what they are talking about.
Sorry – perhaps I should proof read before posting
First – I greatly appreciate the article which from professionals with actual real world knowledge as opposed those who claim to have the “superior” knowledge yet who have deluded themselves.
Again Thanks to CM and RS for their insight.
Ouuuch; 18 years after retirement it still hurts.
I always thought it is the grid that is synchronised with the rotating plant. It has always been mechanical governors that controlled the speed, and so the frequency, designed for reliable service with a life span in excess of the mandatory thirty year, with considerable life extension.
Electronics in general had a MTBF (mean time before failure) of about 5 yrs. (The three electronic governor cards with voting rights were all defective – we found out after days of head scratching and irregular behaviour). Plus any electronics produced at the time of changeover to lead-less solder had lower MTBF; a metallurgical problem with the solder. So are inverters immune? The first item to be replaced in a new-build was such; defective and obsolete in matter of months.
Then there is the software that is incompatible with rotating system inertia and thermal limits of the back up plant (time up :) ).
ps. it is not only fridges. Electronic digital is now everywhere, and all depend on it – including old grannie.
Yep – as a retired engineer I also am amazed at the lack of understanding of how a large array of magnetically coupled rotating machines really works. It is a wonder and now we have mainly policy wonks poking sticks in the spokes of this wonderful machine.
Where do you get the idea of 5 year MTBF? There are a LOT of electronics running for far longer than that.
For power switching, the lifetime is influenced by the temperatures they operate at.
And what is the MTBF for bearings and other mechanical components?
but even if you are correct about the lifetime, the electronics are not the bulk of the cost, and are relatively easy to swap out over time (and the next version is likely to be cheaper and last longer)
David: Some 25 yrs ago that was the standard, and we in generating plant had our share of burnt out and defective cards (several in generator excitation system). The problem in electronic was they were non maintainable; unlike bearings or the mechanical parts that wear out. The cost there is in unplanned outage. The cost of a day’s outage far exceeds the cost of the replacement card. And they were not cheap (with industrial dedicated electronics price was a policy, many times exorbitant)
Granted, development and performance improved greatly. But operating temperature can be a limitation due to design. (The minor ones I repair as a past-time are actually built-in life limits [after 60 yrs I still find the nitty-gritty of semiconductors fascinating])
This is my knowledge as a retired electronics engineer who worked half the time in industrial control device development and half in a test lab testing industrial electronics and qualifying them for UL approval:
Where electronics were required to have a long life and function without failure, they were made “fail-safe”. This is achieved by doubling or tripling the basic electronics and checking for each action that both or all three “blocks” produce the same results. In a triple system, the failed component can be replaced while the “rest” of the system continues to function. Such systems are used in power plants or airport baggage handling systems, for example. The MTBF of such systems is 20 years or more.
RS and CM (and Judith), this is valuable observation and analysis.
In the 1990s my company Peko was taken over by North Broken Hill, becoming just North, though I did not involve myself much with the Broken Hill mines. A century earlier, they were noted for progress through innovation, with the cream of global mining skills being involved.
Today I ask “Where was the mine management brain pool when they agreed to go to intermittents?” Peko had just bought a half a dozen biggish mines into production but had studied and dismissed intermittents. I have not studied the process of Broken Hill going intermittent and appeal for some help here.
I have a large concern, that Broken Hill management were pressured to go that way, without a NO option, by a collection of ignorant green zealots in various parts of governments.
It is important to learn what happened, for the sake of the mines of the future.
Maybe there is also a lesson for top mining executives still to learn, something like “Go woke, go broke”. Geoff S
Several major international miners have made i clear that for a number of reasons, their expansion will be in countries other than Australia. Government pro-union, anti-business legislation is also a factor. The massive loss of land due to huge, long-distance power projects is also adversely affecting farming, our other major export. We are heading for poverty as well as blackouts.
A truly hair-raising read! Having uninterrupted electricity supply is one of the priority requirements of modern society. But as the article here shows, ideality trumps reason and proven reality. It will work, but when? You only become dull when you also consider how many error sources are built into an electrical network of the nature described. No, such green-eyed fantasies do not belong in a rational world. It’s about functionality and if you can’t achieve the same proven functionality or better, in case of system changes, then you have to wait until the time is right. And it definitely isn’t in Broken Hill.
Clean safe water is the most important requirement for humans (and all life forms) to survive. For decades humans have used chlorine compound to kill harmful bacteria and prevent water waterborne illnesses.
Have you ever heard of chloronitramide anion compounds? Turns out it’s been added to many of our chlorinated public water systems for generations and it might be toxic.
The identification of this chemical, the chloronitramide anion, compound consisting of chlorine, nitrogen, and oxygen atoms found in tap water took 40 years to isolate.
From a recent Washing Post story, “A mysterious byproduct of a chemical used to disinfect the tap water of about one-third of Americans has finally been identified, and the international research team behind the discovery is advocating rapid assessment of its potential toxicity. The research, reported Thursday in the journal Science, does not claim that tap water containing the byproduct is unsafe to drink or that the finding represents any kind of emergency. All water, including bottled water, contains contaminants. But the discovery of a new and previously unknown chemical, called chloronitramide anion, could have implications for municipal water systems that use a class of chlorine-based disinfectants called chloramines. For decades these disinfectants, derived from the mixture of chlorine and ammonia, have been added to many municipal water supplies to kill bacteria and prevent waterborne illnesses.”
…
“This is a novel chemical. It doesn’t appear in the Chemical Abstracts Service, a registry of 219 million substances. “It’s like the number of stars we have in the sky for chemistry,” said Beate Escher, a toxicologist at the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany, who was not involved in the study.”
Tap water found to contain a newly-identified toxic chemical
https://www.earth.com/news/unidentified-chemical-found-in-tap-water-across-the-u-s/
If it’s not one of the 2,500 varieties of the miracle molecules PFAS/PFOS we have to worry about we still have wonder about the other 250,000 novel man-made molecules we spew into the biosphere every day, 365 day a year for the last 80 years.
-Jack
On topic:
Since 2012 my average annual electric bill is -$240 (yes, they pay me for my excess electricity) and I now have 18KWH whole home backup system, so the grid is actually optional for me.
The other way of looking at your power bill is the urban poor are subsidising your smugness. And if everyone did what you did, the grid would collapse a lot worse than what Broken Hill suffered.
JackSmith,
Please contain your chemophobia. Man-made chemicals will produce by-products in inceasing amounts and varieties as new technology advances. There is, however, no basis for the assumption that these will automatically cause harm. The majority do not. Also, there are papers noting that Nature produces many toxins, so not merely man-made types need testing.
A bad act was done by Rockefeller Foundation way back in the 1950s. It continues to be pushed by them, as I relate here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/18/corruption-of-science-by-money-and-power/
The Rockefeller act was to promote the LNT theory (Linear No Threshold) that put simply, holds that substances that are toxic at high doses maintain toxicity in a linear fashion as the dose decreases to near-zero. We are now in a wave of ridiculous science that, for example, has nearly every public health body mouthing that there is no safe level for ingestion of Lead (Pb) and that nuclear energy is unsafe at any level, like Nader’s cars that were unsafe at any speed.
The established process of hormesis shows non-linear dose/harm relations, some beneficial, and hence suppressed from discussion in polite woke circles.
If you fear chemicals, take a Science degree with a Chemistry major. Geoff S
Geoff,
I do not fear chemicals or man-made molecules as long as I know which ones to avoid. In most cases it’s the dose & length of exposure that is key. In the next few years A.I. will advance to A.G.I. followed by A.S.I. and we will be better informed on how to deal with our negative impacts on the environment, if we will listen.
The LNT also plays a prominent roll in nuclear power with regulators postulating latent cancers impacts involving very small radiation doses. Such levels are within the noise level of natural radiation and there is no way to actually identify adverse (if any) health impacts. The postulated impacts are based on unprovable statistical inferences. How convenient for the regulators.
The LNT bottom line: spending huge sums of money arguing over the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Overregulation at its finest.
Dose is most applicable to acute toxic exposures, and duration to chronic exposures. Typically, acute exposures are limited by the solubility of the toxin, and chronic exposures are limited by both solubility and how rapidly the body excretes sub-acute exposures. Then there is the issue of individual susceptibility such that the concept of LD50 was developed to account for the variance in apparent toxicity. It isn’t as simple as just “dose and duration.”
Jack
“ If it’s not one of the 2,500 varieties of the miracle molecules PFAS/PFOS we have to worry about we still have wonder about the other 250,000 novel man-made molecules we spew into the biosphere every day, 365 day a year for the last 80 years.”
And therein lies the threat. We don’t know what we don’t know. Do any of the studies that might have found a lack of toxicity know what a lifetime of exposure of these man made molecules could do? No, because no one has performed a 75 year study…..yet. Science might discover at some point the problems but not yet. Because we don’t know what we don’t know.
Thank you for the article.
I’m so glad my mother wasn’t one of those trans freak parents. She could have gotten me into the mascara and eye shadow.
https://news.nd.edu/news/use-of-pfas-in-cosmetics-widespread-new-study-finds/?utm_source=paid_social&utm_medium=twitter_ad&utm_campaign=research&utm_term=pfas&utm_content=pfas-cosmetics&twclid=2-5ypi8ug1x75co2o3ztwi19tck
The unreliable, intermittent and inherent asynchronous nature green resources renders them economically inferior to conventional machines employing rotating synchronous generators. In order to compensate for that fundamental flaw, significant energy storage measures are required and that obviously drives up costs. The greater the green energy penetration, the more severe the grid’s instability issues.
The green energy movement has employed a “cancel culture” and insult based defense for years in an attempt to bully those who disagree with their political agenda. Sound familiar? The jig is now up. New U.S. sheriff. Other world regions mindlessly embracing the green energy religion will be left in the economic dust bin.
True, true, like… weaning a polar bears off red meat with figs and artichokes.
For people outside Australia, Broken Hill is in an arid part of NSW, “the outback.” It should be the poster place for solar. But the old adage is true that when the sun don’t shine solar don’t work. And most people with rooftop solar find out that if you don’t have power in the grid, your solar panels won’t work- unless you have a system with a battery configured to backup your home during grid outages.
Lately renewables proponents have been shilling that synchronous condensers will be able to provide the necessary inertia to stabilise the grid. My question is: would one or two syn-cons have been able to keep the power on in and around Broken Hill? And if, say, one could have provided the necessary inertia at BH, how many would be needed to stabilise the whole east coast network? The way I see it, Australia will never get to the Full Bowen and will continue to add componentry to the system over and above natural expansion and keep putting patches on patches on patches ad infinitum into the future in a chase-their-tail race to keep up with the ongoing instabilities and increased costs. Better to just pull the pin on the current plans (if you could call them plans) and replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants. The best time to introduce nuclear was years ago; the next best time is now.
Tony It is very unlikely that a syncon would have been any help, especially for the first week. Inertia and voltage control, which syncons provide, were not the main problem. The fundamental issue was balancing load and generation. This can be by governor control with a fast-acting generator. Very hard to do that with only one GT on. Grid following synthetic AC stations can’t do that.
In theory, batteries could also provide a buffer alternating between charging and generation in response to frequency. However, that capability hasn’t been demonstrated. Being told by an academic or promoter that it works is not the same as being proven performance. Everything so far has failed. The Aus grid as a whole is already having a problem with unstable frequency. A subject I might write an article for Etc to publish if it causes a significant outage but until then, too esoteric for all but power station/ grid engineers,
On a related note – South Australia wants to restart mothballed diesel fueled generators available because they are worried about blackouts. Amazing how the risk of going down certainly focuses the mind. Of course, that will make the price of power to the consumer go up to support those ever so “cheap” unreliables.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-02/sa-government-asks-for-diesel-generators-to-be-switched-back-on/104672956
Chris M; –The power consumed by the auxiliaries is not much. But they are primarily dumping heat energy to sink. My experience is limited to a 100MW clutched g/t system. Rough calculations then indicated system can eat near 2% of the aimed for efficiency. In effect negating the effort in getting the most of the hot-gas-path lifetime of the basic plant.
Plant design is a holistic process to obtain optimal efficiency. Many times the inadvertent add-ons tend to be very detrimental, especially is done without sound study before. (like one case of cooling the sea water prior to dumping). Vendors -I found- rarely know best; and tend to care even less as long as they sell.
Thanks for your reply, Chris. The link below is to one of the articles touting the bona fides of syn-cons. It makes some claims which I don’t doubt are technically possible, but they raised my eyebrow nevertheless.
“When completed in late 2025, it will be the largest of its type anywhere in Australia and could enable up to 600MW of new renewable energy generation in the region.
Australian Energy Operations CEO Glen Thomson says the syncon will help unlock large amounts of wind and solar generation for all Victorians.
“This facility will allow more clean electricity to connect to the network, while ensuring key system security needs are met
“Syncons could be described as the unsung hero of the energy transition—they don’t get the same headlines as batteries, wind or solar, but they will play an equally crucial role in keeping the lights on for Victorian homes and businesses.””
https://esdnews.com.au/work-begins-on-ararat-synchronous-condenser/
Tony I think what is written in the article about Ararat syncon is correct. It definitely will smooth the fluctuations and improve system security. That will be a big boost to reduce operational difficulties where it is installed.
The unit has a similar function to hydro units on tailrace depression, except those can generate if needed. It is what is left out that is interesting. Who is going to pay for it – the unreliables who need it, or the consumer. We know the answer.
A syn condenser’s inertia is provided by its own mass. A stream turbine coupled to a generator provided a massive amount of inertia…thank goodness
David modern syncons I have seen in the trade magazines are salient pole generators driving very big heavy rotor shaped flywheels so they provide significant and useful inertia. However, this comes at a cost. First there is the capital expense. A lot of copper and steel there. The second is the parasitic loss of them spinning all the time. I haven’t seen published numbers but with the rule of thumb being transformer and stator winding plus excitation losses being about 2% each. a 200MVA syncon running at rating would be consuming about 8MW. Another cost which should be charged to the unreliables but the hapless consumer to pay.
Chris Morris: Add to the losses the cost of the auxiliaries O&M.
The cooling system and lubrication. They are rotating monsters, generating heat from absorbed power generated elsewhere.
meli – O&M is minimal – comparable to that for a big motor which it is. Running the oil pump uses insignificant power – only needs 20kW motor to drive the pump giving oil to the bearings. Oil could be cooled in radiator like transformers have. If the stator/ rotor windings are cooled by once through air, as is industry practice for ones up to at least 100MW like we have so odds on they are bigger ones available – that windage is within the 2%.
Salient pole generators are really rugged and can take a lot of abuse – even take asynchronous motoring. Probably only need to pull rotor out of frame once every 8-10 years to inspect core – Not an expensive or time-consuming exercise.
Most expensive part would be maintaining C&I gear as well as the circuitbreakers. That is near chump change costs compared to the energy bill.
Here are GE’s syncons which are up to 300MVA – details on construction and exploded views.
https://www.gevernova.com/grid-solutions/powerd/catalog/synch_cond.htm
Here are ones with flywheels and an inertia constant around 10 – that matches if not exceeds what large thermal plant provides
https://www.andritz.com/hydro-en/hydronews/hn36/technology-flywheels
reply ended elsewhere further up. Sorry.
In October of 2025, the isolated small city of Broken Hill in New South Wales,
October of 2025. Did this information come from a climate model projection?
Good catch Andy. Neither of us picked it up in any of the drafts. It is the silly mistakes which trip one up.
Russ and Chris … great job, as always.
‘The fundamental immorality of prioritizing climate trillions to achieve little a century from now,’ Bjorn Lomborg posted a few minutes ago. ‘When people across the world struggle with poverty, disease, malnutrition, and bad education.’
The climate change globalist worry about polars
… Polar bears. That at a time when over 700 species of flora and fauna have been discovered over the last 10 years in the Congo basin.
At the very beginning of all the talk of renewables and cleaner energy I heard and read about highly qualified and experienced engineers asking “but what about base load?” They further quipped that hydro was good but not much else on the green lists seemed capable or reliable of delivery.
The question was then sidestepped by the green obsessed just as it is overlooked and sidestepped now until a rather large penny drops just as it has at Broken Hill.
Fossil fuel may one day be bettered as a source of power but until then it will also play a huge and key role in getting there. We seem nowhere near that point at this time because we have allowed all focus to shift from reality to virtue signalling. Time to get real again and do stuff properly and not throw good money after bad.
I keep wondering when the policy makers will finally say “Houston, we have a problem.”
The divergence between theory and reality is widening every year.
Another great post.
Cerescokid
The problem with that analogy is the “theory” was never a real theory, It wishful fantasy.
Everyone grounded in reality knew that.
Pingback: Wind and Solar Can’t Support the Grid - Climate- Science.press
Suicidal green energy …
From the article:
The expansion of thousands of wind turbines in Sweden over the past two decades means there’s so much power around that electricity prices are increasingly dipping below zero, both for whole days and individual hours, and are expected to remain very low for years.
The market turmoil is discouraging investors from backing new renewable developments in the country as rock-bottom power prices offer little return. Doubts are also growing over what demand will be in the future as a number of energy-hungry green industrial mega-projects in the north get delayed or canceled altogether. A Danish auction for new offshore wind farms failed to attract any bidders in another sign of stress for green investment.
Source:(www.)bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-06/sweden-s-free-green-power-is-crippling-its-wind-industry
Jim2 – You are touching base on the ultimate cause of the 2021 Texas freeze disaster. There lots of factors involved, the short term factors, mid term factors (tactical factors ) and the long term factors (strategic factors) . The renewable advocates want to blame the short term and mid term factors while ignoring the long terms factors. As you noted, the green pricing structure cut into the funds available to properly maintain the fossil Fuel sector. RS has had some good posts on the subject
I presume the Danish wind farm failed partly because they would be generating at the same time as lots of other sites, when the price is low. Were it some alternative source that generated when wind wasn’t, the economics would be different.
I don’t know of an VRE source that fits that bill.
This also leads to the question: why was this farm wanted in the first place, if it’s energy isn’t needed? It looks like the market was working – it killed the project because the project wasn’t needed and hence wasn’t economic.
It was never necessary to build all this pointless infrastructure to understand how and why it would not work as advertised. Any engineer can sit down with a calculator and figure it out the cost of storage is monumentally huge in relation to the cost of energy that is itself unavoidably exoesnive due to the weakness of the enry colected, and it cannot be stored at a rasonable cost so becomes unaffordable if it is required to power demand led 24/7 grid. Which is why steam replaced wind and water power. Only ever suitable for low enrgy party time feudal economy. Neither theenrgy denity of eudal enrgy sources not their intermittency can be fixed by “science”. Science is what defines their limits and we know what they are. To claim otherwise is to demonstarte a total lack of a basic understanding of energy generation. To impose it by law is fraudulent.
Intermittent renewables are unnecessary if you use nuclear or clean gas, and the energy intensity of the sources generally makes the costslowest of all, no subsidies or backups are required and resource requirements are lowest. Renewables are only useful dfor air con in hot places in the summer. SOlar is utterly seless in the northern hemisphere in the winter when ist needed for heat and light and when the sun is on the Horizon when its there at all. solar has an 11% annual duty cycle in the UK .
