Global warming?
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 10 Jan 2010 22:27 On Jan 11, 1:57 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" > > <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > >No damn way! > > >It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are > >forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold > >spells on record with another cold front headed this way. > > Get used to it. > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The... The Daily Mail isn't exactly a quality newpaper, and British science reporting isn't wonderful, even in the quality papers. I wouldn't get too excited about this revelation, which the reporter has probably lifted from a denialist web-site. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: John Larkin on 10 Jan 2010 22:44 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:27:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jan 11, 1:57�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" >> >> <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> >No damn way! >> >> >It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are >> >forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold >> >spells on record with another cold front headed this way. >> >> Get used to it. >> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The... > >The Daily Mail isn't exactly a quality newpaper, and British science >reporting isn't wonderful, even in the quality papers. I wouldn't get >too excited about this revelation, which the reporter has probably >lifted from a denialist web-site. Which nonsense, of course, authorizes you to dismiss the peer-reviewed journal article. And all the snow on the ground as well. You seem to have stopped thinking some decades ago. John
From: Don Klipstein on 11 Jan 2010 00:37 In <1a553f39-1d53-4368-a85c-088478fbbce8(a)m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Bill Sloman wrote: >On Jan 11, 12:52�am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:41:56 -0800 (PST), Mark <makol...(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> SNIP >> >> >well now finally we get to the point >> >> >due to "peak oil," the use of oil will reduce no matter AWG or not >> >> >nat gas will also peak realtivly soon >> >> >the real question is what we do with coal >> >> >is the AWG hypothesis firm enough that we should regulate the use of >> >coal creating economic hardship? >> >> >Nobody is against developing "alternative energy" sources such as wind >> >> I am against wind because it is worse than useless. > >Ravinghorde seems to differ from a whole lot of investors here. >Windmills are supplying 19.7% of Denmark's electricity production > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark > >which isn't exactly useless. > >> During cold spell last winter and again this winter there has been no >> wind. > >Where? > >>So at the time of peak demand wind doesn't contribute. > >At a time of peak demand, Ravinghorde couldn't see wind power >contributing, which is all that he thinks he needs to know. > >>�And I have seen data that shows this has happened in the US as well as the >> UK. > >From the usual denialist web-sites, no doubt. > >> This failure means that coventional power stations must be up and >> running and ready to supply the demand. <SNIP from here> My experience in USA is that temperature extremes occur well within high pressure systems, where wind is light. Thankfully, in USA electricity can be carried over long transmission lines within grids large enough to likely include somewhere where the wind is blowing well. However, I doubt windmills will satisfy much power-hungry Americans having more power-hungry lifestyles and America's their more extreme temperatures as well as they satisfy Danes having milder weather and likely more energy-efficient lifestyles. I favor windmills anyway, even if they can only contribute a couple to a few percent of USA's electricity needs, along with nuclear which is at least essentially CO2-free. Another thing I favor is improved energy efficiency. This would come from more fuel-efficient cars, increased home insulation, and nibbling at the many areas where lighting and electrical device efficiency can be improved, especially in homes where the more inefficient products or ones being used less efficiently are. For just one example, the amount of electricity consumed by low power loads that are powered much or most of the time, and where an extra buck or few bucks could reduce their power consumption by half a watt to a few watts. This includes computers, TVs, etc. when they are "off" (can draw 4-11 watts) and "wall wart" power supplies for cordless phones, etc. and things like clock radios and digital clocks. The way LED technology has been advancing, nightlights can be a lot more efficient also. Reduce by half a watt here and there, a watt here and there, and a few watts in a couple more places, multiplied by the number of homes in USA, and that sounds to me like a couple gigawatts - enough to take a coal fired power plant or a few off the nationwide power plant construction schedule. - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com)
