-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Nice !
Although I question your good judgement, walking around on a frozen roof
Meh... it's flat.
Just another click-bait article... of the 34GW shortage, 30GW are due to problems fossil fuel plants.
PolitiFact - Natural gas, not wind turbines, main driver of Texas power shortage
So true. Until renewables are 70% of electrical generation, the major issues will be legacy generators (thermal gas, coal nuclear, etc).
From the politico article... sounds like Wind is more reliable than fossil fuel plants. As we get more EVs and Grid Battery in place, intermittency of renewables would not be an issue and in fact, we would have backup power right at home (Get in your EV in closed garage and turn on the heat). It's just ridiculous that people present fossil fuel generation = jobs and reliability when it create death, illness and environmental chaos.
"In their annual forecast, they predicted that demand would peak at about 67.2 gigawatts. On Sunday night, demand hit 69.1 gigawatts. Meanwhile, outages from coal and natural gas plants were at least 10,000 megawatts larger than they expected in their most extreme scenario.
To a certain extent, the wind turbines exceeded expectations. The grid operators predict a day in advance how much power the turbines will produce. At many hours of the day on Feb. 15 and Feb.16, wind delivered more power than the engineers at the Electric Reliability Council of Texas had expected."
Last edited:
The temperature data (even after frequent and extensive "adjustments") stubbornly refused to follow the CMIP models. The longer the time interval, the more ridiculous the results.
And then there was that whole Phanerozoic Era thing. Bad enough that current temperatures are relatively cool compared to the rest of the Holocene, but the Phanerozoic was absolutely intolerable with hundreds of millions of years where CO2 was measured in thousands of ppm and nothing bad happened! Very bad optics, and those damn Paleontology books can be found in any college (and many public) libraries. Just too damn many of them to be Disappeared.
The Movement needed a relabeling to preserve the Carbon Devil. Something that could not be measured, tested, or falsified. Hence "warming" became "change".
First you guess. Don't laugh, this is the most important step. Then you compute the consequences. Compare the consequences to experience. If it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it's wrong. That's all there is to it.
Richard P. Feynman
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Renewables can never be the issue anymore than the solar panels on my off-grid system can be the reason I lost power. The purpose of renewable is energy... not a reliable source of power. The purpose of wind and solar is not to keep the lights on... it's to reduce the amount of fuel needed to keep the lights on. And eventually to produce the fuel or charge the batteries that keep the lights on.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Phanerozoic includes the present day. The rate of change matters, which denier types always ignore.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
The Earth was also warm enough that both poles were ice free (with a dimmer sun). So sea levels would be ~200' higher. Over what time period do you think that could occur without being 'bad' for our society? 1,000 years? 10,000 years?
It's not that 500ppm CO2 is 'bad'... it's that going from 280ppm to 400 in < 100 years is bad. Going from 280 to 500 in < 150 would be catastrophic. Nothing bad happens when Bismarck, ND has a week of single digit temperatures but obviously Houston can't handle it. Our society and ecosystems are adapted to a ~280ppm climate. It takes more than a few centuries to adapt to a 500ppm climate.