Building what you can calculate will cost a lot and not work when required is both stupid, and fraudulent if done for subsidy in the sure knowledge that there are better solutions which are clean gas & nuclear. The nuclear being zero CO2. SMRs are perfect for Broken Hill. How many are they planning to build? Why not? No easy money subsidies for what works perhaps? Quick pay backs on guarteed profis from overpriced renewables. ITa simple climate change protection racket, run by government for cynical energy lobbyists, who are suitably grateful in various”legal” ways to the civil servants and ministers enacting the multi Billion £ easy money/guaranteed profit subsidy enabling laws after office. The corruption is legalised by the whipped votes of the cynical or ignorant elected stooges in parliament – how the democracy rackets work.
Lets be clear. The costed physics says NO. Always did. Nuclear was always the most sustainable, cheapest LCOE energy source, lowest footprint and even zero CO2 – if that really mattered. Only more intesne and much more sustanble nuclear enrgy could evr replace fossil enrgy sources. These are all direct consequences of the physics and the properties of energy sources. They have not changed because they cannot change. Subsidies cannot change natural absolutes and physical laws regarding the absolte limitations of renewables, that also cannot scale to whatever demand we need, as dispatchable sources can. And if you can get through peak demand on nuclear alone, when it’s dark and not windy, you don’t need ANY renewables. CEng, CPhys, MBA
“Nuclear was always the most sustainable, cheapest LCOE energy source, lowest footprint and even zero CO2 – if that really mattered.”
–
No, the CO2 is a component of life. There is no reason for stopping burning fossil fuels, except for saving them for the future generations use.
And, the CO2 causes the greening of our Planet!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Another ally in the fight for sanity is Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, sometimes known for harebrained schemes such as blocking out the Sun to cool the planet. Sweden nixed that.
Nevertheless, Gates rightly has championed nuclear power, much maligned despite obvious advantages. In 2006, he founded TerraPower to develop an advanced breeder reactor that will power a plant in Kemmerer, Wyoming. With one billion dollars from Gates, TerraPower broke ground in June. The plant is designed to run 50 years without refueling.
Source:wattsupwiththat.com/2024/12/06/reality-forces-reason-into-power-choices/
Ozone blockade over the Bering Sea will cause another stratospheric intrusions in the US.
https://i.ibb.co/j3LQTPY/gfs-toz-nh-f96.png
https://i.ibb.co/sbzQLj7/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f096.png
Current snow cover in the northern hemisphere.
https://i.ibb.co/87pSYwj/gfs-npole-sat-seaice-snowc-d1.png
Pingback: Wind and Solar Can’t Support the Grid – Watts Up With That? - All about Farming
A continuation of the lake effect on the Great Lakes.
Low temperatures over Hudson Bay and the bay quickly freezes from the west.
https://i.ibb.co/nM6HyM6/ventusky-temperature-5cm-20241205t2100.jpg
Over on Watt’s Up With That blog, Nick Stokes wrote this relevant comment.
“Nick Stokes
December 6, 2024 12:44 pm
“In October of 2025, the isolated small city of Broken Hill in New South Wales, Australia with a 36 MW load (including the large nearby mines) could not be reliably served by 200 MW of wind, a 53 MW solar array, significant residential solar, and a large 50 MW battery all supplemented by diesel generators.”
Schussler should know that it does not work like that. Although the Silverton wind farm and the solar array are fairly close to Broken Hill, they do not feed into the city’s distribution. Instead they feed in to the high voltage Transgrid network, from which BH normally derives its power. And that HV network was broken in the storm.
There was a lack of local synchronous generation, which should have been provided by the diesel generators. They failed. So the two systems that were meant to provide synchrony (NSW grid and diesel) failed.
The battery was also connected to Transgrid, not the microgrid. This could, with cost and effort, be fixed. Several commercial operators have to cooperate to do that. They did, but it took ten days.”
As a miner, my comment is that the continuity of electricity supply is so important that it is foolish to replace a reliable working system (hydrocarbon fuels) with an intermittent system still under development. Nick’s comment admits it was still under development, “took ten days” to configure and that it was complex/unreliable “several commercial operators have to cooperate”.
A big working mine is no place for experiments into electricity supply unless there are pressures beyond the control of the mine people. Ideally, you have instant backups in case your transition falters.
What happened at Broken Hill? Was the mine forced into intermittents via political policy, or was it a case of naive mine managers playing the green game?
Geoff S
Geoff
Nick seems to have gone to ground – he doesn’t like being challenged on his very shaky assertions and he has little understanding of the practicalities of the subject. A true academic.
However, to explain your query about securely running in island mode.
The 220kV switchyard has a horseshoe layout ending in two transformers with line connections as follows – line down to Buronga and another out to a mine switchyard. There are also lines from wind farm and the solar plant. On the 22kV (town) side of transformers is a bus. Into that comes 8 distribution lines from town, the diesel generators and the battery. When the sun is out, the town exports power to the grid (a major part of the problem). At night when it is calm, the switchyard would import. Voltage control must be by transformer tap changers, which would make them less reliable. You can see it all clearly on Google Earth.
When the Buronga line failed and the circuit breakers tripped, the switchyard would have gone black. With the disconnectors open, they could safely run as an island – any competent switchyard staff should be able to get out the pre-prepared operating order and set this up in an hour. However, this would need dispatchable generation that could run on governor control. It is likely the gas turbines could do this. They cannot do this because of all the unreliables on the grid. They would need to be disconnected in the same operating order. The domestic solar is uncontrolled and that is the problem – let voltages rise to about 255V and it will fry all their inverters – problem solved. The battery should be able to run in conjunction with a GT – discharging when the frequency drops and charging when it rises acting as float. Batteries can be set up to do this very well – the documentation is unclear as to whether the one there have that function (1 sec raise and lower), at least initially.
GTs have a minimum load typically 15-25% of the rating. This will be the problem with all the solar feeding back into the grid. The GT would not be able to generate as solar overwhelmed it. If they relivened the mine, then that extra load could help stabilise the system, even if the domestic solar was feeding in. That all changes at sunset. Then the mine would be too heavier a load.
Nick deliberately misunderstood PE’s article. It is not about MW per se. It was the grid support Note that word SUPPORT – voltage, frequency, inertia, waveform – 4 big ones plus some other stuff. If instead of the wind and solar (including the domestics), there were say more gas turbines or diesel engines, then they could have provided this at a lot cheaper (and more reliably) than either battery or compressed air storage. We test our standby generators monthly under a variety of start scenarios, running them up to half an hour at a time. How often did Transgrid do the Broken Hill do theirs?
And that is how you get reliability into the grid, especially for places at the end of radial spokes. Why hospitals have emergency fossil fuel fired generators not solar cell arrays.
The reason why they did it was all political – virtue signalling. The unreliables are not cheaper when the cost of backup and grid support is factored in. That is why the price of power has skyrocketed and the grid reliability dropped. How many LOR2s were declared in the 90s? To really cheer you up, it will get worse before it gets better.
What do the satellites over the equator show? No surface warming up to a height of 2 km and a decrease in ozone production in the upper stratosphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
For some time there have been reports of a decrease in cloud cover over the oceans. I wonder if this could be a decrease in condensation nuclei?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_condensation_nuclei
Nick got a number of basic facts wrong. For example, the battery is on the 22kV side of the grid. So it was connected all the time. When he makes easily verifiable pieces of information like that wrong, or doesn’t back up his statements with links, it’s easier to just regard everything he writes as red noise.
To back up my statement above, here are links which give the battery connection.
https://www.agl.com.au/content/dam/digital/agl/documents/about-agl/how-we-source-energy/broken-hill-battery-energy-storage-system/230505-agl-bess-iea-final-consolidated-report-additional-info.pdf.
Part 5 here is why it wasn’t allowed to be on the grid in full operational mode gridforming.
https://www.agl.com.au/content/dam/digital/agl/documents/about-agl/how-we-source-energy/broken-hill-battery-energy-storage-system/241107-broken-hill-bess-project-ks-report-milestone-3-project-knowledge-sharing-report-1.pdf
But your underlying concern is very valid. Critical plant like mine ventilation systems need very reliable electricity supply. And with a single point of supply and unreliables there, that security is gone.
In earlier days, climate change research was plagued with hysterical fears of imminent global cooling in the 1970s. Western climate science and the coming of a Hot World catastrophe has become a pathological religion and should be taken with the seriousness that many outside Western academia compare to the science of ancient astrology.
“Pathological religion” — that’s a very good description, Wagathon.
This CO2 nonsense is all about a false religion. If it were about science, it would have been crushed decades ago. But very few people understand the basic physics.
It’s amazing that those concerned about ‘temperature” don’t even understand what temperature is. Temperature directly relates to the kinetic energy of molecules, with directly relates to the frequency of absorbed photons. If the frequency of arriving photons isn’t greater than the Wien’s Displacement Law photon frequency, then there will be NO temperature increase.
A 288K surface (Earth) emits a WDL photon with frequency about 30 GHz. CO2 emits a photon at about 20 GHz. Since 20 GHz is much less than 30 GHz, CO2 will cause NO increase to Earth’s average surface temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
True, true surface temperature is important. Weather apps available on most phones. For example give daily temperatures and for any given day hourly temperatures. It’s easy to notice that the daily temperature many times varies from a more localized hourly temperature, sometimes by a matter of 3° in either direction. Such are the supposed microclimate air conditions which is put forward as an explanation for the variances. And, it’s this ‘science’ that the Hot World climate charlatans claim justifies — based on changes in temperatures, measure down to the hundredths of a degree — the need for government to take over and control the producers of the country’s goods and services.
For p
For Planning Engineer- have you looked at Babcock Ranch in Florida? https://babcockranch.com/
“We’re America’s first solar-powered town, and we’re pretty passionate about it. From our 870-acre solar farm, to solar tree charging stations, to the country’s largest solar-plus-battery storage system, renewable energy is a part of everyday life at Babcock Ranch”.
They claim to be 100% solar with batteries – no connection to the grid. It looks to be very expensive, but they claim to have survived Hurricane Ian with no loss of power or damage to their solar farm.
I started a post on the overhype surrounding their survival after a hurricane came “close” and they saw very little impact. If I can find my draft I will see if I can share it here. Pickelball and/or the lake or something musst have stopped me from completing it (or I could be wrong and it was published). Pretty sure of most of the folliowing: They are directly connected to a large transmission station. I think 100% of Floridas transmission stations were fine after the hurricane. No reason to expect they wouldn’t continue to get service reliable unintereupted service from the grid even without local resources. The only real damage close to them was in a couple mobile home parks from tornadoes. Homes there (and surrounding area) so no significant damage. The storm did not take out the local solar, nor likely any tv antennas either. I’m sure it’s a fine neighborhood enjoying some benefits from solar. But as a demo nothing significant or surprising.
Hope I don’t get burned, but this is from Perplexity AI. It swuares with my understanding of the arrangement. There are explanationsn of why they need the grid, but I would say they need it even more than they realize. From Perplexity – Yes, Babcock Ranch is connected to the grid. While the town is powered primarily by solar energy, it maintains a connection to the broader electrical grid for several reasons:
The FPL Babcock Ranch Solar Energy Center produces more energy than the town needs, and excess power flows into the FPL power grid to serve customers outside the town25.
When solar energy production is low (e.g., at night or on cloudy days), Babcock Ranch draws electricity from the grid, specifically from the closest FPL natural-gas power plant2.
The town pays the same rates as other Florida Power and Light customers in the network, indicating a grid connection6.
While Babcock Ranch aims for energy independence, it currently lacks large-scale energy storage capabilities, necessitating grid connection for consistent power supply67.
This grid connection ensures reliable power for Babcock Ranch residents while allowing the town to contribute excess solar energy to the broader community.
Can’t figure out why I can’t find an old draft of that on my hard drive somewhere. Did find this quote from Roger Caiazza in an old email update. –
I wondered how the author managed to claim that extreme weather will have more of an effect on today’s generators in weather-proof generation buildings than the exposed wind turbines and solar panels. The reference provided claimed that Babcock Ranch, a Florida “solar town”, came out of Hurricane Ian “almost unscathed and notes that one resident says they survived ‘by design.
The reality is that there are two resiliency features that matter: Babcock Ranch was built 30 feet above sea level and all power lines are buried underground to keep them safe from strong winds. New York’s net zero transition does not include buried power lines. The Babcock Ranch website refutes the claim that “homegrown renewable energy can and will be more resilient”:
Electric power always flows from the nearest generation, so during the day the town will use energy from the FPL Babcock Ranch Solar Energy Center. When the sun goes down and the solar plant is not generating energy, Babcock Ranch will pull electricity off the grid from the closest FPL natural-gas power plant.
This fact check cherry picked one anecdotal reference to resiliency by design that is incompatible with the Climate Act plan. As is typical, whenever someone is screaming about misinformation it usually means that they are guilty of that charge. I only wish that they could be held accountable when reality slaps their aspirational net-zero transition dreams back to earth.
What does “support the grid” mean? Can the grid operate with only solar and wind? No! Can wind and solar supplement the grid? Yes – they already do, and every MWh that they generate stops 1000 (gas) – 2000 (coal) pounds of CO2 being injected into the atmosphere, as well as saving the organics for future manufacturing feedstocks.
“When the sun goes down and the solar plant is not generating energy, Babcock Ranch will pull electricity off the grid from the closest FPL natural-gas power plant.”
Maybe, maybe not. They have the batteries, and one of the mines is being converted for compressed air storage.
My interpretation is that the grid can’t support the grid if its transmission towers are falling over. And, you can’t expect a system that won’t be completed for another (projected) five years to pick up the slack.
Read the article[s] by Russell S & C Morris. Vastly more factual information than you have gotten from academics such as Jacobson. Both Russell S & C Morris have vastly more real world expertise than the self promoted “renewable experts” such as Jacobson.
BA – your assertion is fatuous. You haven’t understood, or at least read what PE and I have previously written. The grid is a lot more than just MW in and MW out. There was a lot of things that large synchronous machines provide, just be their inherent operation. None of the unreliables, even with the addition of batteries do that. The simplest one is inertia.
If there were still a number of conventional machines connected into the switchyard at Broken Hill, not some old “emergency” GTs which were not maintained or regularly operated, then the islanding would not have proved an issue as they could run on governor control. But no, the lights went out because they went for the unreliables and have paid the price.
This posting in the section on stability has a more careful discussion about what supporting the grid means. https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/07/transmission-planning-wind-and-solar/
Thank you, Aplanningengineer.
Beta Blocker Analysis: A Hypothetical 3,000 MW Wind & Solar Capacity Expansion for the US Northwest:
————————————-
Here in the US Northwest, the regional power planning council’s 2021 long range plan calls for the addition of 3,000 MW of intermittent wind and solar capacity plus 720 MW of firming capacity. Comparatively little backup storage is projected to be needed.
The council’s 2021 plan does not come close to accounting for currently expected increases in the US Northwest’s regional power demand, as expressed in megawatt-hours consumed.
In order to account for those expected increases, suppose we simply assume that the 3000 MW expansion of intermittent wind & solar generation must now become 3,000 MW of baseload wind & solar generation operating 24/7/365.
3000 megawatts baseload delivers 72,000 megawatt-hours daily, each and every day, 365 days a year.
In the following analysis, I estimate that in order to reliably generate 3,000 MW of renewable electricity 24/7/365 here in the US Northwest, a 6X capacity overbuild for a total of 18,000 MW of wind and solar nameplate are required, backed by a nominal 3,600,000 megawatt-hours of battery storage.
Yes, that’s what I said: 3,600,000 megawatt-hours of battery storage. Note from my analysis that seasonal variability issues are much more important than are day-to-day and week-to-week variability issues in determining this huge battery storage requirement.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/11/23/washington-state-goes-one-for-three-on-the-pragmatic-climate-scalemaybe/#comment-3998929
The hypothetical wind-solar-battery RE system described in my WUWT comment would cost upwards of 600 billion dollars, probably more, to acquire and install — as compared with roughly 60 billion dollars for construction of four 1,100 MW AP1000-size reactors as were installed at Vogtle 3 & 4 in Georgia.
How does this 3000 MW of hypothetical wind & solar capacity deliver grid stabilization services comparable to what four 1,100 MW nuclear reactors could provide?
Where direct inversion isn’t capable of handling the grid’s inertia requirements, huge DC-to-AC motor-generator units employing large rotating flywheels handle the task.
Doing it this way, using huge DC-to-AC motor-generator units, is completely feasible technically. But it is also a horrifically inefficient and expensive way to supply grid stabilization services in comparison with thermal generation capacity, i.e., coal, gas-fired, or nuclear.
On the other hand, if in the grand scheme of things you are already using a horrifically inefficient and expensive basic means of supplying your electricity needs — i.e., massively overbuilt wind and solar capacity backed by massive volumes of battery storage — then you really don’t care what your grid stabilization services will cost.
For the batteries, you might consider the series of large hydroelectric dams along the Columbia River for pumped storage, run with the large wind farms in central Washington and Oregon.
The Columbia River and the Snake River systems are maxed out for new water storage capacity. The existing dams are run-of-river dams and have very little extra storage capacity available for use as pumped storage.
Only one location remains in Washington State which is topographically suitable for a large-capacity pumped storage reservoir. It’s in the central part of the state between Yakima and Ellensburg.
Advocates for that new reservoir gave up on the idea more than twenty years ago after hard opposition surfaced among a diverse cross-section of business, environmental, tribal, and political stakeholders.
We will not be seeing any new hydroelectric capacity being developed in the US Northwest. If the necessary energy storage is to be installed in the region, it has to be electrochemical energy storage of some kind.
Unless of course we store the needed energy reserves inside a series of bundled nuclear fuel rods. In which case the entire justification for 3,000 MW of new-build wind and solar blows away in the wind.
I think you don’t know what you are talking about. The storage capacity comes from new holding “ponds” at the top of the Columbia River Gorge and canyons leading to the Gorge.
Nobody is building pumped storage in the Yakima-Ellensburg corridor, but they are along the CRG, where wind, solar, and hydro are already available and the lower “ponds” are already filled. (pumping to fill upper ponds will make space for their return to the dam reservoirs, and the rivers still run – it’s not a difficult concept).
https://goldendaleenergystorage.com/
Australasia has had major problems with developing pumped storage schemes which their promoters pushed as the “solution” to the intermittency of the unreliables. Snowy 2 went from $2B to $12B and is likely to cost a lot more by the time extra transmission lines to make the plant usable are built. Onslow went from $4B to $16B before a change in government canned it. The pumped storage scheme being promoted by Queensland is in the throes of being radically downsized by the new government because of cost blowouts.
https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/101678
That seems a recurring theme, doesn’t it.
Their business models are bad. The plants need to run by arbitrage, but the economics are against them too,
Thank you, Beta, for your Analysis.
“Here in the US Northwest, the regional power planning council’s 2021 long range plan calls for the addition of 3,000 MW of intermittent wind and solar capacity plus 720 MW of firming capacity. Comparatively little backup storage is projected to be needed.”
–
And, when there is no reason for doing such tremendous efforts!
There is not any danger from the CO2.
The CO2 is an essential for life component. It is not a pollutant.
And, CO2 doesn’t warm Earth’s surface.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thanks, Joe. I just read the article. Worrying about grids powered only by solar and wind is a straw man that doesn’t really interest me all that much.
Yet your response was consistent with the Ill informed academics who profess expertise in renewable energy.