From: Paul Keinanen on 11 Jan 2010 00:56 On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:21:04 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Jan 11, 12:52�am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde(a)invalid> wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:41:56 -0800 (PST), Mark <makol...(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> SNIP >> >> >well now finally we get to the point >> >> >due to "peak oil," the use of oil will reduce no matter AWG or not >> >> >nat gas will also peak realtivly soon >> >> >the real question is what we do with coal >> >> >is the AWG hypothesis firm enough that we should regulate the use of >> >coal creating economic hardship? >> >> >Nobody is against developing "alternative energy" sources such as wind >> >> I am against wind because it is worse than useless. > >Ravinghorde seems to differ from a whole lot of investors here. >Windmills are supplying 19.7% of Denmark's electricity production > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark > >which isn't exactly useless. > >> During cold spell last winter and again this winter there has been no >> wind. > >Where? This is a problem in any geographically small wind energy network, when a large high pressure area takes out the wind in that area, such as Denmark. However, on a continent wide basis, there are always going to be windy areas at a specific time, so a continental wide "wind farm" i.e. a continent wide electric transfer network, capable of transferring at least the total wind turbine nominal power from the windy area to the calm are consumers. At least in Europe, the current cross-border lines are relative weak, so it is not necessary capable of transferring power into the calm area (which of course is slowly moving around). So in practice, new overhead lines or submarine cables would be required from wind farm to wind farm to even out the constantly varying supply and demand conditions. In a densely populated areas, it is very hard to get the rights of ways for an overhead lines and the submarine cables are very expensive. Denmark is a far too small area for a fully distributes wind system. In the current system, the wind farms are in practice backed up by the hydroelectric plants in Norway and Sweden, with submarine HVDC cables nearly capable of transferring the excess or deficit due to wind power. > >>So at the time of peak demand wind doesn't contribute. >> This failure means that coventional power stations must be up and >> running and ready to supply the demand. > >Or stored energy units must be available. Dinorwic seems to have been >designed by someone as inept as Ravinghorde, with relatively high >losses. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station > >Compressed air systems can be more efficient. Energy storage systems are idiotic, such as pumping water systems, compressed air systems, hydrogen storage systems etc. due to the low efficiency of storing energy into these facilities. Ordinary hydroelectric stations are OK for wind energy backup (as in Denmark, Norway, Sweden), since the hydroelectric stations can be closed when the demand is low or when there is a lot of wind electricity available. However, this requires that the nominal turbine and generators in such hydroelectric plants are slightly larger than would otherwise been used for the average water flow, in order to handle the peak demand. However, if the lake above the plant is small, the periodic use of water will cause daily variations in the water level with environmental impacts. On the load side, for instance, if hot water is needed at a constant rate, larger storage facilities than usually required could be built, that are topped up during periods of strong winds. If these are not practical, then more long distance electric transmission capacity is required to even out the variation in production over larger geographic areas. All the above systems gave losses in the order of 5-10 %, while the various pumping storage systems etc. 20-50 % of the energy can be lost. The cost of wind energy is not just the cost of wind turbines, but there are also a lot of infrastructural costs.
From: Raveninghorde on 11 Jan 2010 05:06
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:44:02 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 19:27:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >>On Jan 11, 1:57�am, John Larkin >><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:58:42 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell" >>> >>> <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>> >No damn way! >>> >>> >It's 21 degrees in Ocala right now and expected to get colder. They are >>> >forecasting some snow, and this may become one of the longest cold >>> >spells on record with another cold front headed this way. >>> >>> Get used to it. >>> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The... >> >>The Daily Mail isn't exactly a quality newpaper, and British science >>reporting isn't wonderful, even in the quality papers. I wouldn't get >>too excited about this revelation, which the reporter has probably >>lifted from a denialist web-site. > >Which nonsense, of course, authorizes you to dismiss the peer-reviewed >journal article. And all the snow on the ground as well. > >You seem to have stopped thinking some decades ago. > >John The Slow man school of science: http://xkcd.com/687/ |