Rank Temperature Date
1 -8 Feb 12, 1899
2 -2 Jan 31, 1949
3 (tie) -1 Dec 23, 1989
-1 Jan 18, 1930
https://www.weather.gov/fwd/dgr8mxmn
DFW - Temperature Extremes - National Weather Service
Dallas has been colder in previous years
1 -8 Feb 12, 1899
2 -2 Jan 31, 1949
3 (tie) -1 Dec 23, 1989
-1 Jan 18, 1930
https://www.weather.gov/fwd/dgr8mxmn
DFW - Temperature Extremes - National Weather Service
Dallas has been colder in previous years
mspohr
Well-Known Member
A better review
How to Avoid a Climate Disaster by Bill Gates review – why science isn't enough
Recognising that we cannot continue to deny electricity to 800 million of the world’s poorest people, his starting point is a plan to develop clean energy and cut its costs. Already, scientific advance has brought an astonishing reduction in the prices of solar, wind and wave energy, battery storage, electric vehicles, remote sensing monitoring and smart grids. But if we are to deliver affordable clean energy, we have to go much further. Gates demands what he calls “a renewable portfolio standard” of energy pricing and an immediate quintupling of climate-related research and development. This would include investing in nuclear fusion as well as nuclear fission; thermal energy (creating energy from hot rocks underground); carbon mineralisation; sea-based carbon removal to de-acidify the oceans; and direct air capture using scrubbing machines. Because even the most advanced solar panels currently convert only around a quarter of the sun’s energy, we need to address problems caused by the intermittency in the output of renewable energy, seasonal differences in its supply, and the high storage costs. But we must also do more to capture emissions across the entire energy, transport and manufacturing sectors before they are released back to the atmosphere: to store them deep underground or in long-lived products such as concrete, or even by combining CO2 with calcium to produce limestone that could replace concrete.
How to Avoid a Climate Disaster by Bill Gates review – why science isn't enough
Recognising that we cannot continue to deny electricity to 800 million of the world’s poorest people, his starting point is a plan to develop clean energy and cut its costs. Already, scientific advance has brought an astonishing reduction in the prices of solar, wind and wave energy, battery storage, electric vehicles, remote sensing monitoring and smart grids. But if we are to deliver affordable clean energy, we have to go much further. Gates demands what he calls “a renewable portfolio standard” of energy pricing and an immediate quintupling of climate-related research and development. This would include investing in nuclear fusion as well as nuclear fission; thermal energy (creating energy from hot rocks underground); carbon mineralisation; sea-based carbon removal to de-acidify the oceans; and direct air capture using scrubbing machines. Because even the most advanced solar panels currently convert only around a quarter of the sun’s energy, we need to address problems caused by the intermittency in the output of renewable energy, seasonal differences in its supply, and the high storage costs. But we must also do more to capture emissions across the entire energy, transport and manufacturing sectors before they are released back to the atmosphere: to store them deep underground or in long-lived products such as concrete, or even by combining CO2 with calcium to produce limestone that could replace concrete.
CAISO has negative imports right now, wondering if they are selling energy to TX via the connection to the Western Grid at El Paso. TX just needs to increase its connection to both the Eastern and Western grids. Maybe Mexico too.
California ISO - Supply
California ISO - Supply
cpa
Active Member
I believe that Texas stands alone among the lower 48 when it comes to the power grid. I do not know with absolute certainty that Texas can import electricity. That rugged individualism and romantic rancher mentality that started with Davy Crockett and his pals at the Alamo.
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Wonder if there's any grid operators on TMC. My understanding is that the ISOs cannot share energy between each other unless they use a AC=DC=AC interconnect since they're not synced. Independent AC grids cannot share energy since their phases aren't aligned and if they aligned to share energy they're no longer independent. ALL generators would effect each other.
North Texas is actually a member of SPP not ERCOT so that part of Texas can import and export with other SPP members.
Ah... there ya go... so it looks like N Texas can't even share power with S Texas...
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
If the system will work fine 99.9% of the time... that means that 0.1% of the time it won't. Numbers
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I think Texas can look to the local oil and gas industry as a significant contributor to climate change and this resulting disaster. Perhaps they can get the industry to pay for it.If the system will work fine 99.9% of the time... that means that 0.1% of the time it won't. Numbers
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Here's the real problem:
Rick Perry: Texans Should Endure Blackouts To Keep Feds From Overseeing Power Grid
The Republican also insisted that wind and solar energy had caused the blackouts when coal, nuclear and natural gas energy systems bear much of the blame.
Rick Perry: Texans Should Endure Blackouts To Keep Feds From Overseeing Power Grid | HuffPost
Similar threads