Joe, thanks for yet another demonstration of glaring intellect.
https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/inertia-and-the-power-grid-a-guide-without-the-spin.html
B A – I link to the NREL document in this posting. https://judithcurry.com/2023/01/09/academics-and-the-grid-part-ii-are-they-studying-the-right-things/
Here the National Renewable Energy Laboratory concludes “Ongoing research points to the possibility of maintaining grid frequency even in systems with very low or no inertia”. The unsaid part of that statement is that it may not even be possible to maintain grid frequencies with low inertia. It’s also certainly in the mix at this point, based on the statement from National Renewable Laboratory, that in the next 20 years the best we may be able to do at higher penetration levels of asynchronous renewables is maintain frequency in a highly inferior manner with a boatload of reliability problems, with increasing blackouts at untenably high prices.
BA provides another example of his glaring intellect.
You said you read RS ‘s article, yet you obviously didnt understand it
You then provide a promo video which has been shredded by the event in Broken Hill.
Reality is often doesnt play nice with theory , especially when its activists wishful hope.
Good job
Be very glad you don’t live in Broken Hill then.
Chris,
I am very glad. My system works fine. I have every confidence that you power and planning engineers will (eventually) solve transition problems as they arise.
B A Bushaw | December 7, 2024 at 12:17 pm | Reply
Thanks, Joe. I just read the articl
B A Bushaw | December 7, 2024 at 3:53 pm |
Thanks, Chris. As expected. I’ll be sure to read those references.
Honesty – At 12:17 BA states he read the article
At 3:53 BA states he will read the article.
No Joe, I said I’d read the articles you referenced. I did, you didn’t give any references – nothing to read. Pea brain strikes again.
BA – you need to stop thinking Google searches are your answer rather than actually understanding what is happening. An old promo of reasearch – really. What were the results? Oh I already know – more research is needed. You are continuing to demostrae a real lack of intellect, glaring or otherwise.
The unreliables cannot provide inertia – at least according to Australian grid managers in 2024. Why they keep dispatching GTs on and shutting solar and wind off in SA. Just another reason why their power is so expensive.
Chris,
I don’t need an answer, and you need to stop telling me what to not think. Instead, you might give me a reference or two to what you think I should know.
However, your choice of words, “unreliables” as opposed to “intermittent” kinda tells me what I need to know – that I shouldn’t pay much attention.
The problem BA is you do not understand the issues – your references show that, nor do you want to know. I work in the world where things have to work, and have to work with proven reliability, not academic dreams. Wind and solar are UNRELIABLE because they cannot predict, let alone guarantee their generation, even on just two-hour dispatch. It is fossil fueled generators that have to fill the gaps.
For references, read what PE has previously written. There are enough links there.
Thanks, Chris. As expected. I’ll be sure to read those references.
In what is relevant to this post, here is the current NSW grid operator’s transmission (not generation) planning report detailing what they think will happen, what they have to do to meet it, and the expected costs. Chapter 5 is on System Security. It is written in language that most should understand.
https://www.transgrid.com.au/media/tzclb1hb/tapr-2024.pdf
The report states ” Based on the criteria, some radial parts of the 330 kV and 220 kV network are not able to withstand the forced outage of a single circuit line at time of maximum load. In these cases, provision is made for under-voltage load shedding”
In Broken Hill’s case, that is an understatement.
Chris – cost is no object to the alarmists.
Jim2,
Things that work correctly are not an object for people who think money is more important.
Chris, as you probably know, parrots pick-up retorts from the surroundings they occupy. Reflection is all they know, it’s nothing more sophisticated than that.
One can only program the parrot, providing literature is pointless. Per programming, flockers flock.
“Reality is often doesn’t play nice”
And no, I didn’t link to a video. I linked to a 40 page NREL report with 4 pages of references – and it happened to contain a video.
You, Joe, are an ignorant twit, and you show it with every content-free comment.
BA – you may have read the article, but as RS and CM, note, you did not understand it.
“Ultimately, although growth in inverter-based resources will reduce the amount of inertia on the grid, there are multiple existing or possible solutions for maintaining or improving system reliability,” Denholm said. “So, declines in inertia do not pose significant technical or economic barriers to significant growth in wind, solar, and storage to well beyond today’s levels for most of the United States.”
The events in Broken Hill showed otherwise. Simply a case of superior intellect unable to deal with reality.
Thanks for the entertainment
Thanks, Joe
I already answered you. I’m not interested in the lies that you make up.
BABy
If you understood the subject matter, you wouldnt make so many unforced errors.
You linked to NREL article that 5 years old which touted the inverter technology. That failed yet even after Both CM and RS pointed that out to you, you continue to make the same repetitive error.
You only resort to insult when you are wrong. That shows your level of maturity.
Joey baby,
And you failed to reference anything at all, including Russ’ 10-year-old blog piece. Here’s something newer for your reading pleasure.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/90256.pdf
Baby again proves he didnt understand Russell’s article or any of the other links
He provides a series of links the NERL discussing integration of wind and solar into the grid and inverters. The latest link from June 2024. The broken hill event occurred in oct 2024.
You have been schooled by people with actual expertise.
Baby Joey,
You have no expertise, except maybe repeating false insults.
It is called NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). Apparently Broken Hills didn’t have grid forming inverters. There is a lesson there – the grid failed them, and they weren’t yet ready for it. The lesson is, if you depend on the grid for rotational inertia, don’t – the grid will fail, as demonstrated by Broken Hills. Same for ERCOT, however, they have electronic/electrical engineers that are actively addressing deficiencies for the deep penetration of wind and solar, which is already happening in Texas; not planning engineers and whatever Chris is, that get angry and say it can’t be done when it already has been done. Try to keep up.
There are technical references at the end of the NREL reports, if you’d like to educate yourself. But then, for sure, you haven’t read them.
You folks that are stuck in the past, and don’t understand continual scientific advances, are a hoot.
B A Bushaw | December 9, 2024 at 10:39 am |
Baby Joey,
You have no expertise, except maybe repeating false insults.
It is called NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). “Apparently Broken Hills didn’t have grid forming inverters.”
BAB – you cant even get the basic facts correct. So much for your superior intellect.
https://arena.gov.au/projects/agl-broken-hill-grid-forming-battery/
“This AGL Broken Hill Grid-Forming Battery aims to demonstrate the potential of large-scale battery storage (LSBS) with grid-forming inverters to improve system strength in weak grid areas, while also providing market services.”
4th paragraph of this article
“Around 20,000 people live in the Broken Hill area. Over $650 million in investment made Broken Hill home to a 200 MW wind plant, a 53 MW solar array, and a large battery that could provide 50 MW of power for 100 MWh through advanced grid forming inverters. “
BAB – speaking of not getting basic facts correct, NERL notes that ERCOT still relies heavily on the inertia of sychro machines.
Earth (in our times) at Northern Hemisphere winters is closer to the sun. So, the winters at Northern Hemisphere are warmer.
This is an orbitally forced natural phenomenon, which makes planet Earth into a millennials long, slow warming pattern.
The excess heat planet Earth gained was mostly consumed on sea-ice melting processes. It was consumed as latent heat.
This century, when there is a much less sea-ice left to get melt, the natural warming pattern’s excess heat is consumed less on the sea-ice melting, and it is more “available” to rise Earth’s temperature.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Quote “This is an orbitally forced natural phenomenon, which makes planet Earth into a millennials long, slow warming pattern.”
Christos, the first part of your statement is correct, the simple fact of it. But the second is not. Not ‘millennials long’, but a handful of hours.
A century+1/4 ago, it would be as normal in the lifetime of civilisations, but now it would be very different. This thread is in a way a minuscule preview.
Christos,
(1) Eccentricity (in our times) is at a minimum and has very little effect.
(2) The point where perihelion is reached (Jan 2) has already passed the winter solstice (Dec 21), and now we are moving toward aphelion. That is, what little effect eccentricity and its precession have, is a cooling trend (and has been for about 6 thousand years).
Sorry, even if you got it right instead of backwards, It is no explanation for the rapid warming over the last century.
B A,
Here it is what I meant:
Because of the Earth’s present orbit eccentricity, the solar irradiance differens is about 7%.
There is 7% more solar energy on the Southern Hemisphere summers (where by the oceanic waters the energy absopption occurs), compared to the Northern Hemisphere much cooler summers.
The winter solstice and Earth’s Perihelion are only 14 days appart (December 21 and January 4 respectivly).
When Earth is at Perihelion (January 4) and Earth’s axis is still tilted towards sun almost as much as at solstice. It is the near solstice period on Earth’s orbital movement.
The analogue of the summer – solstice occurs at June 21, but two weeks later, at July 4 it is much hotter, because Earth is still close to solstice and Earth continues getting warmer.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thanks Christos,
Most interested people understand eccentricity and how it affects seasons and climate. Some do not.
The planet surface theoretical effective temperature (Te) equation, what it does, it uses the S-B equation to derive planet uniform surface temperature from the incident solar flux.
The (Te) is a mathematical abstraction.
The New (Tmean) equation uses the mathematical abstraction (Te) to calculate the planets and moons average surface temperatures very much close to those measured by satellites.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You can see how stable the solar wind speed has been since October. No geomagnetic storms.
https://i.ibb.co/d7P6Cvh/plot-image-1.png
https://i.ibb.co/3Wkt2pt/number-of-days-with-a-ge.png
That the Earth is getting hotter may or may not be completely explained by Milankovitch cycles but it nevertheless is incontrovertible that Earth can be expected to warm over time because the Sun is getting hotter…
For instance, it has been estimated that the Earth’s oceans will boil in a billion years…
Yes, Wagathon, no doubt about that.
But first Earth would be covered with an opaque.H2O very dense cloudiness.
Earth’s average Albedo will rise from the present ~0,3 to about ~0,7 which is a cooling feedback factor.
On the other hand, the future opaque atmosphere will rise Earth’s solar irradiation accepting factor Φ, from its present value of ~0,47 to its maximum value of Φ =1.
The rising of the solar irradiation accepting factor Φ is therefore a warming feedback.
But, let’s hope for the best, who knows, maybe everything will be settled well – let’s wait and see.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
My home would still be about 100 m above sea level but the coastline would be much closer.
As the ice melts, albedo is reduced. I suppose it’s a matter of conjecture whether the average albedo of the Earth would rise as a result.
Yes, Wagathon,
“As the ice melts, albedo is reduced. I suppose it’s a matter of conjecture whether the average albedo of the Earth would rise as a result.”
Albedo of a material – ice – is very high.
Albedo of the material – water – is very low.
The planetary Albedo is measured by satellites. Satellites very precisely measure the average surface diffuse Albedo.
They can not measure the Bond Albedo.
The ice covered Polar regions are a rather small area on the top of the Globe. When solar irradiated, the Polar regions receiving a very high angle of incidence, so the solar energy is mostly reflected out specularly.
The snow covered sea-ice surface, when solar irradiated at high angles of incidence has a lower specular reflectivity than the open sea-waters have.
So, most definitely, when Polar sea-ice melts, the Earth’s average surface Bond Albedo rises.
The Polar sea-ice melting has a negative feed-back effect on the Earth’s solar energy income.
Because the more sea-ice melting – the higher the average surfaceBond Albedo.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
From the article:
The fast money on Wall Street has taken a close look at key sectors in the green economy and decided to bet against them.
Despite vast green stimulus packages in the US, Europe and China, more hedge funds are on average net short batteries, solar, electric vehicles and hydrogen than are long those sectors; and more funds are net long fossil fuels than are shorting oil, gas and coal, according to a Bloomberg News analysis of positions voluntarily disclosed by roughly 500 hedge funds to Hazeltree, a data compiler in the alternative investment industry.
Source:(www).bloomberg.com/graphics/2024-hedge-funds-climate-change-green-energy-stocks/
The Climate Alarmist definition of success, from the article:
Germany is switching on polluting oil and coal-fired plants to plug the looming power gap as wind generation eased.
The use of additional fossil fuels means Germany’s carbon intensity is as high as it was during last week’s cold snap, even though milder weather has curbed heating demand.
Despite building its renewable energy capacity, electricity prices can jump on days when wind and solar power generation are low — the phenomenon known as dunkelflaute. After high generation over the weekend, wind output is forecast to slump on Wednesday, forcing the country to turn to fossil fuels.
Source:(www).bnnbloomberg.ca/investing/commodities/2024/11/26/german-power-prices-gain-as-generation-switches-to-oil-and-coal/
From the article:
President-elect Donald Trump’s Energy Secretary nominee Chris Wright is not a climate change denier as much as he is a global warming optimist.
“It’s probably almost as many positive changes as there are negative changes,” Wright told PragerU last year, The Wall Street Journal reported. “Is it a crisis, is it the world’s greatest challenge, or a big threat to the next generation? No.”
The Liberty Energy fracking CEO is breaking from even oil executives warning about the effects of global warming and climate change.
A warming planet can increase plant growth, making the world greener, boosting agriculture, and reducing temperature-caused death, Wright said.
Mr. Wright might be wrong about all that CO2 greening if the stuff that is growing the fastest is killing the oceans – the source of 1/2 of atmospheric oxygen.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/11/13/the-climate-case-of-the-century/#comment-1012777
When we change the chemistry of the air and water something will happen. Some good, some bad. The problem comes when we have to fix something ($$) we screwed up.
https://www.climatelevels.org/
Source:(www).newsmax.com/politics/energy-nominee-global-warming/2024/12/08/id/1190838/
Concerning the need for energy storage in the US Northwest in support of a dramatic expansion of wind & solar, I made the claim above that pumped storage isn’t a practical option for the region because of a lack of suitable locations.
B A Bushaw disputed my claim, saying this in response:
——————————-
“I think you don’t know what you are talking about. The storage capacity comes from new holding “ponds” at the top of the Columbia River Gorge and canyons leading to the Gorge. Nobody is building pumped storage in the Yakima-Ellensburg corridor, but they are along the CRG, where wind, solar, and hydro are already available and the lower “ponds” are already filled. (pumping to fill upper ponds will make space for their return to the dam reservoirs, and the rivers still run – it’s not a difficult concept). https://goldendaleenergystorage.com/”
——————————-
B A Bushaw, your comment is another example of the snake oil salesmanship now being used to promote a dramatic expansion of wind and solar in the US Northwest.
For a capital cost of 2 billion dollars, the Goldendale pumped storage project will deliver 1200 megawatts for a mere 12 hours before its storage capacity is exhausted. Moreover, the facility will not cycle water daily between the Columbia River and the upper reservoir, as you claim. Goldendale is a closed-loop system with an upper and a lower reservoir, each of roughly equal size, about 60 acres.
Goldendale’s rated storage capacity of 14,400 megawatt-hours is a pimple on the butt of the massive volume of energy storage which will be needed to deal with wind and solar intermittency in the region — if the green dream of a wind and solar energy future for the US Northwest is to become a reality.
My analysis, as referenced in my original comment above, includes two graphics derived from wind & solar performance data downloaded from the BPA’s power generation website:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54155123447_c1160cfbb8_o.png
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54156310159_e9eb2aa9ab_o.png
The first graphic illustrates the wind & solar capacity factors experienced by the Bonneville Power Administration between 06/21/2022 and 06/21/2024 within its area of load balancing authority. Note the powerful influence of seasonal variation in capacity factors as opposed to daily/weekly variation. The Goldendale facility is an hourly/daily energy storage facility, not a seasonal energy storage facility.
The second graphic illustrates the performance of a hypothetical 3,000 MW wind & solar expansion in the US Northwest, an expansion which matches the 24/7/365 performance of four new-build 1,100 MW nuclear reactors over a similar 24-month period. That expansion requires a 6X wind & solar overbuild backed by a nominal 3,600,000 megawatt-hours of energy storage.
That second graphic includes two seasonal examples of energy storage drawdown occuring in the late fall and winter, with a subsequent recovery in the early spring.
The first example, labeled D&R #1, requires that 2,500,000 megawatt-hours be drawn down and recovered over a period lasting 119 days. The second example, labeled D&R #2, requires that 4,300,000 megawatt-hours be drawn down and recovered over a period lasting 178 days.
Simple arithmetic demonstrates that in order to achieve this performance requirement, roughly 250 Goldendale Equivalents are needed at a nominal cost of roughly 500 billion dollars.
Note that the Goldendale project is located on a site which formerly hosted a large aluminum smelter and which already has the necessary power distribution infrastructure installed.
I defy anyone to find an additional 249 locations along the Columbia River directly suitable for a Goldendale-like facility. Or even ten additional locations, for that matter.
Furthermore, even if you could find that many locations, most of those additional Goldendale Equivalents would require that power distribution infrastructure be installed on the site, raising the cost above 2 billion dollars for each new site.
Given the cost control risks that Chris Morris has cited above concerning wind and solar backed by pumped storage, it is not unreasonable to speculate that a 3,000 MW, baseload 24/7/365, expansion of wind & solar in the US Northwest could cost upwards of a trillion dollars after all the costs are totaled up.
massive amounts of Green money projects brought to us by the Inflation Reduction Act.
The Goldendale Energy Storage Project was issued a preliminary permit by the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in March 2018, while the final license application was filed in June 2020.
I think Mr. Trump was president at the time and there was no Inflation Reduction Act.
Beta: “I made the claim above that pumped storage isn’t a practical option for the region because of a lack of suitable locations.”
Yeah, you did, and I refuted it.
When caught, you deflected. Failed on the first – you’ve already discredited yourself, and I’m not interested in the other excuses you come up with. However, the pimple on the butt of the grid was kinda cute.
I think the pimple on the butt is between your ears. You didn’t respond to my comment on the things you got wrong. You made up total crap about the availability of pumped storage topography in the PNW. And now you are just deflecting from that. At this point, I see no reason to pay further attention, to someone that opens with a blatant lie. Thanks anyway.
At no point did Beta Blocker insult you.
You on the hand chose to initiate an unfounded insult.
As always, the level of your insults and immaturity highly correlates with the level of your errors.
Joey, sure he did. “B A Bushaw, your comment is another example of the snake oil salesmanship . . .”
He presented a valid critque of your analysis. Snake oil is an appropriate description of your analysis.
The pimple crap was an immature unwarranted insult. Quite typical of your behavior when wrong. Show some adult level maturity.
Joey,
I made no analysis. I presented evidence of his error, which he deflected from. Therefore, the snake oil comment was an insult, not a valid critique.
It was Beta who introduced the, “pimple on the butt”, not me. If I mock him with his own words, and that is not likely to change. If you don’t like it – I don’t care.
Immature BabY
You need to learn to read, comprehend and understand.
Nothing you stated in your defense match the actual facts.
Again Beta did not insult you – He insulted your analsysis. Very distinct difference.
Joey, my analysis was that there is a new pumped storage facility underway next to John Day Dam on the Columbia River. That is a correct and verifiable statement and thus disproved Beta’s initial statement, as well as your statement “Nothing you stated in your defense match the actual facts”. Hung on your own hyperbole.
Too bad you don’t get it.
Typical reply of an ignoramus after being shot down by people who are far more informed — what a pathetic, evasive, foul-mouthed response. You have some serious personal problems (in addition to the intellectual ones). Ahh, but you have dozens of published papers, albeit having no bearing on anything being discussed, hah-hah…
So, walrus, do you have anything to say about science and technology? Or are you good with making up pathetic insults and inserting them into other’s S&T discussions?
It’s over 100 in chemistry and physics. That you don’t understand the relevance is no surprise. Probably because you have yet to demonstrate any relevance whatsoever.
The Walrus was highlighting your normal immature unwarranted insult.
Honest and ethical professionals dont behave the way you behave.
B A Bushaw | December 9, 2024 at 1:48 pm | Reply
Beta: “I made the claim above that pumped storage isn’t a practical option for the region because of a lack of suitable locations.”
“Yeah, you did, and I refuted it.
When caught, you deflected. Failed on the first – you’ve already discredited yourself, ”
Baby – No you did refute it. In fact your comments reflect that he is correct. Reading, understanding and comprehending is not your forte.
Secondly -After 7 or 8 references to NRElL, You still have not admitted that you got the most basic facts wrong about Broken Hill
Joey, I know how to read, I know how to understand, and I know how to provide quotes from what I read and understand. What Beta said, among other things, is:
“We will not be seeing any new hydroelectric capacity being developed in the US Northwest”
He was wrong, and I gave evidence for it.
A) Beta was referring to more dam hydro
B) you still havent admitted that you got basic facts wrong with Broken Hill even though you provide 6-7 links to NREL and inverters.
So you can’t read his quote? No surprise.
I referenced NREL twice (glad to see you finally got the acronym right – sad that I had to spell it out for you). I’m glad to do it again:
https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2020/inertia-and-the-power-grid-a-guide-without-the-spin.html
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy24osti/90256.pdf
Maybe you’ll read them.
It’s really very simple, every MWh of solar and wind energy that is generated, used or stored, is a MWh’s worth of the water that doesn’t get passed down river. That is how BPA views it, and I agree. Other people, e.g. ERCOT engineers, are actively addressing deep penetration issues, with success, regardless of what naysayers around here say.
https://www.bpa.gov/learn-and-participate/community-education/hydropower-101/integrating-renewables.
In New Zealand, it is not unusual for hydros to be forced to spill because wind is more than forecast. What happens when there is lack of storage and minimum flow requirements. At that is with only an average 10% penetration by the unreliables.
ERCOTs “relatively cheap” approach to controlling frequency involves load shedding. Not exactly an ideal solution and will be more problematic as more unreliables are added to the system. More penetration will require more expensive solutions. Better just to use nat gas and nuclear and even coal if needed.
BAB’s goes full surf mode to gather propaganda fodder; from his 2020 linked source: “Using power electronics, inverter-based resources including wind, solar, and storage can quickly detect frequency deviations and respond to system imbalances. Tapping into electronic-based resources for this “fast frequency response” can enable response rates many times faster than traditional mechanical response from conventional generators, thereby reducing the need for inertia.”
The operative phrase in the before quote “CAN quickly”, is a failed concept. Further, the dated article references Texas ERCOT as a successful case study, per article: “ERCOT’s relatively small size, combined with its large wind deployment, has required it to compensate for declining inertia by adopting several low-cost solutions, including allowing fast-responding noncritical loads to respond to changes in frequency. This has enabled ERCOT to achieve increasingly high instantaneous wind penetrations—reaching a record of 58% in 2019—while maintaining reliability.”
“It’s really very simple [says BAB’s]…Other people, e.g. ERCOT engineers, are actively addressing deep penetration issues, with success, regardless of what naysayers around here say.”
“With success”, says Polly? Yet “Naysayers around here” only see tripe and tropes.
Winter 2019, ERCOT’s grid nearly collapsed, updated 12/10/2024: https://www.forbes.com/sites/edhirs/2024/12/09/after-4-years-and-billions-of-dollars-the-texas-grid-is-not-fixed/
“Texas has spent years tweaking its electric grid, but it’s still not fixed. How do we know this? ERCOT, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, projects an 80% likelihood of rolling blackouts if a storm the magnitude of Winter Storm Uri hits the state this winter.”
Also see: “$38.9 Billion In Proposed Texas Gas Plants Overwhelm Expectations” https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2024/06/10/389-billion-in-proposed-texas-gas-plants-overwhelm-expectations/
No substance from Polly, only tripe and tropes. Per surfing parlance, his novice surfing experience yields another wipeout. No waves for Polly, he best stay with his perch rocking.
“Winter 2019”, should read Winter 2021.
Jungle – Adding to your comment
A) BAB got an extremely critical and basic fact wrong regarding broken hill which seriously undercuts the promo material from NREL.
B) BAB grossly distorted the performance of ERCOT and the integration of Wind and Solar in the ERCOT grid
C) Not a single article from the NREL documents and links address the issues discussed by Cliff M or Russell S
D) NERC has provided a much more reality based assessment of the challenges of integrating renewables into the grid. ie much more so than the superficial articles from NREL
Joey,
“(A) BAB got an extremely critical and basic fact wrong regarding broken hill which seriously undercuts the promo material from NREL.”
Accusations without evidence will get you thrown out of “court”. Exactly what “extremely critical and basic fact” did I “get wrong”?
“B) BAB grossly distorted the performance of ERCOT and the integration of Wind and Solar in the ERCOT grid”
HaHaHa. Feel free to quote me; I’m not interested in the stuff you make up.
“C) Not a single article from the NREL documents and links address the issues discussed by Cliff M or Russell S”
What issues? The referencing of your claims is abysmal – like always, it looks to be intentionally non-specific because you can’t back up your claims with evidence.
“D) NERC has provided a much more reality based assessment of the challenges of integrating renewables into the grid. ie much more so than the superficial articles from NREL.”
Thanks for the reference – I’ll be sure to look it up when you give one.
It is sad that you think your unsupported personal opinions have any value.
Trunks,
Yeah, I use the internet to find information. I do appreciate the intent of your opening – as usual, says more about you than me. Didn’t bother to read further. Cheers.
B A Bushaw | December 11, 2024 at 11:18 am |
Joey,
“(A) BAB got an extremely critical and basic fact wrong regarding broken hill which seriously undercuts the promo material from NREL.”
Accusations without evidence will get you thrown out of “court”. Exactly what “extremely critical and basic fact” did I “get wrong”?
Baby – I gave you the specific statement twice and the link showing why your basic fact was wrong.
Cut the denial
My comment “C) Not a single article from the NREL documents and links address the issues discussed by Cliff M or Russell S”
Baby’s response –
What issues? The referencing of your claims is abysmal – like always, it looks to be intentionally non-specific because you can’t back up your claims with evidence.
RS’s article goes into great detail on the issues.
You claim to have read the article. Your denial of the specifics shows you dont understand the subject matter. Both CM and RS gave you numerous specifics
your denials get old
My comment –
“B) BAB grossly distorted the performance of ERCOT and the integration of Wind and Solar in the ERCOT grid”
Baby response – HaHaHa. Feel free to quote me; I’m not interested in the stuff you make up.
Baby – do a word search for ERCOT on this page. Then compare and contrast what you wrote and what NREL wrote and compare and contrast what is actually happening.
I repeat – if you understand the subject matter, ie made any attempt to actually understand the subject matter, then there would be no need to provide additional citations to inform you of basic facts your should already be aware .
Sure, BABy Joey ,
Since you don’t seem to be able to handle it, in-thread references look like this:
Joe K | December 9, 2024 at 3:51 pm |
Just like last time when you accused me of starting almost all the insult and name-calling “exchanges”: When asked, you couldn’t provide a single example. The above happens to be you starting it all over again – making the reference ain’t all that hard. Unless, of course, you are just trying to cover your exposed butt.
You are an empty vessel and still not a climate scientist, and you won’t/can’t support your claims. Your anger lets me know I’m on the right track. In contrast, you don’t make me angry, you make me laugh. Keep trying.
Baby – I told you how to find your clarying factual error.
I even gave you the specific quote. You can do a word search on this page.
Now you are flat out lying when you say I didnt provide
lets try a different approach
Do a word search on this page for comments you made on Broken Hill.
Key Words “Broken Hill”
Best
The Guardian reported in 2017 that, ‘Staff at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been told to avoid using the term climate change in their work, with the officials instructed to reference “weather extremes” instead.’ hopefully, going forward, we can see a return to that kind of sanity in all government agencies. Just as it said about politics, Climate Change ‘science’ is a lot of theater.
Yeah, they really should say “anthropogenic climate change” when that is what they mean.
312 to 226.
Given the electoral votes above for all the usual Democrat majority blue States on the east and west coast, it couldn’t be more clear that the global warming catastrophem meme is nothing more than a left versus right Political issue and has nothing to do with science. I text
The Left vs Right candidates clearly running mutually exclusive, HATE AMERICA v. DRILL BABY DRILL agendas
Water vapor is the main atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ gas making up about 4% of the atmosphere –i.e., 40,000 parts per million (ppm). By comparison, CO2 is 400 ppm (a hundred times smaller –i.e., 4/100ths of 1%); and, the total yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 from all sources (including all that is released into the atmosphere by all humanity) is just 1.8 ppm and that much of a jalapeno does not a HOT burrito make! In any event, America is not, all the rest of humanity, and the rest of humanity is not going to be satisfied with nothing more than driving a Tesla to the well for a bucket of water, irrespective of Western academia’s fears about an impending hot world catastrophe.
Wagathon wrote:
Water vapor is the main atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ gas making up about 4% of the atmosphere –i.e., 40,000 parts per million (ppm). By comparison, CO2 is 400 ppm (a hundred times smaller –i.e., 4/100ths of 1%)
Everyone knows this, thanks to scientists.
But the thing is, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is fairly constant (global average) if the temperature is constant. You can’t put more water vapor into the atmosphere–it will rain or snow out in days.
On the other hand, we *can* increase the amount of CO2, CH4, N2O and other greenhouse gases that’s in the atmosphere. And we are.
The atmosphere can hold more water vapor if its temperature increases. The theoretical thermodynamic value is 7% more per degree C. This is a positive feedback on global warming. Observations show it’s happening. Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. A *strong* feedback.
water vapor content has increased 4% in the last three decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BAMS_climate_assess_boulder_water_vapor_2002.png
IPCC 5AR WG1 Technical Summary TFE.1 “Water Cycle Change,” pp 42-45.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf
In the UK renewable account for about 40% of its energy. It’s a huge “win” for the Climate Alarmists! From the article:
“Energy bills in 2025 are shaping up to reflect a perfect storm of regulatory changes and market turbulence,” said Craig Lowrey, principal consultant at Cornwall. “The market is unlikely to lower bills, and affordability and fuel poverty will continue to be a pressing issue.”
Source:(www).bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-10/uk-households-set-for-further-squeeze-from-energy-bills
Related to this is a post on WUWT on UK subsidies. Wow! Post name is “Subsidies Galore!”
I am not a fan of WUWT ( its scientific accuracy is comparable to Skeptical science which is poor – very poor)
That being said, a solar farm in Anglesey North Wales was destroyed. Its also at the 53rd parallel which means during the winter, its actual capacity factor is barely 5%-6% of total capacity. In orther words basically useless for 3-5 months of the year. Requires a lot of reduntant renewables.
Joe K writes that he is not a fan of WUWT – its accuracy is poor, very poor.
I have written many posts for WUWT but no commenter there has ever accused me of scientific inaccuracy or poor science. I continue to offer articles because WUWT remains quite reasonable and widely read, with no history of systematic banning for political or belief reasons. Can you suggest an alternative? Geoff S
Sherro01
My apologies, I stated that very poorly – Very very poorly. You and 3 or 4 other regular contributors are very good. I probably dug too big a hole to properly write what I should have written. If I have a beef, it probably leans more to the individuals posting responses who tend to go to extremes.
That being said, my other comment dealt with Skeptical science which is probably one of the most anti science websites on the planet with commentators who have some of the most delusional concepts of scienitific facts. Especially true with commentators discussing renewables. Complete and total delusions.
Again my apologies for such a poor characterization of WUWT
sherro01 wrote:
I continue to offer articles because WUWT remains quite reasonable and widely read, with no history of systematic banning for political or belief reasons.
LOL
Geoff S,
You might try the AGU (American Geophysical Union) – They publish a number of relevant journals.
Yeah, just think how bad it would be without those renewables, and that on top of import gas lines and stuff being blown up.
Concerning the Goldendale energy storage project, I’ll score a minor point for BA Bushaw, noting that the last time I took a close look at the Goldendale project three years ago in 2021, it appeared to be stalled for several reasons, including regulatory requirements which added to its costs for no clear environmental or operational benefits.
Good grief, grasshopper! How can such a thing happen in the face of the pressing need to quickly reduce the US Northwest’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050? (Or by whatever percent Bob Ferguson and the west-siders here in Washington State think is necessary by 2050.)
Anyway, three years later, those regulatory requirements have been accepted by the project’s sponsors and the Goldendale project is now moving forward. On the other hand, Goldendale’s 2 billion dollar published capital cost is the 2018 estimate. What will be its actual capital cost once the project is complete?
In their public relations outreach efforts targeting the average uninformed urbanite, wind and solar advocates sell energy storage projects like the 1200 MW Goldendale project as being the power generation equivalents of a 1200 MW nuclear reactor.
Well …. At least the Goldendale project has the clear advantage over a similar capacity battery facility in that like a nuclear reactor, it won’t have to be replaced in 20 years. But are these large-capacity energy storage projects truly the equivalents of a 1200 MW nuclear reactor?
We are just coming out of an eight-day period of next to zero wind generation in the US Northwest, an occurance not at all unusual for this time of year. We have seen other such low wind periods last as long as twenty days.
This graphic illustrates the power generation patterns within the BPA’s area of load balancing authority for the period of November 27th through December 5th, 2024.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54186834437_6c2fa7785c_o.png
The Columbia Generating Station chugged along at roughly 1,000 MW 24/7 all throughout that eight-day period, generating ~190,000 megawatt-hours of electricity.
Retrieving that same amount of energy over that same eight-day period from pumped storage would require thirteen Goldendale-size facilities preloaded with a combined total of ~190,000 megawatt-hours of intermittent wind-generated electricity, and costing roughly 26 billion dollars to site, permit, and construct.
For 26 billion dollars, we could construct a 1200 MW AP1000-size reactor plus a six-unit NuScale SMR reactor complex next to the Columbia Generating Station, delivering another 13,000,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per year to the region, year-in and year-out, regardless of what the weather is doing here in the US Northwest in any particular year.
My basic points still stand:
(1) — The Goldendale project is a pimple on the butt of the energy storage requirement needed to make wind & solar a reliable source of energy in the US Northwest. Another twelve Goldendale projects are merely a few more pimples on the butt of the energy storage requirement needed to make wind & solar a reliable source of energy in the US Northwest.
(2) — The Goldendale project is being built under a set of business, regulatory, and operational conditions which are partially unique to its location. Sure, a few more Goldendale Equivalents (GE’s) might be constructed along the Columbia River in the next two decades, I grant you that. But we will not be seeing twelve of them, and certainly not the 200+ GE’s needed to make the dreams of the region’s wind and solar advocates a reality.
Beta,
It is not about scoring points. It is about telling uninformed lies, and then expecting people to pay attention to what you say thereafter.
I do appreciate that you admit opening your response to me with
lie. I also appreciate that it came from a lack of knowledge, not intentional disinformation (but we’ll never really know, will we).
Every GWh of wind and solar that is added to the grid, is a GWh’s worth of limited water and fossil fuel resources that can be saved for later (judicious) use. Some people understand this and work towards it; others claim it can’t be done and scream and lie about it. Those others, of course, are wrong – it’s already being done.
Energy information administration is also a good source.
Numerous discussions on the intermediacy of renewables and as Beta noted, the 8 day drought of wind, is the day to day / hour by hour / minute by minute volatility of wind. Lots of costs associated with dealing with those issues that are not accounted for the LCOE computations.
Nor are the massive backup costs fully included in the LCOE computations
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/custom/pending
I wonder how any Broken Hill owners of electrical vehicles fared during the brown-out intermittency. Were they stuck home in need of commuting means, since there was no charging juice in the outlets? Were there any emergency call vehicles unable to respond?
So let’s wait a bit before destroying our fossil fuel plants and gas pipelines, shall we? Eh, lads?
You don’t seriously think that fossil fuel plants and pipelines are being destroyed, right?
Baby Joey, are you really that dense and insecure? I’m not interested in doing your thread searches for you – if you are too lazy, or unable, to provide evidence for your claims, I’ll just assume they are as false as they appear to be. Thanks for the Effort.
BABY – I gave you The SPECIFIC statement you made
date time, etc
How many times do you want to deny it
If are too embarrassed to repeat it, I’m not further interested in your foolish games.
Baby
You could have found it the first time I gave you the specific cite, or
You could have found it the second time I gave you the specific cite, or the
Third time
fourth time, etc etc
far easier for you to deny your fundamental error.
Seems awfully damn difficult for you to say what my fundamental error was. Are you afraid of a response?
Here is my first comment about Broken Hill and your (the first) response to it.
“B A Bushaw | December 7, 2024 at 10:40 am | Reply
What does “support the grid” mean? Can the grid operate with only solar and wind? No! Can wind and solar supplement the grid? Yes – they already do, and every MWh that they generate stops 1000 (gas) – 2000 (coal) pounds of CO2 being injected into the atmosphere, as well as saving the organics for future manufacturing feedstocks.
“When the sun goes down and the solar plant is not generating energy, Babcock Ranch will pull electricity off the grid from the closest FPL natural-gas power plant.”
Maybe, maybe not. They have the batteries, and one of the mines is being converted for compressed air storage.
My interpretation is that the grid can’t support the grid if its transmission towers are falling over. And, you can’t expect a system that won’t be completed for another (projected) five years to pick up the slack.
Joe K | December 7, 2024 at 11:25 am | Reply
Read the article[s] by Russell S & C Morris. Vastly more factual information than you have gotten from academics such as Jacobson. Both Russell S & C Morris have vastly more real world expertise than the self promoted “renewable experts” such as Jacobson.”
————————————————————
I rest my case, you don’t know what a citation is. Pretty simple: give an exact quotation, in quotation marks stating the source, or give specific findable references for your claims – even if they are repeated claims; or shut up.
Bushaw-
Not hard to find
Though I count 3 big errors in the single paragraph, not just the one.
B A Bushaw | December 9, 2024 at 10:39 am |
Baby Joey,
You have no expertise, except maybe repeating false insults.
It is called NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). Apparently Broken Hills didn’t have grid forming inverters. There is a lesson there – the grid failed them, and they weren’t yet ready for it. The lesson is, if you depend on the grid for rotational inertia, don’t – the grid will fail, as demonstrated by Broken Hills. Same for ERCOT, however, they have electronic/electrical engineers that are actively addressing deficiencies for the deep penetration of wind and solar, which is already happening in Texas; not planning engineers and whatever Chris is, that get angry and say it can’t be done when it already has been done. Try to keep up.
The immediately following comment explains the errors made by Bushaw
Joe K | December 9, 2024 at 11:04 am |
Because it has a single point of supply, Broken Hill grid was supposed to function when transmission lines to it fell down and islanded it. But the unreliables couldn’t supplement the grid, let alone support it. That is why they had to rely on a poorly maintained GT.
Wagathon wrote:
China the largest consumer of coal in the world,
The US consumes more coal than Chad. Is that acceptable to Chad?
David Appell | December 12, 2024 at 12:39 am | Reply
Wind and Solar Can’t Support the Grid
Dec 5th 2024, 17:25, by curryja
by Planning Engineer (Russ Schussler)
I’ve written this before, but it is the job of engineers to meet the needs of society.
Appleman – For once you are correct. (partly correct)
As Russ Schussler and many others have documented and thoughly explained, the wind water solar /100% renewable scheme promoted by the activists / academics aint going to work.
Wind and Solar Can’t Support the Grid
Dec 5th 2024, 17:25, by curryja
by Planning Engineer (Russ Schussler)
I’ve written this before, but it is the job of engineers to meet the needs of society.
Nobody says transitioning to noncarbon sources of energy won’t cost anything. Nobody says it will be easy. But as well, nobody says NOT doing it will cost nothing.
Climate change has a cost.
Instead of denying the need for noncarbon energy, which is rapidly warming the planet, engineers need to understand that the old ways of doing things, via fossil fuels, are no longer acceptable. Things have to change. Thus their job is to determine how to do that, what it will cost, what doing nothing will cost, what are the options, and so on.
Their job isn’t to decide for us what will be done. Their job isn’t to perpetually whine about how it’s impossible to do anything except persist with the status quo.
I understand how older people might think that. It’s natural to them. But younger engineers will not think that, will understand the need, and they will be the ones to make it happen. Older engineers should have some grasp of this and graciously and politely step aside, with thanks for a job well done.
So I don’t see the rationale behind repeated posts like this.
Oh, what a way to start the day.
David says ” it is the job of engineers to meet the needs of society”. NO. It is the job of society to educate itself and face reality. Beyond taking technology for granted and then ask for the impossible is next to insane.
Of course, maybe Peter Pan can do it. Or run old fossil plant on renewable snake oil.
Quote “engineers need to understand that the old ways of doing things, via fossil fuels, are no longer acceptable” It is society that needs to understand that not everything is possible. Society has never beaten the ‘Laws of nature’ (like the 2nd law of thermo), no matter how the many charlatans promised it – usually to politicians first. (in 40 yrs we received many proposals for ‘perpetual motion’ plant; snake oil merchants to gullible politicians).
Q: “persist with the status quo.” There is no status quo with the way of life of the ‘Naked Ape’. There is always a limit. When the horse was the main prime mover the ‘sidewalk’ was invented; so not to walk in ankle-high horse-sh&t.
Q “Older engineers should have some grasp of this and graciously and politely step aside”. Wow. They did that already, ‘we’ have never beaten ‘Father Time’. The problem is that the older ones built the system and understood it. Those who came later prefer modelling at a computer desk. Or worse, avoid it and tap into someone else’s system for the electron (or fossil) juice. So now ‘brown outs’ and ‘black outs’ are the new way of life. Get used to it.
melitamegalithic wrote:
David says ” it is the job of engineers to meet the needs of society”. NO. It is the job of society to educate itself and face reality.
Oh no, another whiner telling us that progress is impossible.
It is the job of engineers to meet the needs of society. The need is noncarbon sources of energy. Non fossil fuels, which prematurely kill 1 in 5 people on the planet. Which are rapidly changing the climate. Without it the consequences are far too high.
Do it or move out of the way and let younger people do it. Let China do it. Thankfully they don’t read blogs like this. They don’t care what you think. They don’t have time.
So tired of old, stilted, arthritic engineers here telling us how anything innovative is impossible to do.
Good morning David, its noon. Get yourself a good strong coffee.
Q: ” Non fossil fuels, which prematurely kill 1 in 5 people on the planet”. You did not mean that?
Perhaps you don’t remember the 1973 Oil Shock, or just too young for that. Strict economy and efficiency were the bitter pill then; worse for those who just could not afford. All good things come with a price. No miracles, with petrol – or bread for that matter, since all agriculture is fossil fuel based. There are only ‘pies in the skies’.
You mention China. Some politicians are waking up to the fact that hype and reality are two different perspectives at ‘down to earth’ matters. And both come with a cost. An optimised one that is engineered properly, and an exorbitant one that is politicised wildly.
melitamegalithic | December 12, 2024 at 9:33 am |
Good morning David, its noon. Get yourself a good strong coffee.
Q: ” Non fossil fuels, which prematurely kill 1 in 5 people on the planet”. You did not mean that?
Melitamega – Do you really think that someone with the superior intellect of an activist would be able to recognize junk science.
Yes DA did mean it. He has repeated so many times, even though it is obvious that its complete crap.
David Appel writes “It is the job of engineers to meet the needs of society.” The bigger, related question is “Why are the recommendations of engineers so often disrespected by society?”
In the Broken Hill example, no mining engineer I know would have recommended replacement of an existing electricity system with a novel one still in experimental stage and with a known serious deficiency named intermittency. I have worked closely with mining engineers to bring a half dozen big new mines into production. Success was often greatest when an engineer was on the Board making the big decisions. It almost follows that the unfolding disaster of reliance on widespread renewables is tied to the lack of following arts grads beliefs instead of hard engineering advice in decision maker groups. Geoff S
Q: ” Non fossil fuels, which prematurely kill 1 in 5 people on the planet”. You did not mean that?
“Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem,” Karn Vohra et al, Environmental Research, Volume 195, April 2021, 110754.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mickley/files/vohra_2021_ff_mortality.pdf
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-kills-one-five-people
melitamegalithic wrote:
Quote “engineers need to understand that the old ways of doing things, via fossil fuels, are no longer acceptable” It is society that needs to understand that not everything is possible.
Step aside–China will do it for you.
Appel cites –
Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem,” Karn Vohra et al, Environmental Research, Volume 195, April 2021, 110754.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487
Appleman – That study is junk science. Any reason you cant recognize obvious junk science.
The Local DA: “Step aside–China will do it for you.”
There’s not enough technological advancement for China to steal ahead yet.
Since the DA’s strategy is to place the weight of energy efficiency on engineering shoulders, tell them to focus on fusion. While they’re at it, figure out how to adequately remove the blight of inefficient wind and solar, shouldn’t be too hard, it’s like killing two birds with one windmill.
Joe K wrote:
Appel cites –
Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem,” Karn Vohra et al, Environmental Research, Volume 195, April 2021, 110754.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935121000487
Appleman – That study is junk science. Any reason you cant recognize obvious junk science.
Rudeness gets you blocked. Bye.
Appleman – That study is junk science. Any reason you cant recognize obvious junk science.
Rudeness gets you blocked. Bye.
Appell
The question is why you are so easily fooled by junk science.
Obvious junk science
David Appell, I’m a mechanical engineer by education with thirty-five plus years of experience in the areas of nuclear construction, nuclear facility operations, nuclear quality assurance, regulatory compliance, and nuclear project planning and control.
I’m sitting here in a room in the Middle of Nowhere, Southeastern Washington State, wearing a sweater because I’m keeping the house at 64 degrees in order to save on my electric bill.
That’s OK, because these cool room temperatures give me a sense of connection with nature; i.e., a connection with the natural process of winter’s onset which is now going on right outside my window.
I do have a sense of mental comfort knowing that four large hydroelectric dams are located relativey close to where I live and that an 1,100 MW nuclear power plant is located roughly seventy miles to the northwest.
But I also know that these energy resources are becoming more and more valuable with each passing year and that our cost of electricity here in the US Northwest has nowhere to go but up. Probably way up, if the climate activists have their way.
In any case, the earth has been warming for the last 300 years, ever since the end of the Little Ice Age. Recent warming over the last fifty years has been a bit faster, with some of the additional warming probably due to increasing CO2 emissions.
My personal estimate, based on past patterns of global warming, is that the earth will reach approximately +2C above preindustrial by the year 2100. Maybe a bit more. Here is my one-page analysis which justifies my opinion:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51295091190_94386cc94a_o.png
IMHO, global warming will continue for another century or so after the year 2100 and might reach a downturning inflection point roughly in the year 2200. (Unless it doesn’t. Whatever.)
China, India, and third-World developing nations will not give up their dependence on fossil fuels. Not a chance. But there is another way to cool the earth, one that is all but certain to work: climate geo-engineering using solar radiation modification (SRM).
SRM can be done for as little as ten billion dollars annually, maybe a hundred billion annually at the very outside if we use inert reflective particles as opposed to using cheaper sulphur dioxide — quickly reducing global mean temperature by as much as 2C in a timeframe as short as five years.
OK, here’s the deal:
Make me CEO of Let’s Keep Our Cool LLC, a government-funded enterprise which will manage an SRM program of injecting fifteen million tons annually of solar-reflecting particles into the stratosphere.
Salary plus incentives would total fifty million dollars annually. I can promise I would earn every penny of it.
My compensation package would include a remote fortress location in Argentina plus an armed security force in case thousands of victims of a series of worldwide SRM-induced crop failures decide to seek revenge for what was done to them.
Beta makes the comment that the earth has been warming since the end of the little age and will continue to warm for another century.
Considering that the typical warming trends over the last 10,000 have lasted 200-300 years, that would appear to be a reasonable assumption. Contrary to the alarmists, natural variability remains poorly understood at this point in time.
Beta Blocker:
Interesting speculation on your part, although you miss the mark on some of your comments. For example, we will reach a + 2.0 deg C increase shortly, unless we change our ways, and CO2 does not cause any global warming.
See my article “Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
Beta Blocker:
Some very interesting comments!
Here is more food for thought for you:
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
Beta Blocker: As I and others have shown, CO2 isn’t a factor as CO2 concentrations lag temperature. by six months.
My sunspot-based model (on my github site) can only predict about 10 years into the future. It’s predicts slightly declining temperatures.
You might find this harmonic model of some interest. The cycle periods have not been randomly chosen. This model projects the decline lasting until 2050, and then temperatures rising until 2200. Unfortunately there’s “real” temperature data to fit a proper model. Using longer proxy datasets I believe the peak will occur around 2100, or 2150.
https://localartist.org/media/GSATHarmon.png
Typo. Should read . Unfortunately there’s NOT ENOUGH “real” temperature data to fit a proper model.
Based on 980yr Eddy cycle which is evident in the past 8000 yrs, the next inflection point is centred on 2170. (8 cycles from 6150bce to 1680ce). However trigger may be +/- 50 or more.
Based on the 2346bce destructive event the drivers are several, planetary particularly moon (definite).
This graph shows why discerning minds give solar at least a seat at the table. There are plausible explanations for some of the warming to be non CO2 related.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GenxbUmWQAA6pl8?format=png&name=medium
Beta Blocker:
Test
Robert Cutler wrote:
As I and others have shown, CO2 isn’t a factor as CO2 concentrations lag temperature. by six months.
I can’t believe people still make this foolish claim.
We effectively have a huge open pipeline that ships CO2 from fossil fuels directly in the atmosphere. In that case CO2 leads temperature. Is this not obvious? It led during the PETM too….
Do you wait for the temperature to go up before you start your car? No. You start your car when you need it, regardless of the temperature. CO2 leads. This is extremely obvious.
Beta Blocker wrote:
In any case, the earth has been warming for the last 300 years, ever since the end of the Little Ice Age.
No. See Osman+ Nature 2021:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4
Here’s their graph of average global temperature since the last glacial maximum:
https://pcc.uw.edu/blog/2021/12/07/new-method-reveals-the-unparalleled-extent-of-todays-global-warming/
The LIA, which wasn’t global, had almost no effect on global temperature. The warm started to warm last century, and really took off in the 1970s. The warming rate now, lasting about 50 years since then, is practically unprecedented.
Robert Cutler wrote:
My sunspot-based model (on my github site) can only predict about 10 years into the future. It’s predicts slightly declining temperatures.
There always cooling just around the corner, isn’t there? I’ve been hearing that for a few decades now.
In any case, today’s global warming isn’t caused by sunspots [how?] but by the accumulating anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Joe K wrote:
Considering that the typical warming trends over the last 10,000 have lasted 200-300 years, that would appear to be a reasonable assumption. Contrary to the alarmists, natural variability remains poorly understood at this point in time.
What natural variation(s) is causing modern warming? Citing an unknown forcing as the reason for warming isn’t scientific, it’s an excuse. Science shows what’s causing modern warming and you all know what it says, and there is a great deal of evidence supporting that hypothesis.
It keeps getting warmer and warmer yet deniers continue to deny and some will continue after planetary warming reaches 2 C or 3 C or wherever it peaks.
Sunspots! LOL.
melitamegalithic wrote:
Based on 980yr Eddy cycle which is evident in the past 8000 yrs, the next inflection point is centred on 2170.
How much radiative forcing does this cycle bring, from say 1900 to 2170?
Whatever solar variations might happen, anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the much bigger problem and there is no sign these emissions will go to zero anytime soon.
Appell
“ The LIA, which wasn’t global, had almost no effect on global temperature.”
Same Old BS that you have been trying to delude yourself with for years. Do you have an impairment with your reading ability or is it the comprehension part that is the barrier?
Why don’t you follow your advice and actually read the science. There is massive literature that concludes the LIA was global, as I have shown you repeatedly.
Try to catch up. This is almost 2025. This century is almost a quarter over with and you are still in the 1900s.
cerescokid wrote:
There is massive literature that concludes the LIA was global, as I have shown you repeatedly.
Cite it.
Link to it.
Point to it.
Cite the best papers in your opinion.
Appell
I’ve done it dozens of times for you in the past. You are beyond hope. That’s the mark of being brainwashed. Enjoy your time in the alternate universe.
Speaking of those brainwashed, I’m thinking of investing in the Kleenex concession at the NYC Port Authority for when all those Hollywood celebrities will be leaving the country after the Man was re-elected. Some have already departed. Others have entered rehab. What a bunch of sickos. They are so emotionally fragile that they can’t cope with a little election. I’m sure 4 years will fly by as if it was nothing. I hope none of them ends up in North Korea.
And speaking of the Man. I haven’t seen so many big shots lining up to kiss someone’s ring since Vito was holding audiences.
Beta,
Thanks for your graphical temperature projections. They are quite indicative of the scientific competence. Unfortunately, I must have missed some things; like uncertainties and probabilities, physical causality, data for the last 5 years, uncertainty in making 80-year linear projections for a non-linear process that has not occurred before. Nonetheless, it is illuminating to see how you form your opinion. Maybe most important:
“My personal estimate, based on past patterns of global warming, is that the earth will reach approximately +2C above preindustrial by the year 2100.”
If based it on past patterns, you will be wrong since the current pattern has not occurred before.
Nonetheless, Maybe you should publish it with peer review somewhere, I’m sure real climate scientists will be very impressed.
Joey: “Contrary to the alarmists, natural variability remains poorly understood at this point in time.”
The magnitude and spectrum of timescales of “natural variability” is well understood. The same is true for anthropogenic perturbations. Currently, the latter is larger and faster than the former. And the latter cannot be a linear projection from the former. Unfortunately, that is poorly understood by some at this point in time – to the point of willful ignorance. That you don’t understand, doesn’t really have much significance.
Still no response to BaB
Why?
Joe K | December 13, 2024 at 11:19 am | Reply
M Starkely | December 12, 2024 at 8:15 am |
Bushaw-
Not hard to find
Though I count 3 big errors in the single paragraph, not just the one.
B – still hiding? Still Denying? One of the multiple times you have been provided with the direct link
China’s economy is going down the tubes, David. Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to save the world.
In support of this post, Germany is paying the piper for it’s green energy push. After spending billions on unreliables, it now has to depend on France for nuclear power and fire up fossil fuel plants. From the article:
German power prices spiked in the past couple of days, a level not seen since the energy crisis in 2022, as wind generation receded.
On Wednesday, electricity imports surged to the highest in a decade, while gas and oil-fired plants also ramped up to help meet demand. As a result, power prices rose above €1,000 per megawatt-hour and remained at extremely high levels on Thursday.
Just across the border, Electricite de France SA’s fleet of nuclear reactors churned out the most electricity in almost five years. Prices were also high, but pretty typical for a cold winter’s day when demand is strong.
Germany is experiencing a severe lull in wind currently. Now it has to rely on France nuclear power and its own fossil fuel plants that it has to maintain but not run.
The deindustrialization of Germany, to be replaced by…?
Euro communism and their Global Warming and political/economic ‘Hate America First’ policies have been a big fail!
They need to consult Appell. I’m sure he knows what he’s doing ;)
Nothing new, but a nice anthology of papers on CO2 and Net Zero …
“The Scientific Case Against Net Zero: Falsifying the Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis” Michael Simpson
https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jsd/article/view/0/50940
David Appell:
The LIA WAS global, and “having almost no effect”, resulted in the LIA!
burlhenry wrote:
The LIA WAS global, and “having almost no effect”, resulted in the LIA!
What’s your evidence?
“What’s your evidence”
See: “The definitive cause of little ice age temperatures”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.2.0170
DA: The LIA was the latest Eddy cycle inflection point; a root and global. Roots are a period of adverse times; see ‘famines in link: wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
The previous one was DACP, somewhat unknown but similar. See https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/historypastandpresent/2013/05/14/dark-age-climate-change/
Again its famines and population reduction.
Same and worse with the earlier two roots.
However the next inflection point is a peak, and also downturn to adverse times. Too far in the future for my generation, but not for my/our grandchildren. Inflection points are disruptive times, but the next can be a real killer due to our dependence on electrical power. The present chaos in politics regarding this critical technology does no augur well at all. Promising utopia but what is resulting borders on dystopia. The latter is evident in the confusion of politics, the former is in the dream world.
See: “The definitive cause of little ice age temperatures”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.2.0170
One temperature record from England implies something global? I don’t think so.
By the way, CET data for 1659 – Oct 1722 are much less accurate and usually excluded. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_England_temperature
https://hadleyserver.metoffice.gov.uk/hadcet/Parker_etalIJOC1992_dailyCET.pdf
melitamegalithic wrote:
DA: The LIA was the latest Eddy cycle inflection point; a root and global
Help me understand: the Eddy cycle is a cycle of sunspot number? Determined by (I’m guessing) Fourier analysis? Then the idea is that sunspots have an influence on solar variability?
Also, by “inflection point,” do you mean the peaks of the cycle and the trough (minimum)?
What’s the difference in solar variability between a peak and a trough of the Eddy cycle?
Thanks MM.
melitamegalithic wrote:
However the next inflection point is a peak, and also downturn to adverse times. Too far in the future for my generation, but not for my/our grandchildren. Inflection points are disruptive times, but the next can be a real killer due to our dependence on electrical power.
So the problems of the Eddy cycle you’re presuming have to do with solar storms, not a change in solar irradiance?
So it has nothing to do with climate change?
David A: The answer was further up. Repeated here “Based on the 2346bce destructive event the drivers are several, planetary particularly moon (definite).”
Obliquity and precession can change abruptly. This factor is not yet recognised.
David: “Help me understand: the Eddy cycle is a cycle of sunspot number? Determined by (I’m guessing) Fourier analysis? Then the idea is that sunspots have an influence on solar variability? ”
Sunspots don’t influence solar variability, and they aren’t solar activity. They are a very nonlinear proxy for solar activity. Sure, there are small variations in TSI associated with sunspots, but those have very little effect on climate, and only a modest effect on weather. In fact, in my sunspot-based model I intentionally filter out the 11-year cycle.
The Eddy Cycle is found in temperature proxies, and 14C records. Here are two temperature proxies one is a Greenland Ice Core (Alley, R.B. 2004) , the other is an estimate of ocean temperatures near Indonesia. (Rosenthal et al. 2013)
https://localartist.org/media/MakassarGISP2.png
In the plot above, the periodic elements are close to the Eddy Cycle, which many claim is 980 years. I think it’s closer to 940 years with a variable period. Note that the LIA is also clearly visible in both, as it is in many proxies.
This next plot shows data I’ve extracted from the motion of the sun around the barycenter. In the top plot, the dashed line is a 940-year cycle plotted for reference. The bottom plots shows a 4200-year cycle that can also be found in temperature reconstructions..
https://localartist.org/media/barycenter_2.png
If you want another temperature proxy, consider Loehle and McCulloch (2008). Their temperature reconstruction doesn’t rely on the very problematic tree-ring proxies. https://www.asc.ohio-state.edu/mcculloch.2/AGW/Loehle/
Robert Cutler: You posted an interesting link re Gisp2. At ~5900bce there is a Temp Anomaly peak. Using Wiki data for TA (see link here https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2020/05/31/searching-evidence-keplers-trigons-and-events-in-the-holocene-2/ ) polar and equatorial are compared (all for same isotope deuterium). It was the first supporting proxy for earth axial tilt changes. (note; other sources, and wiki, have Gisp2 showing 1100 yrs later. In my link it is corrected, since melt water pulse temps moved all three together. Your link confirms so))
David A: More evidence in link. Note the abrupt temperature trend changes. And the link to the Eddy cycle. That was found courtesy of https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/28/nature-unbound-ix-21st-century-climate-change/
Robert Cutler wrote
Thanks for explaining the concept of Eddy cycles.
The Eddy Cycle is found in temperature proxies, and 14C records. Here are two temperature proxies one is a Greenland Ice Core (Alley, R.B. 2004) , the other is an estimate of ocean temperatures near Indonesia. (Rosenthal et al. 2013)
So you’re making global conclusions based on proxies in only two places?
Where are the Eddy cycles in the globally averaged temperature?
https://pcc.uw.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2021/12/Osman-2048×1129.jpg
What is it in these Eddy cycles that’s supposedly causing temperature changes?
In the plot above, the periodic elements are close to the Eddy Cycle, which many claim is 980 years. I think it’s closer to 940 years with a variable period.
A “variable period” is not a period. It’s not a cycle.
One has to read a lot of tea leaves to pick “cycles” out of the graph you gave, the one with the black and red lines. Seems to me you see what you want to see and ignore what you don’t want to see. You see 980 years when you think it’s there and ignore the places where it isn’t there. That’s not a way to do science, and certainly not any kind of way to predict climate.
melitamegalithic wrote:
David A: More evidence in link. Note the abrupt temperature trend changes. And the link to the Eddy cycle.
What is evidence of what?
I don’t understand your graph at all. Labeling the dashed lines would help a lot.
Again you’re only using a few proxies. Do *all* proxies show the same alleged correlation? What about those that don’t?
What about the Eddy cycle peaks and troughs that DON’T line up with any extreme in temperature? Clearly there are several. Many, even.
What is a quantitative measure of the correlation between the Eddy cycle and proxy temperatures, some kind of correlation parameter? That would be useful; eyeballing is not.
Sorry guys, the more I see graphs like this the more Eddy cycles look like pseudoscience–there when you want one, absent when you don’t.
David: “So you’re making global conclusions based on proxies in only two places?”
Where did I say that? As a simple courtesy I simply provided you with three examples.
David: “Where are the Eddy cycles in the globally averaged temperature?”
The plot you reference doesn’t have any supporting documentation. The third reference I provided is globally averaged proxy data. That said, when looking for cycles, it’s better not to average global proxy data as there can be phase differences in the cycles based on location. That is easily seen in the two reconstructions I plotted. Averaging reconstructions with different cycle phases will attenuate the cycle producing plots like the one you reference.
David: “What is it in these Eddy cycles that’s supposedly causing temperature changes?”
I suggest you re-read my posting and look at the second graphic, then let me know if you need a simplified explanation.
David: “One has to read a lot of tea leaves to pick “cycles” out of the graph you gave, the one with the black and red lines. Seems to me you see what you want to see and ignore what you don’t want to see. You see 980 years when you think it’s there and ignore the places where it isn’t there. That’s not a way to do science, and certainly not any kind of way to predict climate.”
It’s not my job to teach you how to analyze data, nor is it yours to teach me about science. I will however suggest that if you want to engage with me that you focus on the quality of your responses, not the quantity. Otherwise I’ll just assume that you’re a bot and ignore you.
D A: We have now strayed way out from thread topic. To link back, an abrupt natural change will impact first the grid, and most horribly. One has to be in such a spot to realise the enormity of the consequences. All that follows from reading the climate tea leaves wrong.
I get the feeling you are, in reality, only fishing for information (I baited a bot and that was its attitude). That’s ok. I want that information out; it is good to question the new info, as much as questioning the old dogma.
You want labeling, know that it is there, and coloured too. You don’t understand the graph; maybe that’s your slip showing. The source is here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
See the abrupt rise in TA near ~11k5, for Vostok and Kilimanjaro, but pull back Gisp2 1100 yrs to line with the other two (RC’s link proves it). See what then happens at 2346bce (~4k2 event). Know the devil is in the detail.
melitamegalithic | December 14, 2024 at 4:16 pm |
D A: We have now strayed way out from thread topic.
Melitamegalithic
Good point on straying from topic of renewables.
Any care to defend the validity of the LCOE computation and that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel electric generation costs?
Joe K: re your suggestion: No, not adequately informed.
But, to add a point, in a situation where belief features most prominently, such a study may be pointless, without a prior educational effort.
An example: belief was that base-load plant design was more onerous than for cycling and regular two shifting plant. It was believed the latter rested while the former did not. The eventual additional costs due to that shortcoming never featured in any lcoe analysis. Neither the initial investment cost, and the related loan servicing (which are still active(?) on a scrapped plant) . The devil is in the detail.
Melitamegalithic
I could have written my request for the renewable experts to defend the LCOE computation a little more clearly.
Since the topic of the post is the failure of wind and solar in Broken Hill, a related topic is the cost of renewables and the oft repeated claim the wind and solar are now cheaper than fossil fuel electric generation.
Your response is reasonably consistent with actual experts who have detailed the many issues and distortions of LCOE.
David: “Help me understand: the Eddy cycle is a cycle of sunspot number? Determined by (I’m guessing) Fourier analysis? Then the idea is that sunspots have an influence on solar variability? ”
I’ve decided to answer the first question, which I ignored in a previous response. Spectral analysis is a tool that can be used, if one is careful. With temporal distortion in the ice-core data, and non-uniform sampling, there’s a risk of aliasing and spectral distortion. That said, I’ve been impressed with the quality of the GISP2 data.
Here’s the spectrum showing the Eddy cycle in the GISP2 data. Scafetta and Bianchini (2022) tend to ignore Saturn, Neptune and Uranus because they’ve concluded that they’re too far away to effect tidal forcing. I’ve reached a different conclusion.
https://localartist.org/media/BarySpectrum.png
‘Researchers at the University of Liverpool have developed a novel method to measure ocean memory, revealing that the North Atlantic Ocean retains memory for nearly two decades—far longer than previously estimated.’ ~University of Liverpool
Hard to get decade-long effect of lags right, even when science is not infected by politics…
All our increased intelligence over the apes is pretty much wasted if our survival as a species ever actually depends on the level of scholarship that is demonstrated in the field of climatology that outside Western civilization is likened to the science of ancient astrology.
Osman, M.B., Tierney, J.E., Zhu, J. et al. Globally resolved surface temperatures since the Last Glacial Maximum. Nature 599, 239–244 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03984-4
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03984-4
See Figure 2. Where’s the LIA?
Graph also available here:
https://pcc.uw.edu/blog/2021/12/07/new-method-reveals-the-unparalleled-extent-of-todays-global-warming/
Again, where is the Little Ice Age?
I examined the very first paper and it shows “temperature change” was assessed, NOT surface temperature. Why does everyone treat ΔT as an absolute temperature? It is not. Anomalies from proxies can not be used to determine the baseline absolute temperature they occurred at. A +0.5 anomaly can actually end up at a lower absolute temperature than another +0.5 anomaly. In essence, you can’t determine from proxies alone, what period was warmer than another.
jgorman2424gmailcom wrote:
I examined the very first paper and it shows “temperature change” was assessed, NOT surface temperature. Why does everyone treat ΔT as an absolute temperature?
They don’t. Everyone understands what the anomaly means and what it doesn’t.
It is not. Anomalies from proxies can not be used to determine the baseline absolute temperature they occurred at.
See https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q101
“Global temperature changes mapped across the past 24,000 years,” Marcott & Shakun, Nature 10-Nov-2021
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03011-6
See Figure 2 in this paper. Where is the LIA?
Graph also available here:
https://media.nature.com/lw1200/magazine-assets/d41586-021-03011-6/d41586-021-03011-6_19836776.png
Where is the Little Ice Age?
300+year resolution – How are you going to find the LIA / MWP or the roman warm period.
Far too much smoothing
Your’re not going to find significant MWP or LIA in the global data because it isn’t there (and the resolution is a lot better than 300+ years), particularly over the last 150 years. While what has happened over the last 60 years is clearly visible, what global LIA and MCP there may have been are not; they are small compared to current ACC.
You can also look at more comprehensive data sets with 50 year resolution:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/9%20Paleoclimatic%20Data%20for%20the%20Last%202,000%20Years%20and%20Before%202,000%20Years%20Ago%20-%20Oct%202021.pdf
MCP and LIA are in the noise, ACC is not. Get over it.
BAB still waiting
Joe K | December 13, 2024 at 11:19 am | Reply
M Starkely | December 12, 2024 at 8:15 am |
Bushaw-
Not hard to find
Though I count 3 big errors in the single paragraph, not just the one.
B – still hiding? Still Denying? One of the multiple times you have been provided with the direct link
‘This is utterly false as any casual glance at the literature or the recent IPCC reports would reveal. As the authors correctly say, there is no shame in admitting ignorance on scientific matters. However, it is embarrassing when scientific ignorance is so clearly revealed.’ ~ Andy Skuce
Wagathon wrote:
‘This is utterly false as any casual glance at the literature or the recent IPCC reports would reveal.
Why is Marcott & Shakin utterly false?
Many commenters here are big on hazy mentions of the scientific literature, but that’s useless. Specific citations are what’s needed. Casual mentions are also lazy. And shows you have no real evidence and are trying to bluff your way to denial.
For openers, 20,000 years ago, average global temperatures may have been as much as 10 degrees Celsius colder than current temperatures.”
Wagathon wrote:
For openers, 20,000 years ago, average global temperatures may have been as much as 10 degrees Celsius colder than current temperatures.”
Says what?
‘Ice core from Vostok, Antarctica
Temperatures up to 10 C colder, CO2 levels 30% lower 20,000 yrs ago than in
current interglacial.’
https://www.washington.edu/about/
Wagathon wrote:
‘Ice core from Vostok, Antarctica
Temperatures up to 10 C colder, CO2 levels 30% lower 20,000 yrs ago than in current interglacial.
https://www.washington.edu/about/
I don’t see that quote on that page. I don’t even see the word Vostok.
Confused?
https://a.atmos.washington.edu/academics/classes/2003Q2/101/lect35_overheads.pdf
https://1drv.ms/b/c/35f11e216af96d9f/EZ2_bfS7euNBq-yiRBHddQsBbDfs9TIUIv369Axr0AkXgg
All Hail! A grid battery success story!!!
From the article:
Poland is becoming increasingly prone to power shortages later this decade after gas-fed power units planned by the utilities failed to win any support at a key market auction.
The nation’s grid operator PSE SA estimates it needs at least 9 gigawatts of new gas units within 10 years to replace aging coal-fired stations and prop up weather-reliant power sources. However, the power capacity market auction on Thursday, aimed at paying plants for remaining available, showed battery storage facilities securing most of the long-term contracts.
Poland’s electricity supply is at risk because no one will bid on fossil plant sources. They will bid on batteries. A big success story for batteries, no?? But consumers lose grid reliability.
I quoted an article on this, but it got moderated away even though it is directly relevant to the post. Not understanding why.
Cerescokid:
Same old crap – can’t refute David’s content, so you attack David personally. The dementia isn’t improving is it?
M Starkely | December 12, 2024 at 8:15 am |
Bushaw-
Not hard to find
Though I count 3 big errors in the single paragraph, not just the one.
B – still hiding? Still Denying? One of the multiple times you have been provided with the direct link
Well finally, see how easy that was for Starkey.
Yea, I was wrong, they did have grid forming inverters. The inverter and the associated battery array were not being used at the time of grid failure – not a big surprise, since the Broken
Hills system is not scheduled for completion until 2030. Like I have said previously, they weren’t ready for it. It is an instructive anecdote, not the end of microgrids.
ganon
Get a grip. You haven’t been around here for 10 years and seen how many times I have provided the links. He knows what they are. He knows the science. But like you he has been brainwashed and there is no changing his mind.
Kid,
So what is your problem with providing the links again, for somebody who has encountered your wisdom previously.
Of course, you claim to have “schooled” me dozens of times too. One of terms psychologist use is “illusory superiority” – thanks for the demonstration.
Hey, but one of your “links” has been getting public exposure:
https://climatefactchecks.org/post-falsely-claim-that-solar-cycles-are-causing-climate-change/
B A Bushaw | December 13, 2024 at 4:25 pm |
Kid,One of terms psychologist use is “illusory superiority” – thanks for the demonstration.”
Ganon successfully diagnosed his problem
Sorry, baby joey. That’s not a quote – you left out a bunch in the middle without indicating that you had done so. The shadow cherry-picker strikes again.
Broken Hill: The people that matter think it is/was a grid failure; that the BH system was not (yet) ready for it, is not an excuse.
https://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/documents/media-release/media-release-broken-hill-power-outages-24-october-2024
BAby – read your first comment – thats the one with the multiple basic factual errors.
Your new link is not absolve your of your original errors.
Sequence
1) gaonon makes a multitude of errors
2) ganon’s errors are pointed out numerous times by numerous people
3) Ganon doubles and triples down on those errors
4) ganon finally begins to grasp his errors
5) ganon finds new info to pretend he know the right answer all along.
B A Bushaw | December 9, 2024 at 10:39 am |
Baby Joey,
You have no expertise, except maybe repeating false insults.
It is called NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). Apparently Broken Hills didn’t have grid forming inverters. There is a lesson there – the grid failed them, and they weren’t yet ready for it. The lesson is, if you depend on the grid for rotational inertia, don’t – the grid will fail, as demonstrated by Broken Hills. Same for ERCOT, however, they have electronic/electrical engineers that are actively addressing deficiencies for the deep penetration of wind and solar, which is already happening in Texas;
Thanks, Joey, your pain is my pleasure.
Thanks for the citation & quote, Joey.
ganon
At least Appell used a little imagination in his reply. Actually, I liked it because he fessed up to losing it. If you know what I mean.
I’ve been providing links for over a decade. It gets tedious after a while since it doesn’t persuade someone who doesn’t want to be persuaded.
You could query google just like I have done hundreds of times. Or is that too difficult for you?
As I told Appell one time…I’m not your wet nurse.
cerescokid wrote:
I’ve been providing links for over a decade. It gets tedious after a while since it doesn’t persuade someone who doesn’t want to be persuaded.
You should have kept a record of them. Or you could go back and repost them here. But it’s easier to whine about it and expect others to go hunt for what you think you said.
Kid, That’s right, you’re not my wet nurse – the thought makes me cringe. Glad you admit that you can’t keep up anymore.
cerescokid wrote:
You haven’t been around here for 10 years and seen how many times I have provided the links. He knows what they are.
I barely recall seeing your name before. Maybe once. You think I remember anything you ever posted? Ha.
I didn’t think you could provide any links, because the science doesn’t support a global LIA.
Even if it did (it doesn’t), it would only add to our problems today. IF the sun were so powerful as to cause a global LIA, it would be powerful enough to add to GHG warming, making the warming even worse.
BTW no relationship between solar irradiance and modern temperatures:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2021/12/just-nice-chart.html
Humanity seems to be flourishing during the period of the greatest warming. Perhaps you should stop worrying so much about AGW. There is nothing the human race won’t adapt to easily.
Rob Starkey wrote:
Humanity seems to be flourishing during the period of the greatest warming. Perhaps you should stop worrying so much about AGW. There is nothing the human race won’t adapt to easily.
What about all other plant and animal species?
Other species will have to adapt or die out. It isnt CO2 killing them off it is humanity growing and taking their habitat.
Rob Starkey wrote:
Other species will have to adapt or die out.
What are the consequences of species dying out?
BTW:
“Climate-Related Local Extinctions Are Already Widespread among Plant and Animal Species,” John J. Wiens, PLOS Biology,
December 8, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001104
“The results show that climate-related local extinctions have already occurred in hundreds of species, including 47% of the 976 species surveyed. This frequency of local extinctions was broadly similar across climatic zones, clades, and habitats but was significantly higher in tropical species than in temperate species (55% versus 39%), in animals than in plants (50% versus 39%), and in freshwater habitats relative to terrestrial and marine habitats (74% versus 46% versus 51%). Overall, these results suggest that local extinctions related to climate change are already widespread, even though levels of climate change so far are modest relative to those predicted in the next 100 years.”
==
“Climate change impacting ‘most’ species on Earth, even down to their genomes,” The Guardian 5-Apr-2017
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2017/apr/05/climate-change-life-wildlife-animals-biodiversity-ecosystems-genetics
“Scheffers is the lead author of a landmark Science study from last year that found that current warming (just one degree Celisus) has already left a discernible mark on 77 of 94 different ecological processes, including species’ genetics, seasonal responses, overall distribution, and even morphology – i.e. physical traits including body size and shape.”
==
“The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people,” Brett R. Scheffers et al, Science 2016.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaf7671
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf7671
Rob Starkey wrote:
Humanity seems to be flourishing during the period of the greatest warming.
So as long as “humanity” is flourishing, it doesn’t matter if some individuals suffer?
David
You are arguing againest the success of the human race. During my lifetime the human population grew from 5billion to over 8 billion. Hundreds of other species went extinct during that period. Did we miss them? Not much.
Additional CO2 will lead to changes. Change must be adapted to or the species fails. You worry to much about the wrong thing.
Some individuals will always suffer David. It’s like a law of nature. Government can’t fix it.
Jim2: “Some individuals will always suffer[,] David. It’s like a law of nature. Government can’t fix it.”
Is that some kind of justification for ignoring how many, and how severely, they suffer? Maybe governments can’t “fix it”, whatever that may mean, but they can certainly have a dramatic effect on the number and severity.
Rob Starkey commented:
You are arguing againest the success of the human race.
It’s beyond me how you could conclude that from what I’ve written here.
I’m asking questions. Not getting many answers.
Appell
“ I barely recall seeing your name before. Maybe once. You think I remember anything you ever posted?”
Lol. Love it. We have found the reason you don’t know the science. You have lost your memory. You are a little young to have cognitive decline like that but at least we have uncovered your inability to recall the links and literature.
And here all this time I thought you had lost your small motor skills and weren’t able to query Google. Actually the wrong body part is defective.
cerescokid wrote:
We have found the reason you don’t know the science. You have lost your memory.
Or maybe you didn’t post anything notable enough to remember.
If you would pick a real name instead of one that seems related to congealed vegetable oil, maybe people would remember you. Or use your real name. But of course you won’t do that because it’s easier to insult people when you’re anonymous. It’s the coward’s way.
Appell
So, if you are experiencing hippocampus shrinkage and can’t remember our exchanges then you probably don’t recall the time you were extolling how you criticized the work of Sallie Baliunis in one of your articles and the next time you saw her at a conference she wouldn’t speak to you, to which I proffered she most likely thought you were the pizza delivery guy.
B A Bushaw | December 13, 2024 at 2:36 pm |
Well finally, see how easy that was for Starkey.
“Yea, I was wrong, they did have grid forming inverters.”
Bab – you got considerably more wrong than just that one item. As Russ & Chris and others have stated, you entire slew of commentary on renewables over the last 10-12 months shows you have an extremely superficial understanding of the subject matter. As Russ & Chris suggested, spend some time developing an actual understanding.
Joey, I’m not interested. New things fail all the time. Some people learn from them, others don’t.
B A Bushaw | December 13, 2024 at 4:07 pm |
Joey, I’m not interested. New things fail all the time. Some people learn from them, others don’t.
BAB – you have repetitively stated your not interested, others do learn. You havent learned as evidenced by your repeated errors and superficial & distorted understanding of renewables.
As you replied to Chris and Russ – you are not interested.
Every GWh of solar or wind power that is added to the grid is a GWh’s worth of limited water and fossil fuels that is saved for later use. I will point out that I have never advocated for a grid powered only by wind and solar; however, they are by far the fastest growing sector of electricity growth.
I am, indeed, repetitively not interested in your insults. I just enjoy giving you the opportunity to make a fool of yourself.
The fossil fuels burning, the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, do not rise Global temperature.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
BA Bushaw:
You need to read my article “The Definitive cause of little ice age temperatures”
The 600 year LIA was a bad tine for people around the world
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.2.0170
No, Burl – I don’t need to do anything you say. As you obviously cannot accept the disproval of your SO2 hypothesis, I’m not really interested in whatever hand-waving vanity press you might be able to publish. I already know what caused the LIA, orbital cooling overtaken by AGW, thanks anyway.
Burl draws global conclusions by only looking at the Central England Temperature. Then he imagines that any volcano anywhere in the world is responsible for any change in the CET–even warming.
BA Bushaw:
“I already know what caused the LIA, orbital cooling overtaken by AGW”
Nonsense! That is TOTALLY incorrect. You DO need to read my article to find the actual cause.
And regarding the “disproval” of my SO2 hypothesis, you have NEVER done so. It is irrefutable.
In a nutshell, my claim is that industrial SO2 aerosol pollution levels began rising about 1955, and peaked at 141 million tons in 1979. Because of Acid Rain and health concerns, legislation was passed in the US and Europe in the 1970’s to reduce those pollution levels, and because of those “Clean Air” efforts, temperatures began rising in 1980 as the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere decreased.
With less pollution in the atmosphere, the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface increases and warming naturally occurs. Between 1979 and 2022, SO2 aerosol pollution levels decreased by 73 million tons.
The INEVITABLE warming due to decreased pollution levels has been totally ignored, and is, instead, wrongly attributed to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Since warming due to decreased aerosol pollution levels is indisputable, it is obvious that warming due to rising CO2 levels does not exist!
I am unable to respond to David Apple’s comment, just below (no reply option) where he says that I draw global conclusions by only looking at the Central England Temperatures.
It is a FACT that that any VEI4 or higher eruption will cause temperatures to decrease around the world, so when I see that each CET temperature decrease is associated with a volcanic eruption, or eruptions, I know that global changes have also occurred.
And, yes, they can also cause warming, when their SO2 aerosols settle out, some 18-30 months after the eruption, if not quenched by another eruption, or existing cold temperatures.
burlhenry wrote:
Since warming due to decreased aerosol pollution levels is indisputable, it is obvious that warming due to rising CO2 levels does not exist!
It’s impossible to read your graph because the volcano data on it is too small and blurry.
It is a FACT that that any VEI4 or higher eruption will cause temperatures to decrease around the world
Says what?
How does temperature decrease as a function of VEI?
Why doesn’t it depend on the latitude of the volcano?
The INEVITABLE warming due to decreased pollution levels has been totally ignored, and is, instead, wrongly attributed to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
What do you calculate for the radiative forcing of atmospheric CO2, as a function of CO2’s concentration (in ppm).
Burl
Repetition does not make it true, nor does calling something nonsense make it so. The title of your paper:
“Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”
kinda a says it all. If you want to admit you are wrong, that’s fine, but you can’t rewrite what you published, and you can’t erase it. As I’ve said all along, I hope people read it … and have a good chuckle:
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
And then consider the disproof:
https://mega.nz/file/4qc1ACyT#57PNs8KfMebGtKRfUJ3OVw4fGzn8-4mDmrw9NvguO5g
It shows SO2 emission decline has had roughly 7% of the climatic warming effect of CO2e concentration increases.
The only thing you have shown, Burl, is the well known fact that correlation does not mean causation, particularly if one cherry-picks the data range to have the correlation one is looking for.
Burl said:
“I am unable to respond to David Apple’s comment, just below (no reply option) where he says that I draw global conclusions by only looking at the Central England Temperatures.”
You can’t spell his name, and you don’t know how to respond to responses here – maybe you shouldn’t try.
Uh oh, Burl, I guess you can’t respond to me either. Maybe a clever engineer will be able to figure it out.
BA:
Since this post has a reply option, I am going to use it to communicate with David Appell, and some of your later posts.
David:
1. Regarding my graph being too small to read, you should be able to enlarge it on your browser, or print it out and enlarge it on your printer. However, as an example, the ~ 6 year warm period shown on the CET between the 1721 VEI5 eruption of Katia (Iceland) ended with the 1727 VEI4 eruption of Orafejokull (also Iceland), where there were no intervening VEI4 eruptions, resulted in the greatest temperature decrease shown on the CET, being augmented by the 1737 VEI4 eruption of Fuego (Guatemala) and the 1739 VEI5 eruption of Shikotsu (Japan).
(But bear in mind that temperature decreases from volcanic eruptions take 2-3 years to reach their maximum amount)
2. “How does temperature decrease as a function of VEI?
There is an order of magnitude between each VEI level, so that
at higher levels, more dimming SO2 is spewed into the atmosphere. Only VEI4 and higher eruptions have enough energy to inject SO2 into the altitude of the stratosphere (they are known as “Plinian” eruptions). The SO2 from those eruptions encircle the globe in about a week, then spread laterally, causing more cooling as they spread, until they eventually fall out.
3. “Why doesn’t it depend on the latitude of the volcano?”
There may be some small dependence, but the lateral spreading appears to erase any latitudinal effect.
4. “What do you calculate for the radiative forcing of atmospheric CO2 as a function of CO2’s concentration (in ppm).”
As I have shown, CO2 has no climatic effect. Therefore, its forcing is zero.
Burl, of course I tried to expand your graph. The volcano labels are fuzzy all the way out.
You still didn’t give temperature change as a function of VEI. What’s the quantitative relationship?
Did you test the latitude effect? A volcano that erupts at 60 deg N latitude would not a priori be expected to have the same effect as one at 60 deg S latitude or the at the equator.
Do you think CO2 absorbs infrared radiation?
The LIA was an inevitable temporary phenomenon.
Winters in Northen Hemisphere coincide with Earth’s Perihelion.
We have warmer winters in our times for about 4000 years now.
So Earth is continuously experiencing a millennials long warming pattern.
During the LIA period the sea-ice cover lessened enough so to open larger water areas. The LIA was an inevitable temporary phenomenon.
” The freezing point of seawater decreases as salt concentration increases. At typical salinity, it freezes at about −2 °C (28 °F).”
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater
So, sea-water is still liquid at −2 °C, when the sea-ice melts
at 0 °C.
So, when the sea-ice lessened, the air temperature became cooler.
–
Earth, nevertheless, continued at the LIA period to accumulate more heat in oceanic waters. And, when the accumulated heat overcame the LIA phenomenon, the air temperature started rising again.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Paris Accords As “Climate Insurance”—Unaffordable and Unnecessary
By Steven E. Koonin and Mark P. Mills
Judith posted this on X.
https://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2024/12/13/the_paris_accords_as_climate_insuranceunaffordable_and_unnecessary_1078413.html
Bill Fabrizio wrote:
The Paris Accords As “Climate Insurance”—Unaffordable and Unnecessary
Despite Koonin’s blustering, the world keeps getting warmer.
Yes, when the UK Met Office has claimed the past 30 year (1991-2020) average temperature there has been higher than any individual year in the record, of course it is getting warmer.
Chris,
You’d have to give a reference for that, so it can be seen in context.
Yes, when the UK Met Office has claimed the past 30 year (1991-2020) average temperature there has been higher than any individual year in the record, of course it is getting warmer. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/datasets/Tmean/date/UK.txt
Hottest 2023 at 10.03
Here is average
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62457adad3bf7f32afeba036/Long-term_mean_temperatures_1991-2020.pdf
Average 10.3
Thanks, Chris
I’m not sure that I understand your phrasing of the average being greater than any member of the data record. Maybe direct quotes are best. From your 2nd reference:
“A summary of the average monthly and annual temperatures and the differences between the two [1981-2010 vs 1991-2020]
30-year periods are shown in Table 1. All months show an increase in average temperature, whilst annually
there has been an increase of 0.37 degrees Celsius. This is higher than the increase noted between 1971-
2000 and 1981-2010 (0.23 degrees Celsius).”
In simpler words: On climatic time scales, it has been warming for the last 50+ years, and it accelerated during that time.
Chris Morris:
I have almost no idea what you’re trying to communicate.
I get the 30-year average for 1991-2020 to be 9.11 C. No?
For the hottest year of 10.03 C, I think it’s 2022, not 2023.
The table is headed “… long-term mean temperatures ” and is labelled Degrees Celcius. mean is the average? In the box for 1991-2020 is the number 10.3.
David – yes you are correct it was 2022 not 2023 – my mistake. However. your average is lower than what the other link says the average is.
Chris wrote:
However. your average is lower than what the other link says the average is.
Yes. That’s why I’m wondering if Hadley is using a different temperature record, or a different baseline.
What temperature dataset/link are they using? Maybe ask them before accusing them of being wrong.
This table, which they link to, has different numbers still:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67447e8281f809b32c8568f4/ET_7.1_NOV_24.xlsx
= http://t.ly/-JVdD
“No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era,” Raphael Neukom et al, Nature 2019.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2
“Here we use global palaeoclimate reconstructions for the past 2,000 years, and find no evidence for preindustrial globally coherent cold and warm epochs. In particular, we find that the coldest epoch of the last millennium—the putative Little Ice Age—is most likely to have experienced the coldest temperatures during the fifteenth century in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean, during the seventeenth century in northwestern Europe and southeastern North America, and during the mid-nineteenth century over most of the remaining regions.”
‘Little Ice Age, which lasted from approximately mid-1400 to 1700 A.D… Swiss Alps [glaciers] advanced to the extent that they filled valleys and destroyed villages. Areas to the north that had enjoyed abundant crop production were under ice. This was the time when the human population was devastated by the Black Plague… It was also the time of the early European settlement of the United States… A warming trend started in the mid-nineteenth century. This was interrupted from about 1940 to 1960 by a cooling, and then the temperature rose until about 20 years ago… Earth’s surface temperature has not changed for the past 19 years, and 16-26 years for the lower atmosphere… ~Daniel Botkin
“Earth’s surface temperature has not changed for the past 19 years, and 16-26 years for the lower atmosphere… ~Daniel Botkin”.
Thanks, always good to see what crap the cowardly shadow people are willing to post.
‘If you knew Dr. Botkin as well as I do, you might think twice about trying to tear him apart. The ecological community in his hood and at UCSB is one of the top ones in the world and has led over the past 35 years to quite a few breakthroughs for environmentalists and ecological awareness in general. Without Botkin and a certain circle of folks (including me) things like the CEC, Mesa Project cum Gildea Center, etc never would have gotten started. The truth is, even the Green / Eco subculture is split on this topic. There is not even consensus amongst card carrying environmentalists regarding how to approach AGW and other elements of Climate Change.’ ~ Steve Sadlov
I didn’t know Botkin at all – now I know he is not a climatologist or a meteorologist. I did not comment on him, I commented on his statement that you quoted – it is crap. If you wish to associate your unknown self with such lies, I don’t really care, but I do feel an obligation to point outthe obvious ones.
Thanks for Botkin’s anecdotal character reference. It’s a great deflection from the fallacy that you can’t defend, eh – uh, maybe not?
Have a good day
‘Get Used to Climate… Humanity will have to learn to adapt to a changing climate, as our species has done before.’ ~Daniel Botkin
The evidence / proxy data is very weak and sparse in the southern Hemisphere.
The studies are not nearly as robust as professed by the climate scientists.
https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/26/pages2019-30-60s/
https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/15/pages-2019-0-30n-proxies/
https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/02/pages19-0-30s/
https://climateaudit.org/2012/06/04/law-dome-in-mann-et-al-2008/
No, McIntyre SAYS the studies are not nearly as robust as professed by the climate scientists. McIntyre is a pseudo-scientist – statistical assassin, who can’t publish peer reviewed papers – he now has to make himself feel important by blogging his crap. Apparently, some people still buy it and are willing to promote it, but they are clearly “notaclimatescientist”.
If McIntyre is a pseudo scientist, then why was he a peer reviewer?
Why have several paleo retractions been made based on his commentary?
Why does the paleo community attack mcintyre personally instead of his work?
Bottom line, your criticism nor any one else’s change the fact that the paleo reconstructions are not nearly as robust as claimed.
Wrong again Mr. B. McIntyre has published.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10&q=stephen+McIntyre&btnG=
Bushwacker: You are not in McIntyre’s league, that’s for sure. Has Congress ever asked YOU for an analysis of climate data? Haw-haw-haw… McIntyre’s knowledge of paleoclimate together with his scientific thoroughness put your skimpy & superficial comments to shame. [Are you really a senior citizen? So many of your comments are childishly peevish.]
Joe K wrote:
The evidence / proxy data is very weak and sparse in the southern Hemisphere.
The studies are not nearly as robust as professed by the climate scientists.
But robust enough for you to conclude the LIA *was* global, eh?
Heavy precipitation is entering northern and central California.
“The climate modelers who developed the computer programs that are being used to forecast climate change used to readily admit that the models were crude and not very realistic…,” but as one respondent wisely commented, when the weatherman predicts 99% chance of rain, you bring an umbrella.
If you put in quotes, reference who said it. Yes, 40-year-old models were pretty crude, but they still did a pretty good job back then, and they are much, much better now.
https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming
Meanwhile, despite fears of global warming, “technically,” as Loyola informs us, we humans are living in an ice age (the Pleistocene Ice Age), “which began about 2.6 million years ago.”
Who, is Loyola? Formally, the current ice age began 33.9 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary. There has been permanent ice on Antarctica ever since. It was glaciation of the northern arctic that began 2.6 Myr ago.
‘So, in fact, the last ice age hasn’t ended yet! Scientists call this ice age the Pleistocene Ice Age. It has been going on since about 2.5 million years ago (and some think that it’s actually part of an even longer ice age that started as many as 40 million years ago). We are probably living in an ice age right now!’ ~Ro Kinzler
B A,
“Yes, 40-year-old models were pretty crude, but they still did a pretty good job back then, and they are much, much better now.”
First give up the +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect. Only then you would be able to understand how much erroneous the models are.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
In response to Mr. B @ https://judithcurry.com/2024/12/05/wind-and-solar-cant-support-the-grid/#comment-1013295
The real suffering of individuals in the world happens in countries where there are continual tribal/turf wars. It happens in countries that are governed by brutal dictators or crime-ridden governments. Only the people of those countries can change that. Government can’t and in many cases is the problem.
Thanks, Jim,
My appologies – must be my mistake – I thought we were discussing the effects of climate change.
Climate change doesn’t happen in a vacuum. You have to look at the big picture.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Calculation.
Tmean.earth
R = 1 AU, is the Earth’s distance from the sun in astronomical units
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant.
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day.
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the theoretically calculated one and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
–
****
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Give it up. It is wrong and nobody cares. Go back and try to understand phase-angle measurements of Bond albedo.
Thank you, B A.
“Go back and try to understand phase-angle measurements of Bond albedo.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If we are to simply ignore the science, which tells us nothing is happening now that has not happened before, as recently is just 10 years ago some conjectured that a mini ice age could hit the Earth in the 2030s, which hasn’t happened since the early 1700s. However, as recently as 5 years ago, NASA had said this could not happen even if the sun winked a bit, owing to humanity’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere. Accordingly, you could as well believe that global warming as a result of humanity and modernity is preventing the Earth from descending into another ice age.
I would like to point out that if someone is smart enough to figure things out, a degree or articles in science journals isn’t necessary. To say their work is useless due to a lack of these is known as a logical fallacy. It is one of Mr. B’s favorite logical fallacies.
To reiterate, Steve McIntyre has a degee AND has published in science journals.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/12/05/wind-and-solar-cant-support-the-grid/#comment-1013356
jim2 wrote:
I would like to point out that if someone is smart enough to figure things out, a degree or articles in science journals isn’t necessary.
That’s a very big IF….
To reiterate, Steve McIntyre has a degee AND has published in science journals.
I guess that’s impressive to someone who has done neither. To those who have, it’s not.
Thanks for illustrating yet another logical fallacy, David.
“I guess that’s impressive to someone who has done neither. To those who have, it’s not.”
And exactly how does that address the correctness of Steve McIntyre’s assertions?
Ad hominem are the refuge of intellectual snobs.
Pingback: Australian town’s dreams of having a ‘net-zero’ grid results in rolling blackouts lasting for days | Just The News
The irony is that burning fossil fuels has no significant effect on climate. Proxy measurements covering more than 500 million years show no correlation between CO2 and average global temperature. During previous glaciations (last 800,000 years), CO2 change followed temperature change. These and other factors corroborate that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
The recent rapid increase in temperature has been contributed to by the increase in water vapor (which is a ‘greenhouse gas’) resulting from the surge in population and irrigation starting around 1960. The increase in water vapor, has averaged about 1.4 % per decade and is substantially more than possible from just feedback from temperature increase.
Graphics showing this, with reference sources, are in the analysis documented at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
I appreciate the post, Dan. There needs to be more focus on water vapor, but it’s not a convenient narrative politically for the CAGW industry.
Literature indicates that for every Celsius degree of warming the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere increases by about 7%. The evidence I’ve seen suggests temperature leads CO2.
The following paper is very good evidence that temperature leads CO2. My view is that it very well could have been the impetus for the infamous hockey stick. The paper suggests that an extreme El Niño period between 1875–1905 initiated the “hockey stick”, not AGW. The added warm increased atmospheric WV. We’ve witnessed another extreme period of El Niño’s over the last 40 years, the planet responded to this by warming.
The paper:
Greenhouse warming and internal variability increase extreme and central Pacific El Niño frequency since 1980
“El Niño has been recorded to change its properties since the 1980s, characterized by more common extreme El Niño and Central Pacific (CP) El Niño events. However, it is still unclear whether such change is externally forced or part of the natural variability. Here, we find that the frequency of the extreme and CP El Niño events also increased during the period 1875–1905, when the anthropogenic CO2 concentration was relatively lower, but with a positive phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Models and paleoclimate proxies reveal that a positive AMO enhances the zonal sea surface temperature gradient in the CP, which strengthens zonal advective feedback, favoring extreme and CP El Niño development. Moreover, we estimate that internal variability contributed to ~65% of the increasingly extreme and CP El Niño events, while anthropogenic forcing has made our globe experience ~1 more extreme and ~2 more CP events over the past four decades”.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9873625/
Nope. Still don’t understand that some things (WMGHGs in particular) can be both a forcing and a feedback. Do some background literature work. Anthropogenic changes in CO2 are not the same as previous temperature mediated feedbacks.
There’s no misunderstanding in you reference.
For the El Niño scenario I posted the link to, increasing temperature would lead to increasing atmospheric WV, which would further amplify warming, though it’s not the cause of the warming in said scenario. The paper describes natural variability as the primary cause for warming between 1875–1905 (before there was substantive anthropomorphic CO2), it’s the same reason for a large portion of contemporary warming, extreme El Niño’s since circa 1980.
Science describes a higher concentration of WV in the contemporary atmosphere, simple cause and effect.
Dan Pangburn:
I have done an analysis of La Nina and El Nino events, and find that they are always caused by increased or decreased levels of Sulfur Dioxide aerosols in the atmosphere, from either volcanic eruptions or, since about 1850, also changing levels of industrial activity.
See “The definitive cause of La Nina and El Nino events”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
Burl,
I presume you would prefer that I don’t do a statistical (cross-)correlation and probability analysis on your volcanic – ENSO data. You should really do it yourself, but I expect that won’t happen.
BA:
It would be interesting to see the results of a statistical analysis, etc., of my volcanic-ENSO data, in view of the old dictum of lies, damn lies and statistics.
(I would point out that not every volcano will cause a La Nina, if it erupts during an El Nino, and not every volcano will cause an El Nino, if it is quenched by another close eruption).
A warning from The Energy Realists of Australia
Around the Western world, subsidised and mandated wind and solar power have been displacing conventional power in the electricity supply. Consequently, most of the grids in the west are moving towards a tipping point where the lights will flicker at nights when the wind is low. This is a “frog in the saucepan” effect and it only starts to worry people when it is too late. Too late for Britain and Germany certainly.
https://newcatallaxy.blog/2023/07/11/approaching-the-tipping-point/
Consider the ABC of intermittent energy generation.
A. Input to the grid must continuously match the demand.
B. The continuity of RE is broken on nights with little or no wind.
C. There is no feasible or affordable large-scale storage to bridge the gaps.
Therefor the green transition is impossible with current storage technology.
The rate of progress towards the tipping point will accelerate as demand is swelled by AI and electrification at large.
In Australia, the transition to unreliable wind and solar power has just hit the wall, while Britain and Germany have passed the tipping point and entered a “red zone,” keeping the lights on precariously with imports and deindustrialization to reduce demand.
The meteorologists never issued wind drought warnings and the irresponsible authorities never checked the wind supply! They even missed the Dunkelflautes that must have been known to mariners and millers for centuries!
https://www.flickerpower.com/images/The_endless_wind_drought_crippling_renewables___The_Spectator_Australia.pdf
There is an urgent need to find out why the meteorologists failed to warn us about wind droughts and why energy planners didn’t check. Imagine embarking on a major irrigation project without forensic investigation of the water supply including historical rainfall figures.
https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/climate-change/no-gusts-no-glory/
Christos,
Here is a realistic look at how spin rotation rates influence the surface temperature and climate of “living” planets:
Jansen, T., Scharf, C., Way, M., & Del Genio, A. (2019). Climates of warm Earth-like planets. II. Rotational “Goldilocks” zones for fractional habitability and silicate weathering. The Astrophysical Journal, 875(2), 79. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab113d
Thank you, B A.
https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab113d
or available to download as pdf:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190003894/downloads/20190003894.pdf
“Figure 4. Surface temperatures for the 1.0S0 case (i.e., solar insolation) as a function of rotation shown on a Robinson projection of the globe. Rotation periods from
left to right are 1×, 2×, 4×, 8×, 16×, 32×, 64×, 128×, and 256× the sidereal day length of present Earth. Approximate continental configuration can be seen
outlined in black. All red-colored regions are above freezing.”
(emphasis added)
–
B A, you call it a realistic look…
My method is: the planets and moons the satellite measured surface temperatures comparison.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Of course, you don’t understand. They treat the refinements for a living world, which you ignore. Thank you for demonstration that you have no concept of logarithmic scales.
B A,
“Of course, you don’t understand.”
–
What to understand? The authors say that Earth with
“256× the sidereal day length of present Earth” will be much warmer.
–
My method is: the planets and moons the satellite measured surface temperatures comparison.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Also, it says:
“The rotation period at which the peak in fractional
habitability occurs is, therefore, a result of the overlap of these
dynamical transitions in the rotation period domain. In the
16–32 days interval, both the equator and poles are sufficiently warm, while the nightside does not yet grow too frigid.”
–
“both the equator and poles are sufficiently
warm, while the nightside does not yet grow too frigid”
(emphasis added)
–
For comparison, the nightside of the Moon’s equator ( 29,5 days rotation period ) is ~100K or -173C .
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
BAB,
Water vapor is both a forcing and a feedback. WV is IR active and has been increasing. That makes it a forcing causing temperature increase. Temperature increase of water increases its saturation vapor pressure which forces more WV into the atmosphere. That makes it a feedback.
Germany is reaching a point of no return. Business leaders know it, the people in the country feel it, but politicians haven’t come up with answers.
Source:(www)bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-12-15/germany-is-unraveling-and-the-decline-threatens-to-become-irreversible
But Germany is a green energy paradise, don’t ya know!
https://www.agora-energiewende.org/data-tools/agorameter/chart/today/power_generation/01.05.2024/30.06.2024/hourly
A good real time data source showing the volatility of the electric generation by source in Germany. The wind and solar show very high volatility, wind especially with long periods of low wind, generally across the entire european continent.
J o N ova has a great article on this plus rest of Europe. Truly has turned into a 3 ring circus. Sorry but a link won’t stick here.
The Saxon Feralpi electric steelmaking plant in Riesa has completely ceased operations. Company executives, in a statement to Bild newspaper, expressed that the situation is dire and stressed the urgent need for power plants that can start operating in the near future to mitigate the crisis.
Plants over there are shutting down and begging for reliable power.
And Sweden is having major regrets shutting down nuclear power plants there.
Dumb choices will get you dumb prizes.
The power situation in Europe is a mess. Don’t say it’s due to “green energy”! (But it is)
Full story at joannenova dot com do au
From the article:
There are still many unknowns about the causes leading to the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) shift—a critical climate phenomenon in the Northern Hemisphere—to the east and west of Iceland. To date, some hypotheses suggest that this process known to the international scientific community might be related to the impact of greenhouse gases on the planet.
Now, a study published in the journal npj Climate and Atmospheric Science reveals that the NAO shift may be a consequence of natural variability in the atmospheric system rather than anthropogenic effects altering global climatology. The new study is led by experts María Santolaria-Otín and Javier García-Serrano, from the Faculty of Physics and the Group of Meteorology at the University of Barcelona.
Source:phys.org/news/2024-12-year-simulations-reveal-natural-drivers.html
“Now, a study published in the journal npj Climate and Atmospheric Science reveals that the NAO shift may be a consequence of natural variability in the atmospheric system rather than anthropogenic effects altering global climatology. ”
Jim2 – that study cant be right – several esteemed wanna be scientists who regularly post here state that “The magnitude and spectrum of timescales of “natural variability” is well understood.” and ” Science shows what’s causing modern warming and you all know what it says, and there is a great deal of evidence supporting that hypothesis.”
Hmm!
Jim
Is this the study?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-024-00842-8
FRANKFURT, Aug 30 (Reuters) – A German court on Wednesday threw out the rates of return for power and gas network infrastructure operators set in 2021 by the grid regulator, saying companies were right to complain they were too low.
The decision by the Duesseldorf court will not be enforced immediately and can be appealed.
The federal regulator, called the Bundesnetzagentur, had set permitted future returns for new power and gas infrastructure at 5.07%, versus 6.91% previously, leading 900 operators of local distribution networks to launch an appeal.
Source:(www)reuters.com/world/europe/german-court-throws-out-lower-grid-operator-returns-set-by-regulator-2023-08-30/
The world’s first commercial fusion power plant, named ARC, is going to be built in Virginia:
https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/news-releases/2024/december/name-1037752-en.html
https://cfs.energy
ARC will generate about 400 megawatts of electricity — enough energy to power large industrial sites or about 150,000 homes.
I would enjoy hearing Planning Engineer’s take.
Seconded. Pls; Tks.
They don’t yet have a > breakeven demo running. I’ll get excited when one of those has been running for a year. Right now, it’s still vaporware
Exactly
The press release makes it sound like the company will finance the construction. Probably via federal government funds. That was very likely to happen in Harris’s administration.
On the fission front, The Sam Altman backed nuclear company, Oklo, will soon be manufacturing mini nuclear reactors to support energy needs of AI.
A deal was announced today between Also and a company called Switch; “Oklo and Switch Form Landmark Strategic Relationship to Deploy 12 Gigawatts of Advanced Nuclear Power”
https://oklo.com/newsroom/news-details/2024/Oklo-and-Switch-Form-Landmark-Strategic-Relationship-to-Deploy-12-Gigawatts-of-Advanced-Nuclear-Power-One-of-the-Largest-Corporate-Clean-Power-Agreements-Ever-Signed/default.aspx?os=wtmb%26ref%3Dapp&ref=app
Should read: “between Alko and Switch”
“The science is settled, except when they need more money”
Funny! Over at J o N ova’s blog.
Russ Schussler has invested unquestionable knowledge and experience to write this article to educate others.
By now, there are about 402 comments. I have read them all, sadly finding many unrelated to the topic and many expressing ignorance or ideology that does not help the rest of us to be better educated.
Author Schussler deserves a better quality of comment.
How about it? Too late now, but worth a thought for next article?
Geoff S
‘Many people falsely believe that wind, solar and batteries have been demonstrated to provide grid support and deliver energy independently in large real word applications.’
Pretty much opens it up to whether or not Western academia really gives a s*** about Western Civilization.
Geoff – My apologies since I periodically get off topic.
I do find Russ’s and Cliff’s posted articles and responses quite informative. They are vastly more knowledgable than the so-called “renewable experts”. My frustration comes from individuals whose commentary displays a high level of misconceptions, logic errors, factual errors, etc and refuse to understand basic physical science and engineering concepts.
Geoff … “Russ Schussler has invested unquestionable knowledge and experience to write this article to educate others.” I couldn’t agree more. Most of us look forward to his pieces, as well as Chris and Roger. All having to do with power generation, transmission and relevant public policy.
As to “… finding many unrelated to the topic and many expressing ignorance or ideology that does not help the rest of us to be better educated.” I’ll disagree with you slightly on that. First there’s Ren, who gives us wonderful updates on ENSO, Ozone, etc. I enjoy the Lass, jim2, Wagathon, so many others, and now JoeK. I wouldn’t want to dissuade them just because their comments (include mine, as well) are not exactly discussing the present line of thought in an essay. Actually, every comment is climate related. And I doubt Russ is upset if Ren gives us the latest movement of the polar vortex.
I did say ‘slightly’ above. I do agree with your take that ideology can be at times be insufferable. But … that’s the price of respecting free speech.
By the way, I enjoy your comments, as well. And I’m glad you posted this, I just wish there was more conversation about it.
True, true. It’s hard to be off topic. Energy is an example of a resource and it is of course involved in providing all of the goods and services that people want. As resources become scarce the price for them goes up. Anytime there are changes in the price of resources the use of all other resources will be affected and the use of them to provide the same or substitute goods and service will be rearranged.
Test — tr0ll
Interesting.
I commented using the word “trxll”, and the comment did not go through. Why are we censuring a word that describes those that infest blogs?
Do we censor the word “mosquito”?
Tröll?
Wishing all a peaceful Winter Solstice.
It is the darkest time of the year – for the northern hemisphere.
Except that (from a scan of the news) I fear that darker days may be ahead.
Time flies and things change. Thirty years ago electricity generation was forging ahead in the hands of engineers and fast development of a very useful product. Today it is total reliance on that very product, but in the hands of people with little concept of its technical development and only of a political ‘cannon fodder’ appeal.
Such are the windmills of the human mind.
Sure, we know the Left with its monomaniacal fear of CO2 hates America. Meanwhile, most of humanity lives outside Western civilization in places like China, India, Brazil, Russia and in the Third world. They are getting a good chuckle at our expense when in reality they have much more to fear from the sacrifice in America of its foundational principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility upon which the future freedom of all humanity rests.
From the source article:
Oklo Inc., a developer of advanced nuclear technology backed by billionaire Sam Altman, has agreed to supply as much as 12 gigawatts of electricity to data center operator Switch Inc. to help satisfy technology companies’ booming demand for power.
The source:(www)bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-18/altman-backed-oklo-inks-deal-for-12-gigawatts-of-nuclear-power
No unreliables for serious applications!
The Oklo reactor:
https://small-modular-reactors.org/oklo-aurora/
300MWE per unit for a gross demand of 12 GWh, that means 40 units. Non stop?
Do they feed a turbo-generator each? That’s a lot of headache; mechanical and biological.
melita, not necessarily. On those numbers, If you have say 45 units, then you could have 5 out at any time for maintenance/ breakdown outages. That means a permanent workforce going from unit to unit. Big savings there and more skill as the staff would know their job with little site training needed. Then there is commonality of spares so more critical components can be held. A lot more work done would be done in-house. You could also retain your own specialist staff like NDT.
Constructing them would be a lot cheaper – the cookie cutter approach the French successfully used. There are also the package OCGTs everywhere.
Chris M: Not necessarily, but my experience is that QA is many times equal to BS. Learned that from the French (20+ yrs ago), and then experienced it. They proved it recently, the hard way https://www.power-technology.com/news/edf-posts-record-losses-after-nuclear-troubles/ (That also included fake QA documentation).
Contractor workforce on the move rarely has more than basic skills – rudimentary even. I learned I needed to supervise far more in depth than the supplier with a sound knowledge setup at home; and you still have to struggle with the latter.
Package OCGTs are one thing; linked to smr is a very different animal. (I had a trained team on ocgt, with prospects of such opportunity, but ‘smart’ politicos proved to be a death knell). Could be much worse than the French problem.
Of course there is experience from naval units, but its not available to lessor mortals.
jim2 … I think these are the only guys who claim to have ‘regulatory approval’, whatever that means. It’s a light water design, small at 77MWe.
NuScale Power Corporation (NYSE: SMR) is the industry-leading provider of proprietary and innovative advanced small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear technology, with a mission to help power the global energy transition by delivering safe, scalable, and reliable carbon-free energy. The company’s groundbreaking SMR technology is powered by the NuScale Power Module™, a small, safe, pressurized water reactor that can each generate 77 megawatts of electricity (MWe) or 250 megawatts thermal (gross), and can be scaled to meet customer needs through an array of flexible configurations up to 924 MWe (12 modules) of output.
As the first and only SMR to have its design certified by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NuScale is well-positioned to serve diverse customers across the world by supplying nuclear energy for electrical generation, district heating, desalination, commercial-scale hydrogen production, and other process heat applications.
melitamegalithic – you are making assumptions about the maintenance team being contractors. This is known as a “straw man” argument – a logical fallacy.
Jim I agree with the comment about maintenance team. I wrote it as a permanent work force employed by the generation company. We went down the contractor work force and now have swung back to doing a lot of it in-house. Found we have a lot more control over the process and lowered costs. Still haven’t got enough turbines to have it all in-house though so we need contractors. But engineering and a lot of supervisory roles are our staff. And we are training plus skills development so succession planning to allow us pensioners to retire.
Mega – I shouldn’t have used OCGTs as the model for maintenance – it was more the standardised design. For maintenance, I was thinking of the Eskom 6 packs, the CEGB 660MW units (Drax was the last) and some of the Australian units. Though they have all gone to contractors (and are regretting it)
More Green Energy fails, from the source:
A raft of projects to produce green hydrogen, a fuel billed as critical to reaching net zero, have been abandoned this year as expectations for tumbling costs failed to materialize.
The source for this one is:
(www)bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-21/green-hydrogen-goes-from-hyped-to-humbled-on-eye-popping-costs
In particular, water vapor absorbs UVB radiation, which increases in the troposphere when ozone production in the upper stratosphere decreases.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
A big surprise to me. Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas!
Daily temperature anomalies in the northeastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/X3cpZwg/ventusky-temperature-anomaly-2m-20241222t1800-41n74w-1.jpg
Current snow cover in the northern hemisphere. Hudson Bay is freezing fast.
https://i.ibb.co/fHBqfmf/gfs-npole-sat-seaice-snowc-d1.png
Niño Index 3.4 is falling.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
I appreciate your references, Iren. I find an El Niño ensemble covering the last 170+ years contextually interesting:
https://www.webberweather.com/uploads/1/1/9/9/119943685/ens-oni-timeseries-original3_orig.jpg
Ren … is the neutral phase between +.5 and -.5 degrees?
When challenges to produce enough energy to fuel, AI is the major challenge to Western economies, doesn’t that mean the third world needs more, not less, American exceptionalism?!
Frozen New York.
WUNDERMAP
https://i.ibb.co/LpvqPLn/Screenshot-2024-12-23-09-36-22.png
“Recent global temperature surge intensified by record-low planetary albedo”
Goessling, Rackow, Jung
Abstract
In 2023, the global mean temperature soared to almost 1.5K above the pre-industrial level, surpassing the previous record by about 0.17K. Previous best-guess estimates of known drivers including anthropogenic warming and the El Niño onset fall short by about 0.2K in explaining the temperature rise. Utilizing satellite and reanalysis data, we identify a record-low planetary albedo as the primary factor bridging this gap. The decline is apparently caused largely by a reduced low-cloud cover in the northern mid-latitudes and tropics, in continuation of a multi-annual trend. Further exploring the low-cloud trend and understanding how much of it is due to internal variability, reduced aerosol concentrations, or a possibly emerging low-cloud feedback will be crucial for assessing the current and expected future warming.
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.adq7280
… paywalled. But it shows a trend in albedo research.
Bill, here is a little bit more on that study
https://x.com/JunkScience/status/1871412035994739067/photo/1
“CO2 Back-Radiation Sensitivity Studies under Laboratory and Field Conditions”
Ernst Hammel, Martin Steiner, Christoph Marvan, Matthias Marvan, Klaus Retzlaff, Werner Bergholz, Axel Jacquine
Our measurements align with limitations to an increase of maximum 3W/m2 back-radiation by doubling the CO2 content from 400 to 800 ppm. This minor contribution should not exceed a temperature increase of more than 0.5˚K a value, which is not within the range of significant impact for climatic changes and much lower than annual temperature variations in all regions of the earth.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=136478
Their results agree with Wijngaarten & Happer. Tried to post this before. Got caught up in moderation.
Thanks Bill,
Generally a well referenced review; however, some things are glossed over, e.g.:
“From Figure 27 it should be obvious that only minor contributions can be obtained from the edges of the two prominent CO2 windows.”
Only minor contributions from the 4.5 um band (not a window) because not much emission there at Earth temperatures. Careful examination shows that the important 15 um band sits on the edge of the well known “water” window as shown, and can absorb as much as 10% of the upwelling IR. Also, as figure 16 shows, CO2 absorbtivity is not saturated, rather, it is linear at relevant pressures (> 200 ppmv) – extrapolating to zero CO2 (where absorption will be near linear) is a bit of a red herring.
Also studied in detail here :
https://romps.berkeley.edu/papers/pubdata/2020/logarithmic/20logarithmic.pdf
What is always overlooked is that it makes no difference how much CO2 absorbs, 15µ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface.