From Stanford University , along with actor/activist Mark Ruffalo, and “Gasland” movie fabricator Josh Fox. I’m amazed the university would allow themselves to get used by these clowns. The website they are pushing actually doesn’t offer any solutions, but asks you to “Join the Movement”
Stanford scientist to unveil 50-state plan to transform US to renewable energy
Stanford Professor Mark Jacobson and his colleagues recently developed detailed plans to transform the energy infrastructure of New York, California and Washington states from fossil fuels to 100 percent renewable resources by 2050. On Feb. 15, Jacobson presented a new roadmap to renewable energy for all 50 states at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Chicago.
The online interactive roadmap is tailored to maximize the resource potential of each state. Hovering a cursor over California, for example, reveals that the Golden State can meet virtually all of its power demands (transportation, electricity, heating, etc.) in 2050 by switching to a clean technology portfolio that is 55 percent solar, 35 percent wind (on- and offshore), 5 percent geothermal and 4 percent hydroelectric.
“The new roadmap is designed to provide each state a first step toward a renewable future,” said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford. “It provides all of the basic information, such as how many wind turbines and solar panels would be needed to power each state, how much land area would be required, what would be the cost and cost savings, how many jobs would be created, how much pollution-related mortality and global-warming emissions would be avoided.”
The 50-state roadmap will be launched this week on the website of The Solutions Project, a national outreach effort led by Jacobson, actor Mark Ruffalo (co-star of The Avengers), film director Josh Fox and others to raise public awareness about switching to clean energy produced entirely by wind, water and sunlight. Also on Feb. 15, Solutions Project member Leilani Munter, a professional racecar driver, will publicize the 50-state plan at a Daytona National Speedway racing event in Daytona, Fla., in which she will be participating.
“Global warming, air pollution and energy insecurity are three of the most significant problems facing the world today, said Jacobson, a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and Precourt Institute for Energy. “Unfortunately, scientific results are often glossed over. The Solutions Project was born with the vision of combining science with business, policy, and public outreach through social media and cultural leaders – often artists and entertainers who can get the information out – to study and simultaneously address these global challenges.”
Jacobson delivered his AAAS talk on Saturday, Feb. 15, at 1:30 p.m. CT, at the Hyatt Regency Chicago, Columbus Hall CD, as part of a symposium entitled, “Is it possible to reduce 80% of greenhouse gas emissions from energy by 2050?”
Relevant URLs:
Jacobson Lab
https://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/
The Solutions Project
http://thesolutionsproject.org/
The Incredible Hulk goes Green?
For some reason I’m feeling angry.
Lets see Stanford lead the way to this ‘glorious future ‘ by committing its self to use no power that has not come from renewable sources , true in the short term that may mean some drastic shortages of power , but I think its a price worth paying for ‘saving the planet ‘
The fact it will stop them pushing such idiots ideas in the first place , is of course just a side benefit.
““The new roadmap is designed to provide each state a first step toward a renewable future,” said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.”
WHAT! They failed to mention the
“Partial share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize as a research contributor to and reviewer of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 3rd and 4th Assessment Reports, cited for “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.””
from his CV!
He’s got more citations than Gengis Khan had kills!
Well, I guess a road map is fine and dandy – where’s the economics??
I’m open on this one – if the economics stacks up, fine.
If not, it should be exposed as premature at best……….
Without large scale energy storage, which green energy enthusiasts constantly ignore, they are either stupid or their true intent is to disrupt economies and living standards through intermittent energy supply. They claim not to be stupid so the latter must be their true goal.
The IQ of Silicon Valley just decreased significantly. I’ve mentored some bright students at Stanford, but these,,,,, take the cake.
Dear Anthony,
On the South side of the Big Island of Hawaii is the first series of wind energy fans. Now, there are just towers with very few wind blades attached. They had the money to put them there, but none to maintain them.
For every mile of highway there has to be a mile of maintenance budget. No matter what they think or get a budget in place to build it there won’t be the budget to keep it going. The states mentioned are broke.
Anyway, there are problems with green energy, if it is food, someone goes hungry. If it is wind energy, birds are killed and cold disrupt there action. If it is solar China is already shutting down its solar panel production to a few companies because of the lack of US INTEREST.
Poor blokes.
Paul Pierett
REPLY: Yes, I’ve visited the Kamoa wind farm, and we have a story about it here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/19/the-reality-of-wind-turbines-in-california-video/
-Anthony
“Global warming, air pollution and energy insecurity are three of the most significant problems facing the world today,…”
There doesn’t seem to be much global warming, air pollution in western countries is dramatically less than 40 years ago and the most insecure forms of energy (that is, real baseload energy that keeps our world working effectively) are solar and wind. And the world is much bigger than the fifty states of the USA.
And get rid of those horrible CO2 producing liquid fuels. Of course, that will mean no car racing for “Leilani Munter, a professional racecar driver”. Or is car racing exempt?
“a scientist, an actor, a banker and a filmmaker were sitting around a table talking about their opposition to extreme energy extraction”. Extreme energy extraction – what are these people talking about? And no mention of a mechanical or electrical engineer who are the ones our society trains to work out practical economic solutions to these sorts of big problems.
And I’d like to see the specs for a windmill that will be kept spinning during a hurricane.
The more I read the web page the more nauseous I felt.
When science, which is about what we measure, and politics, which is about what we want: e.g. “the roadmap” there will be serious trouble ahead for science.
knr is on the right track. With such a simple plan, so easy to implement and all we need are a few singers and actors to tell the good folk of California. What better way to advertise the benefits than to have the university cut it’s connection to the grid and go 100% green. Tomorrow if possible.
The problem is that this is rolling out the designs of Holdren’s Ecoscience; and if the USA does it, the colonies must follow (or else). The trick is that the richer colonies, like Germany, CAN AFFORD IT, the poorer ones will perish, and that is the goal. One billion people is Holdren’s goal.
There is just a lack of sensible rational thought with these people.
It’s just sunshine lollipops and rainbows in their world interspersed with the occasional window smashing riot.
Rhys Jaggar says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:29 am
—————————————
There is no hope for their plan to succeed. Solar and wind can not take over for the fuels that we use today. Plus, to push a plan like that in such a short time span, they will have to steal money from everyone. The extra cost of the utilities to the ratepayers will make everyone poor, except for those who are wealthy enough to not have to worry about such matters.
What do you do when the sky is generally overcast for a week with weak winds? In 2050 Mark Z. Jacobson will not be in his present position so he won’t give a damn.
If the economics stacked up it would have been adopted a looooooong time ago. Entrepreneurs would have seen the obvious and easy opportunities and piled in their capital. Big business would not need eco-nuts to tell them that the economics stacked up, the economics does not stack up that’s why government intervention is needed.
4 eyes (February 17, 2014 at 1:38 am) “And no mention of a mechanical or electrical engineer who are the ones our society trains to work out practical economic solutions to these sorts of big problems.”
That’s a huge problem on their side. Not just for the unsolved engineering problems like Tide Power. They run a few numbers that presume that this energy will magically store itself or transport itself to where it is needed. “Smart” meters will not just erase the peaks which can’t be met by their lame solution but will shift the demand to match supply. For example your washing machine will automatically turn on when the sun comes out, then turn off when clouds go by, and maybe you’ll get the laundry out on the line by Friday.
Amazing to see how US oligarchs are on their way to transform the country into a central planning system after they ruined and marginalised the middle class.
Now wait just a cotton-picking minute. So when the sun goes down in California they stop driving, shut down everything and go to bed? Quick – invest in candles now!! Or are they too polluting? Better to turn the lights out in California now, permanently, if that’s the best their brightest have to offer. Let them live just blowing in the wind.
“[…] all of its power demands (transportation, electricity, heating, etc.) in 2050 by switching to a clean technology portfolio that is 55 percent solar, 35 percent wind (on- and offshore), 5 percent geothermal and 4 percent hydroelectric. […]”
… and 100% unreliable. Cost? Not an issue if you’re saving the planet and are pretty good at that hunter/gatherer thingy.
BTW, the missing one percent wouldn’t happen to be unicorn power would it?
Ahh actors and celebrities as engineers – what a concept!
“Energy Instability” – what a crock, if you want something – negotiate and pay for it – don’t try to steal it with the lives of young Americans you stupid, stupid people.
Only in the land of nuts and fruits…
2050 plan? Go ahead, give China another reason to laugh their heads off….
“… a clean technology portfolio that is 55 percent solar, 35 percent wind (on- and offshore), 5 percent geothermal and 4 percent hydroelectric. …”
We now know that large scale development of solar farms and turbine fields can be certified wildlife killers. Are these people wanting to kill massive amounts of birds nationwide? Chop up those bald eagles!
We know that these “clean” methods don’t work at the very time you really need them to work such as at night or when it is too cold or if the wind is too calm. (or too high as was mentioned up above)
We know that anthropogenic CO2 released by mankind is a drop in the bucket of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and it does not warm the atmosphere as evidenced by the last 17+ years of flat or declining temps (even “adjusted” up by the frauds keeping the data sets) even as CO2 skyrocketed upwards.
We also know that mankind has experienced much warmer times that the present and flourished during those times. I read Dr. Lamb back when he was in style.
Look at just moving south on the map. My family in Wisconsin lives in an average temperature range far colder than I do in central Florida. They have an average February high of about 30F and I have an average February high of about 75F. (looking at Weather Channel charts) That is about 45F and not just a few tenths of a degree that started all this “CO2 is the devil” whining.
But more importantly, every single prediction out of the CAGW crowd has been wrong. Why should anyone believe that this proposal would even work and not freeze half the people in the country?
Your problem is not that you have some very sick individuals, that is people with pathological personality profiles. Your problem is that so many of them occupy seats of influence.
Old England says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:31 am
Without large scale energy storage, which green energy enthusiasts constantly ignore, they are either stupid or their true intent is to disrupt economies and living standards through intermittent energy supply. They claim not to be stupid so the latter must be their true goal.
>>
And just watch how the media, which also claims to be smart and fully informed, or nearly so, totally fails to question that aspect as well, and instead pretends its a serious and viable option, not to mention economically affordable. Given Obama, credulous chap that he is, has no problem with any of this alternate-reality, then I do not expect a stellar moment from the media either. And I never expect stellar moments from the intelligentsia on any topic. So it looks like a terrific scam to get in, on the ground floor, then pump it and dump it … before it tanks and bleeds out.
The western world has become the joke of our times, a Mad-Hatter’s tea party, where game-play consistency is firmly discouraged in favor of the cheerleaders and scoreboards. Welcome to the ‘Smart-Grid’. “Hey, you can’t blame us! No one else saw it coming either!” An E3 pulse would be a mercy killing.
I liked the part where the race driver will talk about the plan at Daytona. I wonder what powers her car?
Old England says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:31 am
Without large scale energy storage, which green energy enthusiasts constantly ignore, they are either stupid or their true intent is to disrupt economies and living standards through intermittent energy supply. They claim not to be stupid so the latter must be their true goal.
==============================
I’d say you’ve pretty much cracked the code…
Leilani Munter.
That is a very unfortunate name.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=munter
@ H.R. says:
The other one percent comes from rubbing balloons on their heads.
We used to think James Hansen was the gold standard for climate lunatic, but even he is demanding a nuclear future these days – Hansen thinks a 100% renewable future is not plausible.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/
Presumably California will still allow fossil fuel guzzling planes into their utopia; otherwise how will all the actors and crackpot environmental engineering professors be able to fly around the world to conferences to tell other people what a success their plan has been?
Lawrie Ayres says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:54 am
knr is on the right track. With such a simple plan, so easy to implement and all we need are a few singers and actors to tell the good folk of California. What better way to advertise the benefits than to have the university cut it’s connection to the grid and go 100% green. Tomorrow if possible.
With smart meters this is now possible without much effort. I would extend the requirement that all the personal residences and vehicles are also only powered by ‘100% green renewables’. And of course they would not be allowed any byproducts of the ‘fossil fuel industry’ such as plastics, nylon and polyesters and those things made from them like cell phones. Lead from the front. I am certain the power companies in California would be happy to set restrictions on the power supplies of all those supporting ‘green power’. It could become a political rallying point for all those ‘green’ democrat politicians – go on show the populace it is possible.
Quite an interesting trend seems to be developing through out the western university system.
Increasingly reference is being made to the home university of the more imbecilic promoters of various versions of the chimera of science that passes as climate science as it is practiced today.
The various universities and their academic self appointed elites having been immune and protected for generations to critiscm by the respect from the public that has been accorded to them over the generations as seats of learning.
They consequently and arrogantly now believe that they are safe within their ivory towers and are above the maddening host of low type peons far below.
They are probably only now becoming dimly aware that their reputations are being systematically trashed by allowing the promoters of the the most imbecilic, far out climate catastrophe whack jobs to use the universities as a base and a haven and the universities reputation as shield to hide behind when they are taken to the cleaners by the more rational members of both science and the public for their stupidly irrational beliefs and the vicarious promotions of disasters to happen for which they have not nor have ever and arguably never will have any proof to back those climate catastrophic assertions.
There is only one way for the universities to go in the evolving public opinion if they continue allowing themselves to be used by these so called climate catastrophe, hate promoting climate scientists and that is down, down.
Down it will be and already is in public opinion for the universities and will continue to be until they finally come to their senses and divorce and throw out all those whose speciality is academic irrationalism and the promotion of sheer hate against those skeptics who dare disagree with them, something which is so often expressed from under the elitist guise of their superior status as scientists and academics.
The universities have yet to realize that the world they thought they knew and could deal with from the great heights of their status as untouchable seats of learning has changed and will continue changing and it won’t be changing in favour of an arrogant, self important, contemptuous of those of lower status, elitist academia in it’s closeted ivory towers.
A very good quote for university vice chancellors to remember is;
“He who has the gold makes the rules”
Universities don’t own the gold!
Governments and the public do .
In Ohio, the projected energy cost is six cents per kWh. But the cheapest power, according to the EIA in Willis post is seven cents per kWh for Natural Gas (dispatchable fossil fuel) and nine cents per kWh for wind and hydro (non-dispatchable non-fossil fuel).
Plan pays for itself in as little as 9 years from air pollution and climate cost savings alone
A large part of the project’s benefit comes from “avoided mortality and illness costs” of $21.6 billion PER YEAR and 2,370 air pollution deaths avoided PER YEAR. I have wondered about the science behind the number of US deaths and illnesses caused by fossil fuel — it seems to rely on a small number of papers done many years ago relying on epidemiology and statistics ripe for auditing.
Health and climate externality costs of fossil fuels are another 5.7 cents per kWh.
I think that the authors should test their plan by selling bonds backed only by the assets they will build and the revenues, the profits they will generate and the reduction in morbidity and mortality that will result. It would be a tough sell.
Stanford is Ground Zero for the redesign of American K-12 education to make believing in climate change a driver of future behavior, whatever the actual facts. Look up Linda Darling-Hammond or psychologist Albert Bandura (who writes with Ehrlich) who has created the theory of human agency to inspire alterations in behavior.
As I noted last week, Stanford is one of the named partners in redesigning the very nature of curricula http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/drawing-back-the-standards-curtain-to-discover-the-global-coordination-to-redesign-the-very-nature-of-curriculum/ to try to alter consciousness. That’s Stanford Prof Roy Pea in charge of that as well as the cyberlearning push. Where the gaming and virtual reality visuals will all have students convinced in a version of reality that’s actually not true.
Another recent article that clarifies just how much shaping consciousness is seen as the solution to climate skepticism, read this UK article from Friday. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/behavioural-insights/2014/feb/14/seven-dimensions-action-climate-change
Also notice Rowson’s view of science and the law. Science is the dispute ender. Closes off further discussion and the law is a means to mandate conformity with the so-called science. Rowson even goes so far as to suggest creating a crime of ecocide.
From the body of the article …
Article history:
Received 3 September 2010
Accepted 22 November 2010
Available online 30 December 2010
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf
The road to Utopia is paved with green.
The road to Utopia doesn’t have any trucks because nobody knows how to transport large amounts of goods overland without fossil fuels. It could be done of course, just at a tremendous price. The road to Utopia is also lined with endless fields of wind turbines as wind farms consistently produce roughly 1/6 of their rated capacity. That factor, along with the energy density of wind farms, means huge swaths of land must be used. Children of the future may only know birds in zoos or cages as wind farms kill of millions of birds a year and widespread installation will drive many species to extinction.
The road to Utopia will be built on fossil fuels, of course, as there is no green heavy construction equipment. Again, practical problems such as energy storage and energy density keep rearing their ugly head; when reality meets fantasy head on, reality always wins out.
Didn’t Stanford used to be a good university?
Sounds like the Australian Beyond Zero Emissions plan.
For those who may not have seen it:
Jacobson will be publishing a paper shortly maintaining that vast offshore wind farms of the kind he blithely proposes for the entire East Coast will make hurricanes significantly less dangerous.
And Mark Ruffalo will believe him.
As for me, I’ve come to see Jacobson as dangerous.
“… how many jobs would be created, …”
That is code for inefficiency and resulting poverty.
Here’s my road map: invent renewables that work well, reliably, and affordably. That’s it. The rest will take care of itself.
It’s amazing how technologically (and economically) out of touch these people really are. They also are pushing the ignorant fraud that only renewable energy will last forever. Wrong, mutton-headed Stanfordians. Uranium to fuel our conventional reactors will never be exhusted (the oceans are full of it) and fast reactors can burn “nuclear wastes” (the energy contained in just our current nuclear wastes can produce enough extractable energy to provide all the electricity this country needs for the next 1000 years). And the sun will stop shining and the winds stop blowing long before we run out of uranium fuel. Those “renewable” (unreliable) energy source extractors will not last near as long as a 60 year plus Gen 3 nuclear reactor, such as those currently being built. Solar panels will need replacement at least 3 times (probably more) before the end of those reactors.
If those slow-witted folks at Standford weren’t so chauvinistic, they could learn a lot by looking at South Carolina, the only state that will likely exceed their 80% reduction goal, and it won’t take until 2050 to do so. The two Westinghouse Gen3+ reactors now being added to the 7 reactor fleet (which currently produces over 50% of South Carolina’s electricity) and which do not slice and dice our bird or bat populations, nor require hundreds of thousands of acres, nor despoil the scenery, nor bankrupt the state, nor require Federal subsidies, will go online within 30 months. At that point South Carolina will achieve over 80% emission-free , reliable, affordable, non-obtrusive, technologically advanced ,bird-safe power, roughly 35 years before this goofball plan from the loonies at Stanford. Two more reactors are likely in the near future, and that will increase the emission-free power in the state to over 95%. THAT’s how one intelligently reduces emissions. Are you folks at backwater Stanford University listening?
It might be of interest in this regard that the oft-cited Mr. Jacobson has, in 2010, “proven” the life-shortening properties of the Urban CO2 Dome; which, by its local enhancement of the GHE effect, leads to a rise in temperatures (at least in his models), leading to a tiny, unquantified increase in mortality, but sufficient for the Stanford Press Release writers to make it sound important.
And no, this is not a joke.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/but-the-crops-have-less-nutrients-because-of-co2-the-devastating-effects-of-climate-change-and-co2-on-our-crops/#comment-125994
The Standford geniuses might want to study up on fundamental power system requirements. Four percent “spinning reserve” won’t come close to cutting it. I recommend they either crack a book on the concept of “power system dispatch” or keep their meddlesome hands off the life blood of our economic body.
The US is a car society. Cars run on gas. Are they seriously suggesting that everyone will buy a new electric car with no means to pay for it as their petrol car will be worthless. And where will all the extra energy to power the electric cars come from?
I wonder if his amazing system includes the cost of backup power supplies. Also, his solution to have each state engage in energy autarky is typical logic for progressive planner types. In the real world the grid includes many surrounding states so it is foolish to plan state by state. There needs to be enough reserve so that if parts of several states lose power the system can adjust.
“…idiots…” “…clowns…”
Indeed, but they’re not at Stanford.
They want some of Obummer’s $1billion drought grants.
Claude Harvey says:
February 17, 2014 at 4:51 am
The Standford geniuses might want to study up on fundamental power system requirements. Four percent “spinning reserve” won’t come close to cutting it
Exactly. The UK is nearly at 5% and they are beginning to panic. 4% spells disastre.
Now, if we could just unplug everybody’s brain….
Its really simple you cover the globe in solar panels and Obama mandates with his pen and phone that the sun to shine all day. See easy peezy.
Ruffalo is another fellow that is 97% full of… chocolate.
Speaking of which, another of his kind crossed my path today. After delivering her “green speech”, she paused to allow me to agree with her. I took the opportunity to politely ask her to tell me what a molecule is, as defined in any chemistry book. It turns out she did not know and that she found my question offensive.
Does John Kerry come from Stanford? This is a letter i have sent a short time ago to our national newspaper, “The Australian”.
“Dear Sir
“Paul Murray Live” has just broadcast a clip of John Kerry telling Indonesia that “if sea level rises one metre, Chicago will be under water”. According to Wikipaedia, Chicago is on the shores of Lake Michigan which is at an elevation of 176 metres. To put Chicago underwater will require a sea level rise of 177 metres. Is John Kerry for real? His arithmetic seems to be as bad as most other warmist/alarmists.
Regards
Dudley Horscroft”
I note “More Soylent Green” stated: “The road to Utopia doesn’t have any trucks because nobody knows how to transport large amounts of goods overland without fossil fuels. It could be done of course, just at a tremendous price. The road to Utopia is also lined with endless fields of wind turbines as wind farms consistently produce roughly 1/6 of their rated capacity. That factor, along with the energy density of wind farms, means huge swaths of land must be used.”
Trolley trucks have been used at various times – two overhead wires, trolley poles, and an electric motor on the truck, all same like trolley buses. Using hydro or wind power. Not certain if the price would be tremendous or not.
Did not Warren Buffoon – or some such person – bring out a plan a few years ago to have wind farms fill the United States in a belt about 200 miles wide to the east of the Rockies?
Dudley Horscroft says: February 17, 2014 at 5:09 am
I think it was T. Boone Pickens (sp?) who proposed that windmill madness.
As has been pointed out above, without energy storage that does not exist, this future model can’t go down the road.
Ah, from the Woods Institute at Stanford. It’s nice to see that there are some constants in the world. (That’s where Steven Schneider was based, also up and coming stars like Noah Diffenbaugh.)
I gave a talk Saturday on Wind Power in NH. Just to meet our 13% renewable goal by 2025, we’d need over 2,000 2 MW turbines at a 30% capacity factor. We don’t have that much ridgeline to fill up! For the 40%, that’s over 6,000 turbine. If you assume a 2 mile exclusion area, say 3 square miles, that’s 18,000 square miles, Wikipedia says we have only 9,300 in the whole state.
These guys say NH can get 40% of our power from on shore wind and another 20% from offshore wine – hey guys, our coastline is 18 miles long.
This is not going to happen.
I don’t know how much publicity this is going to get, but I think all the US readers should review the fantasy for their state and and be ready to share it with anyone who will listen.
” Such a WWS infrastructure reduces world power demand by 30% ”
I’m not clear on how exactly switching to solar, solar thermal, wind, tidal/ ‘wave devices’ (which do not currently exist but we’re going to build and install 720,000 of them in the next 15 years) is going to reduce demand by 30%.
“and electrolytic hydrogen for all purposes.” They just throw that little caveat out there without explaining how we’re going to produce it, how much of it we’ll need, and what ‘devices’ (and how many) are going to use it. They also don’t explain how we’re going to develop the engines that use it in 15 years.
Ric Werme says:
February 17, 2014 at 5:30 am
“Ah, from the Woods Institute at Stanford. It’s nice to see that there are some constants in the world. (That’s where Steven Schneider was based, also up and coming stars like Noah Diffenbaugh.)”
Ah, that brings us full circle back to Holdren (and Mead, for added fun). And the Ehrlichs.
1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’
Conference: Where the
Global Warming Hoax Was Born
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/sci_techs/3423init_warming_hoax.html
They also appear to be assuming that a 5MW Wind turbine will deliver 5MW of power continuously. I believe the Europeans are finding that wind turbines generate less than 20% of their rated capacity, so a 5MW wind turbine can be expected to deliver 1 MW of power, thus, to meet the required demand we’ll need to deploy 19,000,000 5MW wind turbines (mostly off shore as there are some engineering challenges yet to be overcome with land based wind turbines of that size).
Wonder how we’re going to deal with an essentially birdless future given that the existing wind turbines in the US kill 2 million birds annually. Imagine how many birds will die when 19,000,000 wind turbines are churning.
dccowboy:
At February 17, 2014 at 5:38 am you say
Released hydrogen spontaneously combusts explosively. And avoiding hydrogen leaks is very difficult.
I suggest their campus should be made to adopt “electrolytic hydrogen for all purposes”. Indeed, all transport should be powered on the campus using hydrogen as the fuel (cars crash). This would ensure their suggestion is a bomb (and everybody else would benefit).
Richard
“California, for example, reveals that the Golden State can meet virtually all of its power demands (transportation, electricity, heating, etc.) in 2050 by switching to a clean technology portfolio that is 55 percent solar, 35 percent wind (on- and offshore), 5 percent geothermal and 4 percent hydroelectric.”
Let me know how that works out (yawn).
To add to the inefficiency of wind turbines, there are times when the wind is blowing (or is blowing too hard) and the grid does not want the energy because it would increase the grid’s AC frequency.
“In Region 3, the primary goal is to regulate generator speed at rated by shedding extra
aerodynamic power…”
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/54605.pdf
Dudley Horscroft –
does Flannery come from Stanford, we could ask. the CAGW propaganda is so relentless, there is no doubt it is driving the public crazy at this point:
18 Feb: Australian: Brian Williams: Expect more deadly heatwaves in Queensland, scientists say
Heatwaves like much of Queensland has been recording this year are already hotter, longer, more frequent and occurring earlier in the season.
Over the past 100 years heatwaves have caused more deaths than any other natural hazard.
The CSIRO and Weather Bureau have found that since 1950 the annual number of record days across Australia has more than doubled and maximum and minimum temperatures have increased by 0.9 per cent.
A Climate Council report released on Monday says this shows that the frequency of record hot days are now more than three times the frequency of record cold days.
It’s even worse down south, with hot weather in Adelaide, Melbourne and Canberra having already reached levels predicted under warming scenarios for 2030…
Chief councillor Tim Flannery said that climate change had made heatwaves worse over the past 60 years.
“In a stable climate that would not be happening,” Professor Flannery said.
Transport, electricity services, wildlife and the Great Barrier Reef are all affected by heatwaves.
“We see another impact of heatwaves in … an extended bushfire season,” Professor Flannery said…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/expect-more-deadly-heatwaves-in-queensland-scientists-say/story-e6frg6n6-1226829885095
btw Cosier of the AAE/Turney expedition (Cosier was on the Aurora Australis) is back in business:
17 Feb: SMH: Colin Cosier: The old Wilkes Base in Antarctica is now a toxic waste dump
The toxic dump left over from an era when rubbish was turfed out onto the ice is a 45-year-old problem requiring millions of dollars and a decade-long commitment to clean up.
But the Australian Antarctic Division’s program leader in charge of human impacts research, Martin Riddle, said while there was broad agreement on a need to clean up Wilkes there was no plan or money to do it…
Dr Riddle said the cost of a clean-up would be high. “The main challenges are financial and competing pressures for resources and logistics – the opportunity cost. It will require a 10-year commitment to get the job done,” he said…
Colin Cosier and Nicky Phillips travelled as part of the Australian Antarctic Division’s media program.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-old-wilkes-base-in-antarctica-is-now-a-toxic-waste-dump-20140216-32tuz.html
And just how much CO2 (climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction…..John Kerry) will be produced to manufacture said wind and solar farms? Not to mention the production of all the concrete that will have to used for the foundations (concrete production being one of the highest CO2 emitters).
“Hovering a cursor over California, for example, reveals that the Golden State can meet virtually all of its power demands (transportation, electricity, heating, etc.) in 2050 by switching to a clean technology portfolio that is 55 percent solar, 35 percent wind (on- and offshore), 5 percent geothermal and 4 percent hydroelectric.”
Uh, so on an overcast cloudy day with hardly any wind, the 5 percent geothermal and 4 percent hydroelectric will be able to produce 100% of California’s power!
While I don’t quite understand that math: 5% + 4% = 100%, it does make me question the need for all of that solar and wind production.
So, their charming, blue skied bulletin says, “The World Can Transition to 100% Clean, Renewable Energy Starting Today”.
I’ve got a great idea. Let’s let Stanford transition to 100% clean, renewable energy – Today.
My suggestion is that California should lead the way by example. Close the borders and remove ALL trade and immigration with other states. No water or electric in or out. Let the Eco-Nuts lead by example.
Of course this idiocy from Stanford is not suprizing:
The words of Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren ( Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1970) along with Paul Ehlrich (Stanford University Bing Professor of Population Studies, ) and Anne Ehlrich(associate director of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University.)
The UN Agenda 21 sustainability model (Transit Village) also calls for restricting the population to that which can be supported by food grown within a 100 mile radius (called a ‘food shed’).
Cornell University (New York) is doing Foodshed Mapping. “This instrument is the product of a larger USDA CSREES funded project entitled “Mapping local food systems potential in New York State.” “
One of the questions, at least in my mind is when did the USA take a U-turn from encouraging a good economy and why. I think we can pin point it to the early 1970s.
The seventies is when we saw the start of major red tape designed to strangle the economy: EPA (1970) OSHA (1971) Equal Rights Amendment (1972) for example. At that time (1970) the labor force in manufacturing was 24%, in farming 4.6% Over 30% of labor was directly involved in building real wealth. By the last Census manufacturing was less than 9%, and farming ~1% (GDP only tracks the exchange of money and not building of wealth BTW)
SEE: Federal regulations have lowered real GDP growth by 2% per year since 1949 and made America 72% poorer — (wwwDOT) aei-ideas.org/2013/06/federal-regulations-have-lowered-gdp-growth-by-2-per-year/
The UN Earth Summit in 1972 is when Maurice Strong invited activists to go home and raise He!! thereby shifting political power from the adults to easily manipulated spoiled teenagers.
Elaine Dewar wrote in Toronto’s Saturday Night magazine:
How everr the really interesting document is the 1974 CIA report:
“A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems”
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
@ Tom J at 6:21am;
I’ve got a great idea. Let’s let Stanford transition to 100% clean, renewable energy – Today.
I wonder what ExxonMobil and Schlumberger Limited would say to that request?
Those guys sound like they’ve come out of a time-warp from a dozen years ago, when renewables hadn’t been put to the test in Spain and elsewhere.
Such a WWS infrastructure reduces world power demand by 30%
===========
when you have daily power failures, demand is reduced.
“The Solutions Project was born with the vision of combining science with business, policy, and public outreach….”
There’s that word “policy.” In Newspeak, policy = government = seizure & coercion.
One wonders if Stanford has joined the ranks of institutions that used to be serious.
ARGHHhhh I forgot to close the blockquote!
February 17, 2014 at 6:23 am (comment is awaiting moderation.) Is a companion to my above comment and discusses the book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions
Bill_W says:
February 17, 2014 at 5:01 am
I wonder if his amazing system includes the cost of backup power supplies.
============
Kalifornia has already solved this problem. When there is no wind or solar, they import power from surrounding states. They don’t need spinning reserves. They rely on everyone else to provide them. In this way no CO2 is produced in Kalifornia. Instead, Kalifornia exports their CO2 production to other states.
Since this model has worked in Kalifornia, Stanford concludes that it will work equally well in the surrounding states as well.
There is some progress in producing and using hydrogen in the real world …
http://world.honda.com/news/2012/4120327Solar-Hydrogen-Station/index.html
It is important for Jacobson and his colleagues to draw the line and show the money between this kind of very early technology demonstrator and converting the world from fossil fuel to carbon-free energy in the next 36 years. Not a demonstration project but large volumes of product in the hands and daily use of everyone in the world. Lets look at another complex technology project, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Announced in January 2003, it made its first flight in December 2009 and entered service in October 2011. That’s almost nine years just getting started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787
Jacobson is writing science fiction with very little science.
Jimbo says: @ February 17, 2014 at 2:11 am
If the economics stacked up it would have been adopted a looooooong time ago….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is for darn sure!
The Eco-Nuts act as if this is all BRAND NEW technology and therefore subject to Moore’s Law (It is finally breaking down.) However Wind and Solar are really mature technology. Wind has been around for thousands of years and solar cells from 1954. Heck I can remember guys I knew who were working in the field or selling solar cells in the early seventies.
However Richard Courtney is the one who summed it up very nicely on the The Levelized Cost of Electric Generation thread.
That is why Solar and Wind will never work for an industrialized civilization. It is why the infant American industries in the 1700s and 1800s located on rivers and used water power (or coal) and not windmills.
I wish these idiots would stop trying to ki!! us.
Yes, trolley trucks have been used at various times, but have been near universally replaced with fossil fuels trucks. I cannot imagine what it would take to wire our interstate highways and freeways for trolleys, plus the additional electric power needed would add even more load to the grid.
Thanks to Speed for reminding us-
“Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, PartI:
Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials
Mark Z. Jacobson, Mark A. Delucchi”
The EIA estimates global energy use of 770 Quads by 2035, or 2.3 x 10^14 kWh/year.
The Woods Holers claim the following will meet annual energy needs of that time using:
19 TW wind at 25% CF = 0.4 x 10^14 kWh
14.7 TW CSP at 50% CF = 0.6 x 10^14 kWh
12 TW PV farm at 20% CF = 0.2 x 10^14 kWh
5.1 TW PV roof at 20% CF = 0.09 x 10^14 kWh
0.5 TW geothermal at 100% CF = 0.05 x 10^14 kWh
0.4 TW Hydro at 50% CF = 0.02 x 10^14 kWh
0.5 TW wave at 25% CF = 0.01 x 10^14 kWh
0.5 TW tidal at 25% CF = 0.01 x 10^14 kWh
That adds up to about 1.4 x 10^14 kWh per year, before T&D, O&M losses.
The Woods Holers are counting on 40% energy conservation to show up from somewhere.
This is just to make the energy balance work.
It says nothing about the spatio-temporal distribution of the energy supply relative to the energy demand. This detail requires energy storage equivalent to several weeks of global energy consumption. Perhaps they are relying on electrolysis to make hydrogen that is then compressed and stored…which reminds me of Ballard Power’s fantasm claims of millions of hydrogen-powered fuel cell cars on the roads by 2003 or 2004…
Every day stupidity is redefined with a new low. It takes the brilliance of Stanford to lower the standard to the point where it cannot be perceived.
May Gaia have mercy on your energy system.
Mods.
Please look at the comment being held in comment jail and tell me what you think is so wrong with it. Seems like half the comments I make end up in moderation but there has never been a snip or even a warning. What is it? Seriously, I am beginning to think my name is on a list someplace.
Trolley trucks have been used at various times – two overhead wires, trolley poles, and an electric motor on the truck, all same like trolley buses. Using hydro or wind power. Not certain if the price would be tremendous or not.
===========
overhead wires for it trolley buses are way more expensive and complicated to maintain than is typically realized.
in effect a trolley system turns roadways into railways, with all the limitations of fixed rails. how do you pass the vehicle ahead of you when it stops to load/unload?
Hurricane? Heck I’d like to see one that can be used in sustained winds well below hurricane levels, but well above average.
Eric Worrall says: @ February 17, 2014 at 3:46 am
We used to think James Hansen was the gold standard for climate lunatic, but even he is demanding a nuclear future these days – Hansen thinks a 100% renewable future is not plausible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe Hansen got frost bite.
Westchester County, N.Y, is where the NYC snobs live BTW…It ranks as #47 in counties for the entire USA with $77,006 median household income. (WIKI)
Top three counties:
1. Loudoun County, Virginia — $119,134
2. Fairfax County, Virginia — $105,797
3. Arlington County, Virginia — $100,735
D.C. area digging out from beneath biggest snowfall in years
(wwwDOT)wjla.com/articles/2014/02/d-c-area-digging-out-from-beneath-biggest-snowfall-in-years-100216.html
Mother Nature is really trying her hardest to knock some sense into these arrogant idiots who are running our country. I hope she finally manages it.
climateismydj (February 17, 2014 at 5:02 am)
Climateismydj has either no clue about power engineering, or he does know about it but has no problem with millions of Americans suffering under the green regime.
Knowledge and wisdom are two very disparate things. The difference can be dangerous.
Sometimes on this site, what is not said is just as important. No comment from Dr. Svalgaard on this thread (yet), but more importantly not a single comment from him on the IBEX thread. Hmmmmm.
I see a serious problem with their energy supply breakdown – they completely left out the 40% portion of future energy supplies that will need to come from the harvesting of Unicorn farts.
Without that, well, there is just no way this plan can work.
And then there is Roger Pielke Jr’s Feb 26, 2013 estimates of 2035 global energy needs assuming that poor countries are not kept poor. Roger estimates 2035 global energy needs of between 940 and 2310 Quads per year, compared with the EIA’s 770 Quads and the Woods Holers energy rationing down to around 500 Quads.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/roger-pielke-jr/how-much-energy-does-the-world-need#
ROM says: @ February 17, 2014 at 4:02 am
The universities have yet to realize that the world they thought they knew and could deal with from the great heights of their status as untouchable seats of learning has changed…
A very good quote for university vice chancellors to remember is;
“He who has the gold makes the rules”
Universities don’t own the gold!
Governments and the public do .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I would correct that. The public owns the wealth. The government takes that wealth from them at the point of a gun. However if you take too much wealth the public will rebel. Sometimes subtly via the underground economy, sometimes via voting although that is becoming less and lessuseful since both parties are the same, and last via “other methods”.
I lived in Loudoun County during the massive snows two years in a row, 95 and 96. FYI, I was well below the median income 😉 I was working in a NOC (Network Operations Center) for a major data carrier at the time, so I had to be at work regardless. My little Toyota 4×4 made it like a champ, in spite of snow halfway up the doors. Those were the worsts snows I’ve ever seen, apart from one day in the mountains at Wildflecken, Germany in 1982. I don’t think the DC/Northern VA area has yet seen those levels of snow since.
Jeff Alberts (February 17, 2014 at 7:29 am)
Sorry your 96 storm slipped to 2nd place: http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/winter/storm-pr.htm#TopDaySnowfall
more soylent green! says: @ February 17, 2014 at 4:33 am
The road to Utopia is paved with green…
The road to Utopia will be built on fossil fuels, of course, as there is no green heavy construction equipment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually the road to Utopia is build using men with wooden shovels and stone axes. It is build by children carrying woven baskets filled with dirt, baskets woven by women from swamp reeds. Just think 100% employment!
Obama would be so happy. (What did you think he meant by ‘Shovel ready jobs’)
Jimbo says: @ February 17, 2014 at 2:11 am
The Green case for the economics is that markets are short-term and that the greens know better. Markets undervalue the impact of externalities and so the economics is flawed.
I question that case but have considered it. For me the root issue here is the definition of externalities.
No-one can realistically argue that failing companies that cannot make money without subsidy are a good thing. However, some people argue that the true costs of their competitors are not being spotted or paid by the market. These costs are external to the system as they can’t be easily monetised.
There are some problems with this theory however.
1) Are capitalists so much stupider than greens that they haven’t considered the loss of green fields, degradation of water resources and regulations? Certainly, the richer a country is the less environmental damage is caused per economic growth. Compare East and West Germany for an example. Perhaps the externalities are already in the price.
2) Many externalities are long term impacts. And the future is less certain than the real world that exists now. Markets expect greater profits for an investment if the profits will only appear in the distant future than if the return is immediate. This counters uncertainty. Unfortunately, the certainty of global environmental disasters must be judged as very low. The track record of such claims is proven to be poor. We are all meant to be starving by now, to have run out of zinc and have lost all our trees to acid rain. Collective judgements on the wisdom of gambling on the end of the world will always be less certain than the less moderate views of green activists.
3) Money invested to generate maximum profit will generate more wealth (on average) than money invested for sentimental reasons. There is a cost to non-profit motivations, the cost of lost growth. As wealth feeds people the current consensus that lost growth is morally good is not necessarily permanent. Moral investments need to be certain that the definition of externalities will not change (that 60% of people will always want windfarms). And yet people are fickle.
My point is that it is not as simple as saying that markets are short-term and we know better.
Yet, just saying “the market will decide” is not in and of itself persuasive.
I like the
Indipendant
Movement (for the)
American
National
Associated
Social
Sciences
IMANASS
Considering the proposal is 99% and 55% solar will only fill 13% of the total need given that solar doesn’t generate but 27% of the time
climateismydj says: @ February 17, 2014 at 5:02 am
“…idiots…” “…clowns…”
Indeed, but they’re not at Stanford.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, they are not “…idiots…” “…clowns…” They are our new would be masters and YOU are their serf.
They know exactly what they are doing as I showed in my comment February 17, 2014 at 6:23 am (comment is awaiting moderation.)
If it would ever get out of moderation.
That could lead to full employment! Of course, manual labor isn’t a job Americans want, so we need immigration reform now so we can hire somebody to actually do the work.
BTW: I grew up in Missouri, and I can tell you fresh manure is green, very green. Shoveling cow manure is both a green and a shovel-ready job.
“55 percent solar, 35 percent wind (on- and offshore), 5 percent geothermal and 4 percent hydroelectric.” No trains at night – or develop a separate timetable for windy nights only. Use trolley trucks to move goods. Daytime only. You would think that road have to be widened, but that problem is solved easily in an eco-friendly way by banning private cars. Utopia, indeed.
dccowboy says: @ February 17, 2014 at 5:44 am
…Wonder how we’re going to deal with an essentially birdless future given that the existing wind turbines in the US kill 2 million birds annually. Imagine how many birds will die when 19,000,000 wind turbines are churning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And do not forget the bats.
Of course there is no mention of wind turbines kills.
“The Solutions Project was born with the vision of combining science with business, policy, and public outreach through social media and cultural leaders – often artists and entertainers who can get the information out ”
It’s like this slowpokes-
http://www.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/07/12/the-big-green-lie-exposed/
and no amount of artists and entertainers in poley bear suits are gunna put Numpty Dumbty back together again.
richardscourtney says: @ February 17, 2014 at 5:47 am
You beat me to it.
These Malthusians really do want to kill us off!
Dang, so it did. Now I’m all bummed out.
The Solutions Project web page projects, for California, a drop of 43.7 percent from current energy demand while fuel costs fall from 14.0 cents per kWh to 6.3 cents per kWh. Falling demand in the face of falling prices is not something we see every day.
http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#ca
I suggest the good professor request a two to five year sabbatical and spend that time living totally off grid to test out his theories. He can have solar, wind and microhydro to power, no fossil fuel, his cabin and vehicle. I doubt he would last a year.
Re: Storage …
Several commenters have correctly mentioned the requirement for some sort of energy storage if the world is to rely solely on WWS — Wind, Water and Solar. A paper that Jacobson et al reference is, “Cost-minimized combinations of wind power, solar power and electrochemical storage, powering the grid up to 99.9% of the time” which is, of course, paywalled. However the abstract makes it clear that storage is required.
http://www.scopus.com/record/display.url?eid=2-s2.0-84868524340&origin=inward&txGid=C7F7B8E7C65825D15FFFFCED61EB63A9.WeLimyRvBMk2ky9SFKc8Q%3a2
I think that we’re quite a few years away from safe and reliable electrochemical storage on the scale envisioned by Jacobson.
Readers might be interested in this paper by Jacobson and others …
Response to comment on paper examining the feasibility of changing New York state’s energy infrastructure to one derived from wind, water, and sunlight
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NYSWWSRespComm.pdf
Stanford has allowed Ehrlich and his gang to fester there for nearly 50 years, spewing untruths, fear, and failed predeictions.
I wonder why?
Gail Combs says: February 17, 2014 at 7:54 am
I would think the sound generated by windmills would be detrimental to bat’s navigation system, as well as the hazardous blades themselves. Do the bats that survive a close encounter suffer permanent hearing loss?
And yet it was a Stanford study that reported solar panels wouldn’t even break even until 2020.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2303968/The-worlds-solar-power-wont-save-ANY-energy-2020.html
Went to them, took a very, very brief look at that modern-day version of the Cliff Notes, the Infographic.
Now, I’ve lived in both Pennsylvania and New Mexico and I went to simply see what their generation matrix was supposed to be ideal. Pennsylvania: around 72% solar, 15% wind; New Mexico: 23% Solar, 50% wind.
Wait a second. New Mexico, where weather is sunny 200+ days a year, has a lower solar part of the mix compared to Pennsylvania, which has…right, around 60 days of sunny weather a year.
Seriously? That’s not a list of energy solutions based on comparative advantages of each state, but one that looks like something completely different. Ye gods of the copyright headings…
@markstoval
You aren’t being singled out.
The wordpress spam filter often triggers on word combinations, it may simply be your writing style. Unfortunately, they don’t give out the formula for obvious reasons.
One thing that will trigger it for certain is having too many links. 3 or more is a typical spam signature.
“Climateismydj has either no clue about power engineering, or he does know about it but has no problem with millions of Americans suffering under the green regime.”
Nice to see I’m reduced to a binary either/or argument. Can’t I be both? 🙂
By the way, I noticed the author himself “…promote[s] the idea of energy savings and alternate energy generation” in his About page, so this article seems at odds with his ideals. Odd, don’t you think?
It’s doable, that is if you don’t mind taking the resultant population of humanity going down to a couple million (and I’m sure they have ideas on who will be the survivors…) Hail the Overlords.
Harold Ambler said in part February 17, 2014 at 4:42 am
“…..Jacobson will be publishing a paper shortly maintaining that vast offshore wind farms of the kind he blithely proposes for the entire East Coast will make hurricanes significantly less dangerous.”
Wow! Harold – do you have any idea how Jacobson did his calculations? My “back of the envelope” suggests that an offshore wind farm, even on the scale he envisions, running at full nameplate capacity, might extract 0.3% of the kinetic energy of the winds of a respectable hurricane (assuming the turbines were not quickly sent to the depths). That would hardly have a calming effect – but can someone else run a few numbers. I must be missing something?
Lots of good comments here. For example, Claude Harvey commented:
The Standford geniuses might want to study up on fundamental power system requirements. Four percent “spinning reserve” won’t come close to cutting it. I recommend they either crack a book on the concept of “power system dispatch” or keep their meddlesome hands off the life blood of our economic body.
The scary thing is that this really stupid idea gets an imprimatur of legitimacy from the Stanford name. But it is still a really bad idea. This gives an idea of the power of ‘groupthink’, where the majority of Stanford profs would surely oppose this stupid idea in private, in public they don’t dare to utter a peep of protest. Even those with tenure are scared to speak out.
Of all the ‘alternative’ power sources, windmills are probably the least efficient, not to mention the ugliest and most permanent blight on the landscape.
Can you imagine the howls of protest if George W. Bush had originally proposed windmills? But now with the name Stanford appended, everything is A-OK. So let’s build lots of windmills! Forward!
So,,,,,,, when should we expect Google rolling blackouts?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101417698
Yet, while google spends billions on supposed clean energy, they have many dirty habits being exposed. One recent example.
http://safegov.org/2014/1/31/google-admits-data-mining-student-emails-in-its-free-education-apps
Have any who read this blog post actually gone into your google account settings and turned off that of which tracks everything you do and the locations from which you did it? That includes your phone, tablet, and PC.
Did you ever notice a “do not track” option in your browser?
Not BS folks………
According to the popular hypothesis (fossil fuels) we could get more oil & coal by just burying all the plants & animals. If we want to see a better future, we need to get those bulldozers rolling right away.
From the left’s point of view, the hard push for “renewables” was a huge success in Germany. They now have the highest electricity rates in Europe, and power is a luxury item:
http://www.american.com/archive/2014/february/germanys-energy-goals-backfire
Google gets tax credits, not tax deductions, for those projects, right? Every dollar they spend on those projects is removed from their taxable income. They are just playing a smart game of taking advantage of the tax code and investing in their pet projects and other causes.
Everybody should be clamoring for real tax reform — corporate and personal. Just give a low, flat tax to corporations — with clean rules and regulations on what is deductible — and you’ll see the Laffer curve effect on taxes collected. Better yet, since corporations don’t pay taxes, they collect them, eliminate the corporate income tax altogether.
The combination of arrogance and ignorance in science and in politics.
An absolutely devastating mix.
“It’s doable, that is if you don’t mind taking the resultant population of humanity going down to a couple million”
For the Greens, that’s a feature, not a bug. Of course, they seem to think they’ll be the ones in control, and won’t end up in the cooking pot when the starving masses realize there’s nothing else to eat.
Stark Dickflüssig:
At February 17, 2014 at 9:21 am you write
Your post raises the interesting issue of the differences between conjecture, hypothesis and theory. These concepts are
Conjecture
an opinion or idea formed without proof or sufficient evidence.
Hypothesis
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
Theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is often stated to be a theory but is only a conjecture.
You use the word hypothesis to describe the formation of fossil fuels. The formation is a theory which is successfully used to predict likely locations of fossil fuels. However, the processes of the formation take geological ages so there is no point in doing as you suggest by burying biota as a method to harvest fossil fuels.
Richard
“The plans will stabilize energy prices,”
Yes at much higher levels, high enough to impoverish each of these 50 states!
“create jobs,” Yes for these four guys!
“minimize air pollution,” except for the stench of rotting birds and bats!
“and begin to eliminate global warming.” Which has apparently eliminated itself in the last 17 years!
There are some smart people at Stanford, and then there are these fellows…
Universities today are very different from 30-40 years ago. Stanford in particular is heavily into “executive courses”. Basically they have expensive real estate in their classrooms. Why just teach a few classes per day in them, also use them at night for working professionals for better utilization of capital. I noticed this when I started seeing resumes that mentioned Stanford or Harvard, but it was the executive courses program, not the 4-year university program.
The other aspect of Stanford in particular is that it is heavily tied into the venture capital organizations in their backyard. Everyone knows about the startups in silicon valley. Part of that is because the organizations that fund startups is right there.
This is why I believe there is a heavy emphasis for academics not just to get funding for their research but also translate their projects into a startup. Years ago, I foolishly reply that I would not join a startup trying to build a product that I that was inherently stupid with no long term viability. I was told by someone (who since then has become much wealthier than I) that this did not matter. It was only necessary to get VC funding, take the company public (or get bought out) and then cash out soon after. Only was only necessary to create the image of being the next big thing for that period of time. Live and Learn.
Gail Combs says:
February 17, 2014 at 6:53 am
“The Eco-Nuts act as if this is all BRAND NEW technology and therefore subject to Moore’s Law (It is finally breaking down.) However Wind and Solar are really mature technology.”
Moore-type Laws only work in information technologies. There are variants for microchips, harddisks, DNA analysis; they all successfully predict exponential decay of cost per computing unit. In DNA analysis, cost per base pair analysed.
Wind and Solar are largely not information technologies. If they can be turned into information technologies, a Moore-type Law can be exploited.
The cost reductions we have seen so far in Wind and Solar are caused by
a) the experience curve – for Solar, every doubling of units delivered makes unit costs 20% cheaper. This factor is market specific.
b) traditional energy efficiency improvements in the production process. Using less chemicals etc.
At the moment, no Moore-type law can be expected in wind or solar. Similarly, not in batteries or electric cars or other electricity storage system. Small improvements yes; exponential increase no.
I’m all for clean, cheap, renewable energy. However, such a thing is like wishing for your own personal leprechaun that brings pots of gold to your house every morning so you don’t have to drag yourself off to work.
But to be fair, they only stipulate clean and renewable and make no mention of cost. And that’s the rub, that clean and renewable does not imply cheap as most folk probably gloss over: it’s going to cost.
“But to be fair, they only stipulate clean and renewable and make no mention of cost.”
Under Communism, everything is free, Comrade.
MarkG says:
February 17, 2014 at 9:57 am
“But to be fair, they only stipulate clean and renewable and make no mention of cost.”
Under Communism, everything is free, Comrade.
******
Except time.
markstoval says: @ February 17, 2014 at 7:05 am
…. What is it? Seriously, I am beginning to think my name is on a list someplace.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
WordPress here and elsewhere hates me too. You get kicked into the snowbank
This is the list of the things I think might put you in Moderation Purgatory:
1. If you have more than 2 links.
2. Use forbidden words.
3. Comment is too long.
4. Took too long to write in the comment window.
Golden State can meet virtually all of its power demands (transportation, electricity, heating, etc.) in 2050 by switching to a clean technology portfolio that is 55 percent solar, 35 percent wind (on- and offshore), 5 percent geothermal and 4 percent hydroelectric.
I work in power generation and I have a question: how many people are a) leaving California or b) dying for this to be true? If you get down to just a few thousand residents then sure, these goals are attainable. At the current population or above? Nope. It will not happen
wws says: @ February 17, 2014 at 7:16 am
… they completely left out the 40% portion of future energy supplies that will need to come from the harvesting of Unicorn farts….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
DANG, I need to up my Unicorn breeding program.
Gail Combs says: 4. Took too long to write in the comment window.
Hmmmm. I often re-read my comment several times and do some editing in the window. I guess I do take my time composing a comment — after all, I usually intend to only make one comment on a thread. You may have nailed it.
Our host said earlier that it could even be my writing style. I don’t think I am all that unique, but I would like to be! 🙂
~ Mark
@BruceC at 6:09 am
climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction…..John Kerry, Feb. 16, 2014, Jakarta
You know, Kerry is right. “Climate Change”, i.e. the political movement known as Climate Change, is a most fearsome weapon of mass destruction. It’s socio-political architects like Mark Jacobson are the weapon designers.
On Feb. 15, Jacobson presented a new roadmap to renewable energy for all 50 states at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Abandonment of Science (AAAS) in Chicago.
There – fixed it for you
Kit Carruthers says:
February 17, 2014 at 9:02 am
“… the author himself “…promote[s] the idea of energy savings and alternate energy generation” in his About page, so this article seems at odds with his ideals. Odd, don’t you think?…”
—-l
The author seems to be in favour of the intelligent implementation of alternative energy sources as and when applicable. The academia at Stanford appear to be overly idealistic (or corrupt).
@ Gail Combs
You are right on the freakin ball baby. Truly the best on this blog.
Bernie Hutchins says:
February 17, 2014 at 9:10 am
Harold Ambler said in part February 17, 2014 at 4:42 am
“…..Jacobson will be publishing a paper shortly maintaining that vast offshore wind farms of the kind he blithely proposes for the entire East Coast will make hurricanes significantly less dangerous.”
Wow! Harold – do you have any idea how Jacobson did his calculations? My “back of the envelope” suggests that an offshore wind farm, even on the scale he envisions, running at full nameplate capacity, might extract 0.3% of the kinetic energy of the winds of a respectable hurricane (assuming the turbines were not quickly sent to the depths). That would hardly have a calming effect – but can someone else run a few numbers. I must be missing something?”
*************
It is in the same ballpark as the increase in wind speed that is estimated to occur (using Emanuel’s Carnot model for hurricanes) in response to a 1 C increase in ocean surface temperatures.
So, in principle, the wind farm can completely compensate for the alleged CO2 induced wind speed increase in hurricanes!
With no windfarm, the wind speed increase due to CO2-induced warming is not measurable.
With the windfarm, the unmeasurable CO2 induced wind speed increase is reduced by the same amount.
🙂
David L. at 9:47 am
But to be fair, they only stipulate clean and renewable and make no mention of cost.
That is not true. They do talk costs. It is not believable, but they do put up the fiction.
For instance: Texas: http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#tx
“Future Energy Costs 2020-2030
US Average Fossil Fuel Energy Costs: $ 0.140 / kwh
(Health and climate externality costs of fossil fuels are another $0.057 / kwh)
State Average WWS Energy Costs: $ 0.057 / kwh
Under WWS, Texas will use 35.1% less energy (it is not stated how much of that is the loss saved from fossil fuel heat engine inefficiencies and how much is from reducing travel)
The Energy Mix (highest to lowest)
50% Onshore Wind
15% Offshore Wind (Ever hear of hurricanes?)
14% CSP plants (Concentrated Solar Plants)
13.3% Solar PV farms
3% Commercial, Government Rooftop solar
3% Residential Rooftop solar
0.5% Wave Devices
0.5% Geothermal
0.5% Tidal Turbines
0.2% Hydroelectric — Where Texas isn’t flat, it is dry.
As mentioned above, none of these solutions have an average cost of Energy as low as $0.06 / kwh according to the EIA, much less can this deliver an average $0.06 / kwh.
Just how do you bring in the crops, how do you put food on the shelves with this idiocy?
Forget Iran’s Nuclear Program.
Stanford’s WWS Program is weapon of mass destruction program the free world must disarm.
Their data for each state isn’t even remotely accurate. I live in the state of Washington. We already get 65% to 70% of our electricity from hydroelectric dams. They are suggesting that we reduce that to 26%? This is really poorly researched work for each state.
Speed says: @ February 17, 2014 at 8:17 am
Re: Storage….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The HUGE Mammoth in the room is not storage but rthe energy returned on energy invested (EROEI or ERoEI.)
This is where the CAGW Scammers really do a lot of fancy foot work. However like the 151 taxes on a loaf of bread if you actually add up ALL the energy costs Biofuel, Wind and Solar are a net energy sink. They are in no way “Sustainable” (snicker)
The real use for Wind and Solar is to transfer money stolen from all tax payers to the politicians cronies while mortally crippling western civilization so the Fabian dream of a Global Government can be implemented.
Banks and Corporations want to get rid of borders. They want ‘Harmonized Laws’ If you want to see the blue print for the New Improved World. Look at The European Union:
Global Governance: Lessons from Europe: …the European construction is the most ambitious experiment to date in supranational governance. It is the story of a desired, defined and organized interdependence between its member states.
Lamy Calls for European-Inspired Global Governance
Pascal Lamy was the director-general of the World Trade Organization from 2005 to 2013.
hunter says: @ February 17, 2014 at 8:29 am
Stanford has allowed Ehrlich and his gang to fester there for nearly 50 years, spewing untruths, fear, and failed predeictions.
I wonder why?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Look at my comment at February 17, 2014 at 6:25 am
And Dr.Ball’s Essay Overpopulation: The Fallacy Behind The Fallacy Of Global Warming
As for me personally:
All this energy is over-rated. Seriously… all I need is a small well built , well insulated home with a fireplace.
I’m so sick and tired of all this bull, because I know in the end its really all an attack on personal freedom all under the guise of conservation, sustainability, energy….whatever, its all an act.
Rhys Jaggar says:
February 17, 2014 at 1:29 am
————————————–
I just had a bit of inspired thought as I woke up this morning. These global warming fanatics are similar to those who thought that they could build a tower to the heavens, a Tower of Babel. I do not believe that I can dream up a more appropriate analogy to describe those who would ascribe their thoughts to be the pinnacle of climate wisdom.
and I have absolutely no idea how “Rhys Jaggar says” was added into my fresh comment.
more soylent green! says: @ February 17, 2014 at 9:35 am
…Everybody should be clamoring for real tax reform — corporate and personal. Just give a low, flat tax to corporations — with clean rules and regulations on what is deductible — and you’ll see the Laffer curve effect on taxes collected. Better yet, since corporations don’t pay taxes, they collect them, eliminate the corporate income tax altogether.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually you put the system back the way it was with tariffs and corporate taxes ONLY. Leave the rest of the population alone. The more individuals buy the more tax they will pay so there is no reason for the elaborate and costly tax code we now have except that the tax burden has moved FROM corporations TO the individual.
No sales tax, no ‘value added tax” or any of the rest of the dancing around. Just a straight tax on corporate profits and a tariff on goods imported so you can not avoid the tax by manufacturing in a low tax, regulation free, polluting, slave labor country and making huge profits by slightly under-cutting domestic corporations.
Part 2.
They ask for donations.
Thanks Anthony for the link. Paul
R. de Haan says: @ February 17, 2014 at 9:38 am
The combination of arrogance and ignorance in science and in politics.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
It is worse than that. As that CIA report from 1974 showed, a decision seems to have been made in the 1970s to follow Holdren’s advice to devise an economic plan for a low environmental impact, low population, low technology civilization and then it was gradually implemented over the last 45 years. This would explain why the laws in the USA have become increasingly bizarre over that time period.
This was done WITHOUT the input or consent of the people who will be most affected, the citizens of the USA, Australia, Canada and in the EU. It was done by trashing our education system, feeding us propaganda via the MSM and universities and transferring the wealth of citizens to their ‘Betters’ while strangling our entrepreneurs with red tape.
I love these guys. They think that an entire infrastructure valued at trillions can be replaced in a mere 40 years with another investment valued at trillions with the opportunity cost probably immeasurable.
If such a project was undertaken it would devalue almost immediately all new or planned investment in existing energy infrastructure and this is where the danger lies. If new investment is not made today then the potential shortages will be very large tomorrow if the planned utopia does not arrive and the price of energy will rise dramatically. But remember that energy markets are made of three things, price, reliability and convenience. Alternatives to fossil fuels must compete in all three areas. None have demonstrated an ability to compete.
By the way,
there is no clean energy from water. To dam a beautiful free flowing river is one of the most destructive things you can do. Is anybody familiar with what the de-facto government of Quebec has done to their rivers.. huh
Re-routing rivers under the Canadian shield, creating artificial lakes so big its enough to register seismic activity from all the added weight of water, flooding out 100’s of square kms of virgin boreal, new roads, billions of tonnes of concrete and hundreds of kilometers of hydro-lines.
What about the mercury released onto the environment?
For what? profit and control.
Or is it simply because people have become so stupid and pathetic.
DirkH says:
February 17, 2014 at 9:45 am
….Moore-type Laws only work in information technologies….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doesn’t keep the eco-nuts from trying to use it. I have certainly seen it used probably in comments at the Grauniad or Huff’nPuff.
Obviously we can’t trust anything that comes from Stanford, as they are receipents of 225 million from big oil and big auto.
Exxon has contributed more to just ONE global warming organization, than all non-AGW groups combined. To date, its about 100 million to GCEP.
“”Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP), established in 2002, has four sponsors, who together will spend $225 million over a decade or so: Exxon Mobil, the energy company; General Electric, builder of power-generation technology; Schlumberger, an oilfield services technology company; and Toyota, the auto manufacturer. ”
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/february25/exxon-022509.html
Gail Combs says:
February 17, 2014 at 6:25 am ——-
As usual Gail Combs hits the nail on the head.
Climate Change has never been about Science. It is about POLITICS.
The only way to stop it is to vote out of office those who call for bigger government. A smaller more financially restrained is the only hope.
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome
Abstract: During the first three years of the Obama Administration, 106 new major federal regulations added more than $46 billion per year in new costs for Americans. This is almost four times the number—and more than five times the cost—of the major regulations issued by George W. Bush during his first three years.Major Regulations Under Obama. More and Costlier than Under Bush.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/red-tape-rising-obama-era-regulation-at-the-three-year-mark
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty.”
― Tacitus
But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
Nancy Pelosi
Well, I went to the website, and they asked me to join the movement, so I did. My first act as a member was to send them the following:
I’ll report back …
w.
kenin says:
February 17, 2014 at 11:00 am
As for me personally:
All this energy is over-rated. Seriously… all I need is a small well built , well insulated home with a fireplace.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Forget the fireplace or woodstove. The EPA is going to regulate them too!
“EPA Proposes Updates to Air Standards for Newly Manufactured Wood Stoves and Heaters. Go to www2.epa.gov/residential-wood-heaters to learn more.
EPA standards that govern the manufacture and sale of wood stoves, and certain wood burning fireplace inserts, built after 1988.”
The future of their world will look like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Van-willem-vincent-gogh-die-kartoffelesser-03850.jpg
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and San Mateo County Transit District (California) Fuel Cell Transit Buses: Evaluation Results (http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/40615.pdf)
3 fuel-cell buses: $10.6 Million (compared to 5 diesel buses)
24 inches taller, 6,800 lbs heavier than diesel version bus from Gillig.
Result: 38 fewer passengers capacity (all standees)
3 new facilities: bus wash, maintenance and hydrogen dispensing station.
Cost $4.4 Million
Hydrogen losses (compressed hydrogen):
If the station utilization is not high enough to overcome the liquid hydrogen storage tank boil-off rate, the tank will vent this hydrogen. The size of the station caused the loss of approximately 50% of the hydrogen fuel during this demonstration. Air Products reports that if the station throughput had been greater, the hydrogen losses would have been significantly reduced.
CUTE (http://www.fuel-cell-bus-club.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=UpDownload&file=index&req=getit&lid=750) reported losses of 5% to 10% at best without the boil-off problem. Petroleum products generally have losses closer to 1% to 2%.
Fuel economy: 12% lower than diesel on an energy equivalent basis (not counting boil-off) (fuel cells can’t idle)
Maintenance costs: $3.55/mi vs $0.54/mi for diesel (does not include ca. $540,000 in warranty parts only for fuel cell buses)
15 fuel cell row replacements during project duration (17 mos.) = 42% (blockage/contamination issues – repairable)
Hydrogen purity requirements are very high, difficult to achieve (CUTE)
Propulsion costs: $2.37/mi vs. $0.20/mi for diesel
Roadcall: problem that required towing, replacement or otherwise causes significant delay in service.
Meant Time Between Roadcalls (MBRC): 898 mi total/918 mi propulsion vs. 8,189 mi total/10,838 mi propulsion for diesel
Range (distance between fillups): 140 mi. vs. 400 mi. for diesel
Summary
Challenges
The main challenges for this fuel cell bus demonstration at VTA were extremely high capital and operating costs, a need for standardized hydrogen building codes, hydrogen fuel cost, and reliability of the fuel cell buses.
Operating Costs
$6.46/mi vs. $1.06/mi for diesel
Fuel Economy
12% lower than diesel (not counting 50% hydrogen losses due primarily to venting) (CUTE: 5% to 10% losses)
Reliability (Diesel)
12 hrs/day, 7 days/wk, 4,000 mi/mo., 85% up time, 8,000 mi. between roadcalls
Reliability (Fuel Cell)
8 hrs/day, 5 days/wk, 800 mi/mo., 58% up time, 900 mi. between roadcalls
markstoval says:
February 17, 2014 at 10:20 am
Gail Combs says: 4. Took too long to write in the comment window.
I use a word processor (currently LibreOffice Writer, but it doesn’t matter). While writing I can correct many mistakes and do some formatting. I can check Ric Werme’s guide to WUWT, do searches, and review my own recent comments that I store by site and date. Over 5 ½ years that’s a few. I sometimes grab a good comment from someone else and store that with the URL. People link to great articles. I save some or maybe just a link to them. I also try not to use bad words or the name of the host person, and if a link I want to post is very long I often use the HTML code to hide it.
Using the window means you can’t do most of the above and if the computer burps you lose what you were working on.
Gail Combs: your
My suggestion is that California should lead the way by example. Close the borders and remove ALL trade and immigration with other states. No water or electric in or out. Let the Eco-Nuts lead by example.
Agreed, to a point. Let one area (state, country, county, whatever) lead the way, and go full renewables. But leave trade and immigration/emmigration open. The market will soon use its invisible hand. Exports will drop, as energy costs drive up the costs of export goods. Goods from outside will need to come in, driving up the balance of trade deficit. Taxes will have to increase to compensate. Companies will leave. Unemployment will increase, and as it does, emmigration will increase to non-renewable areas, leading to still less tax.
Basically, the direction that California is headed now.
http://thebusinessrelocationcoach.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-do-companies-leave-california-here.html
@Phil at 12:07 pm
Nice stats on the Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus pilot project.
There were a couple of facts missing for me.
First, This was LIQUID hydrogen storage and delivery?
Where was the Air Products station located? Seems to me there is a serious transportation danger the test didn’t run long enough to explore.
What are the energy efficiency losses associated with hydrogen generation, liquefaction, and storage? The WWS program says we can use 30-40% less energy in part by not using fossil fuels and their inherent energy losses through combustion and heat-engine use.
It seems clear to me that the WWS energy storage system is pure hydrogen bank and fuel cell.
The question on the table: How big must a Hydrogen + Fuel Cell bank be to hold 7 GW-days of electrical generation? And what would it cost? (That is the equivalent of one coal fired power-plant of power supplying the needs of a stormy winter week of little sun, freezing rain, and non-operable winds.)
“The more individuals buy the more tax they will pay so there is no reason for the elaborate and costly tax code we now have except that the tax burden has moved FROM corporations TO the individual.”
Who do you think pays corporation tax?
Hint: it’s not corporations.
Either they raise prices, so you pay more for what you buy, or they cut wages, so you have less money to spend, or they cut dividends, so your pension fund is worth less. The only time corporate tax really works is when most of the corporation’s customers are in other countries, so they’re effectively taxing foreigners. Otherwise, it’s just another stealth tax.
The online interactive roadmap is tailored to maximize the resource potential of each state. Hovering a cursor over California, for example, reveals that the Golden State can meet virtually all of its power demands (transportation, electricity, heating, etc.) in 2050 by switching to a clean technology portfolio that is 55 percent solar, 35 percent wind (on- and offshore), 5 percent geothermal and 4 percent hydroelectric.
This word “can” has many meanings. It might be theoretically possible, but can an actual construction program be funded and carried out?
My advice to the rest of the US is to wait and see how well the Californians carry out the implementation of AB32, in actual fact, before taking advice from energy theoreticians in California. This is a state that, in response to warnings of possible droughts, has redirected its investment away from water harvesting and irrigation toward expensive energy generation, including at least 1 massive solar power plant that can’t operate when water supplies are low.
Californians already voted not to repeal AB32, so the law looks solid to stay in place, at least for a long time. I think solar power is fine for niche applications, especially when the use is in daytime, as for powering irrigation and schools; but the idea of giant solar farms replacing fossil fueled and nuclear fueled power plants will prove to be so costly that the State of California will make itself much poorer.
So the Stanford Linear Accelerator which can draw over 50 MW (46,000 homes in Greenspeak) will now be run on sunbeams and breezes? SLAC director Wolfgang Panofsky negotiated ultra cheap “socialist power” for the first 4 decades.
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/tip/2005/may20/power.htm
As this power is supplied by (“dirty” in California Greenspeak) “Big Hydro”, I expect the torch burning brigades to be out picketing to save the planet by snuffing out particle physics research.
Just don’t set fire to the Stanford foothills while you are at it.
Steven Hales says: @ February 17, 2014 at 11:36 am
I love these guys….If such a project was undertaken it would devalue almost immediately all new or planned investment in existing energy infrastructure and this is where the danger lies. If new investment is not made today then the potential shortages will be very large tomorrow if the planned utopia does not arrive and the price of energy will rise dramatically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Too late.
Obummer and the EPA have already gutted the US energy infrastructure. ~ 40% of our energy is from coal, 19% from Nuclear and ~8% from Hydro.
1. The Eco-nuts are having dams removed and the USA recently has amended the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that pretty much kills any new hydro. 65 Dams Removed to Restore Rivers in 2012 “American Rivers announced the annual dam removal list today, bring the total for U.S. dam removals up to nearly 1,100.”
Hydro has been reduced to ~7% recently.
Nuclear:
Thats a possible loss of ~ 6% of our stable base load power supply.
COAL
Out of 318 gigawatts of coal generated power at least 34 gigawatts is already slated to be retired. ~ 4% of our stable base load power supply.
So by the end of 2015 we may have as much as 10% or more of our base load electric shutdown permanently and another 10% or more shutdown for 18 months for a total of 20%. Meanwhile that capacity is ‘supposed’ to be replaced by wildly fluctuating wind and solar power.
I do not envy the power system engineers and would not be surprise if they retire or quit en masse
.
Meanwhile make sure to invest in decent wood stove for heat and cooking and a diesel generator to keep your frig and well and what ever running….
For investors this is the time to invest in wood stove. generator and natural gas companies.
Ken Coffman says:
February 17, 2014 at 6:00 am
Thanks for the link. Great quote from the paper:
The decline of grid frequency stability in the United States further motivates the implementation of APC (active power control) on wind turbines. This service could be beneficial even in areas without high penetration levels, as previous research suggests, grid frequency robustness can be enhanced by even a small number of wind turbines providing frequency regulation services. ongoing research investigates the possibility of implementing an ancillary market for these regulation capabilities, as this type of market could potentially increase the economic viability of wind energy resources.
Translation: windmills cause problems with the grid frequency. We can use other windmills to correct this problem. We can charge for this service at a premium and the extra income will make windmills look more economic.
The economics of the madhouse.
Les Johnson says: @ February 17, 2014 at 12:14 pm
….Agreed, to a point. Let one area (state, country, county, whatever) lead the way, and go full renewables. But leave trade and immigration/emmigration open….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO!!!!!
I lived in NH. After the eco-nuts and big government lovers passed their idiotic laws in MA making the state ‘unlivable’ they moaned about the taxes and moved to NH and preceded to do the SAME THING TO NH.
It is know as containment. Texas is already finding out what happens as it gets Californicated.
Texas Total Energy Consumption 2011 = 12,207. TBTU
from http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/rank_use.html&sid=US
BTU per kwh = 3,412. btu/kwh
Texas Total Consumption = 3,577,401. GWHr/yr
% of total Texas energy by Wind = 50%
Texas Energy by Wind = 1,788,700,664. MWh/yr
Wind Turbine Nameplate = 1.5 MW/turbine
Hr/year = 8760. hr/yr
Wind Utilization factor = 25%
Energy / yr / Turbine = 3285. MWhr/yr/turbine
WWS cost per kwh = 0.057 $/kwh
WWS Revenue / yr / Turbine = 187,245. $/yr/turbine
Texas 1.5 MW Wind Turbines Needed per WWS: = 544,506 Wind Turbines
Total installed wind capacity in the U.S. at the end of 2012: 60,007 MW (nameplate)
= about 45,000 turbines.
Estimate is Just to generate the average energy over a year. This does not include spare capacity to recharge the hydrogen energy storage bank for periods of low wind or high demand.
It is also an average load, so it would be insufficient to supply peak afternoon demand.
@Gail Combs
Is that the EPA of the Corporate Democracy known as .the u.s government or the republic?
I think those internal to the EPA should look up the word “bylaw”
Just to clarify,
Bylaw: a local law; a law made by a city, company, club, corporation etc for the control of its own affairs.
There agenda 21 crap doesn’t scare me. Whats next, passing bylaws on forest fires created by lightning strikes.
anyways,
thanks for the info
“Global warming, air pollution and energy insecurity are three of the most significant problems facing the world today, said Jacobson, a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and Precourt Institute for Energy
Listening to the local news it seems the three significant problems facing the world today are texting while walking (and bumping into things/falling down), being “trapped” at home for one day when it snows, and having to camp out for three days to be the first to buy the latest iPhone……./sarc
“Stanford scientist to unveil 50-state plan to transform US to renewable energy”
What about Puerto Rico and the US territories? They don’t get renewable energy?
Stephen Rasey says: @ February 17, 2014 at 12:30 pm….
You forgot the biggest question. How big is the hole if the hydrogen detonates?
Hydrogen is an incredibly small atom and leaks where natural gas would not. In a lab setting trying to keep the tanks from leaking was a never ending battle. No way would I want to be anywhere near stored hydrogen in inexperienced hands. Helium tanks left unchained in stores is bad enough.
H.R. says:
H.R. says:
February 17, 2014 at 2:31 am
“BTW, the missing one percent wouldn’t happen to be unicorn power would it?”
Actually I think the 1% is the fossil fuel energy the “elites” like Gore, George Soros and company plan to utilize because they have invested in “Carbon offsets” so it okay. You don’t really think they plan on relying on an expensive, intermittent and unreliable energy source do you?
Gail Combs says:
February 17, 2014 at 12:44 pm
Les Johnson says: @ February 17, 2014 at 12:14 pm
….Agreed, to a point. Let one area (state, country, county, whatever) lead the way, and go full renewables. But leave trade and immigration/emmigration open….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO!!!!!
I lived in NH. After the eco-nuts and big government lovers passed their idiotic laws in MA making the state ‘unlivable’ they moaned about the taxes and moved to NH and preceded to do the SAME THING TO NH.
It is know as containment. Texas is already finding out what happens as it gets Californicated.
————————————–
You are correct. It’s the same effect near me that the Yuppies want a piece of country living, move out to the farmland for the “fresh country air” and then begin passing zoning laws banning the farms because they “smell bad”.
Stay in the damn city if you can’t take the fresh country air!!!!
MarkG says: @ February 17, 2014 at 12:31 pm
…Who do you think pays corporation tax?
Hint: it’s not corporations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am well aware of that.
However by shifting the paying of all tax to the corporations you decrease the admin. costs and headaches that individuals now have to deal with and a lot of the admin costs corporations have to deal with. Corporations already file and pay taxes. On top of that they also act as tax collectors for the government and have to pay for the extra accountants who deal with all the W-2s and such.
Dealing with the darn taxes for employees keeps a lot of small business people from hiring help. The tax laws change that made ordinary people responsible for collecting the tax for yard help, domestic help, the kid who weeded your garden, the retired lady who did laundry and ironing,… killed off countless employment opportunities. Another more recent change in tax law killed off the niche for individual contractors. Now Kelly Temps is paying those same people $10 -$30/hr and collecting $100/hr all because of that tax law change. The second-largest employer in America is Kelly Services. Half a decade ago those people would be collecting ALL the money from the people contracted with instead of a small portion.
My husband was a contractor for years BTW so I know what I am talking about.
David L. says: @ February 17, 2014 at 1:08 pm
Agreed. A friend lost a pig farm that had been in the family for over three hundred years because of the darn Boston Yuppies moving in next door and the developer organized the people he had sold to thereby getting the town to ‘Banning the pig farm. The developer then bought the farm and expanded his development.
“Jacobson presented a new roadmap to renewable energy for all 50 states at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Chicago.”
Had he presented it at the American Association for the Advancement of Engineering, he would have been thought the pre-dinner entertainment comedian. The jobs again! These would once again go to China. I suggest he call the President of Spain where they are still reeling under 30% unemployment after their green jobs adventure. Actually, engineers don’t get consulted – after all, if you are a scientist, how hard could it be?
Gail: OK, containment is not a bad policy.
But, in Alberta, we encourage the eastern liberals to move here, to fill the jobs. It only takes a few years, before they become a little more conservative in their outlook. Less tax, relatively less government, and more money will do that.
Apparently, when you have worked for your money, you are less inclined to share it. When you have less money, you are more inclined to want to share your wealthier neigbours money.
“Is it possible to reduce 80% of greenhouse gas emissions from energy by 2050?”
Even without technical obstacles to such, there isn’t enough savings world-wide for the required investment. The short answer is “no”.
I would gladly give them Washington, New York and California if tHey would leave the rest of us ALONE
When the Stanford campus and all of their professional staff go completely solar, then I will buy in. I doubt the climate in the SF Bay area is all that conducive to solar energy. And can you imagine that population allowing offshore wind farms? Not likely. Perhaps the windmills could be located near the Redwoods?
If only they would allow a little reality to dribble into their brains. I would love to believe in all of their fairytales, but I am just a bit too practical for that.
Adding to my 9:10 AM posting above, I followed links above and found:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/offshore-wind-farms-could-protect-cities-from-hurricanes-16813
The article is mud. It suggests Jacobson was considering 70,000 turbines (300 Gigawatts total) which could be 1/5 of a ballpark hurricane, if the hurricane cooperated in hitting all 70,000 nice and square. And then there is this out of the blue comment:
“1.5 billion turbines would reduce wind speeds worldwide by 50 percent,” Jacobson said.
Isn’t that one turbine for every five persons on earth! Must be bad reporting?
Oh – then it says: “Jacobson did not address the feasibility…..”
I guess that explains it all !
@Stephen Rasey at 12:30 P.M.
The Air Products station was leased from Air Products and was located at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s Ceron facility at 3990 Zanker Road, San Jose, Ca ca. 2005. It received liquid hydrogen and dispensed compressed hydrogen. From the report:
As for energy efficiency losses associated with hydrogen generation, liquefaction and storage, these reports don’t go into that. It is my understanding that virtually all hydrogen available today is produced from natural gas (methane), so it is still fossil fuel based.
As for the 40% less energy that is being claimed, I assume that you are referring to statements like these (from the November 2009 SciAm article) :
That statement is misleading because it is comparing apples to oranges and magnifying the differences. It is true that the thermal efficiency of gasoline engines is low, but it is considerably higher now than the 17% to 20% that is being quoted. I think modern engines are in the high 20s to low 30s. Diesel engines (which they hate) are in the high 30s to low 40s, for over the road engines. Ship engines, such as the giant Wärtsilä-Sulzer diesels, have a thermal efficiency over 50%, which is close to the Carnot cycle efficiency of about 60%, IIRC.
However, I am not sure if the 75% to 86% efficiency they are quoting for electricity for transportation includes the generation of electricity or the hydrolysis/liquefaction/compression costs of generating hydrogen. IIRC, photo-voltaic panels have an efficiency in the high teens to low 20s and wind turbines I think are much worse. With hydro, you can pretty much put close to 100% of the working fluid (water) through a turbine to generate electricity, but it is very difficult to dam the working fluid (air) in wind power, with the result that very little of the working fluid (air) actually goes through a turbine. You just cannot cover anywhere close to a decent percentage of the wind flowing over a given spot of land with propellers. Think of an area a few miles long, plus a thousand or more feet high and how much of that can be swept by a line of giant turbines. They also are not counting electrical transmission losses, which can be 25% or more depending on distance.
CO2 can be liquefied/compressed at manageable expense, but hydrogen liquefies at much lower temperatures and much higher pressures. I would expect the generation/liquefaction/compression losses to be significant. When you get right down to it, I don’t see the savings. Real world figures are often very different from the Pixi dust these people are getting high on.
The biggest problem, however, is the technological ignorance. Here is another quote from the 2009 SciAm article:
I doubt there is any neodymium in the gearboxes. There may be trace amounts in the alloys (I am not a metallurgist), but neodymium would be used for the magnets on the generator. At one time a magazine like SciAm would never have made a mistake like this, but those days are long gone. Our society is being destroyed by ignorance. It reminds me of what I was told once about the Cubans after the revolution. They supposedly imported a bunch of new machinery for the sugar industry, as sugar in the 1960s was the principal export, but they didn’t realize the machinery was for beet sugar instead of sugarcane. Sigh.
@Gail Combs on Feb. 17 at 1:00 pm:
IIRC, it only took an estimated 400kg to 1000kg of hydrogen to reduce the enormous buildings housing the reactors at Fukushima to rubble. The columns at the top I believe were about 1m by 1.5m in section and may have had rebars of 3/4in to 1in as reinforcement and they were snapped like twigs by air pressure alone. It would only take one explosion taking out half a city block and killing tens or hundreds for hydrogen cars to be banned completely. Can you imagine letting them into a tunnel?
john says: @ February 17, 2014 at 2:45 pm
I would gladly give them Washington, New York and California if tHey would leave the rest of us ALONE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just move them all to California then donate California to Mexico….
Phil says: @ February 17, 2014 at 3:53 pm
…..It would only take one explosion taking out half a city block and killing tens or hundreds for hydrogen cars to be banned completely. Can you imagine letting them into a tunnel?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No with me anywhere near by!
What bugs the heck out of me is this information is KNOWN.
And then there is this:
Very few here seem to be supporting Stanford. But, consider the facts:
1) Stanford supports AGW.
2) Stanford accepts no GOV funding beyond 14.5 billion $, except on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
3) Stanford cannot be sued for liable due to protection of numerous endangered species.
4) Stanford spelled backwards is “drof nats”.
There you go….
Here in Logan, Utah we have a dedicated little group known as RECAB (Renewable Energy and Conservation Advisory Board). The board is mostly academics determined to jump on the latest renewable energy fashion of creating a “roadmap”. The trouble with following fashion is just about the time you get your clothing fashionably short, longer fashions come back in style and you are forced to re-bye the entire wardrobe.
Our friends are going to have to double the number of turbines they use just based on the capacity factor. It is tough to dig the information out. First I started with:
Jacobson and Delucchi (2010)
Table 4 says that 3.8 million 5 MW wind turbines are needed to provide 50% of the 2030 power needed worldwide. It says it is “Derived from appendix A of Jacobson (2009).”
Jacobson (2009) in turn says: “Electronic supplementary Information (ESI) available: …”
I found it here.
On page 2, under Wind Turbine Characteristics, they list the following as the numbers used to get their answers:
Turbine Capacity Factor: 42.46% (low case) 29.41% (high case)
Lifetime of wind turbine (yr): 30
Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, … ROTFL, etc.
I calculated the actual capacity factor for wind from the German 2013 Solar and Wind report as 16.57%.
Real turbine lifetimes (before major refurbishment such as a gearbox change which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and puts the turbine out of service for probably months): 5-7 years.
Ha. Ha. Ha.
They are high on Pixi dust.
They use a leakage rate for wind-hydrogen fuel cell vehicles of 3%.
Compare to actual experience in Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority of 50% losses with boil-off issues and CUTE of 5% to 10% losses at best without boil-off.
Gail Combs says:
February 17, 2014 at 11:37 am
“DirkH says:
February 17, 2014 at 9:45 am
….Moore-type Laws only work in information technologies….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doesn’t keep the eco-nuts from trying to use it. I have certainly seen it used probably in comments at the Grauniad or Huff’nPuff.”
I know that you know. Just wanted to repeat it for visitors of this thread.
Here is the final technical report for the liquid hydrogen fueled Cryoplane. A medium range aircraft would have to carry between 8 and 12 tons of liquid hydrogen at some 250 degrees C below zero. What the effect would be if a fully fuelled cyroplane were to crash at high speeds is unknown. The safety discussions center around the Hindenburg, which is not comparable. They think that the chances of a detonation are slim, but there’s nothing like crashing one for real.
@Phil at 10:31 pm
RE: Cryoplane.
One of my heroes is Kelly Johnson, Director of Lockheed Skunkworks and Chief Designer for the P-48, the F-104, the U-2 and the A-12/SR-71.
Think of the technological challenges of the SR-71. Titanium body, when people didn’t know how to work with titanium. JP-8, a new high temp fuel. Shock-cone compression, ram-jet bypass turbofan. And stealthy — so secret was it’s stealth that the Air Force didn’t realize Lockheed had stealth experience and should be included in the Pave Blue program.
I mention this because in Kelly biography, he recounts that after the A-12 program, the Air Force came to him with a proposal for a LH2 plane for Mach 5. Kelly worked on it for about 6 months, figured it would be about the size of a football field because LH2 is bulky. He then returned the balance of the program funds back to the Air Force.
LH2 passenger jets wouldn’t be as much a stretch, but LH2 jet engines would likely be a different breed from what we have with JP4.
Only nuclear power would make a hydrogen fuel economy viable. The losses are otherwise too great to tolerate. An advantage of the nuclear / LH2 combination is LH2 would support delivery of electricity by superconducting properties of ordinary materials at 10 K. Such a system would also protect us from many effects of EMP.
The Stanford plan for California is preposterous. There is no way to make the renewable plan work. For one, almost all of the wind turbines would have to be placed off shore because the CA Energy Commission has already mapped the locations of class 5 wind speeds required for wind turbine operation. There is not enough area on land to do the job.
Wind turbines need 80 acres each to avoid fratricide when they throw blade pieces weighing tons up to one half mile upon failure. Coupled with a very poor 30% capacity factor (being generous), the scale required would be on the order of tens of thousands of turbines covering thousands of square miles of ocean.
They can’t be built (literally – not 100,000 more or less) or operated (practically or economically). It’s a plan dead already. Any physics undergraduate should be able to work the numbers.
@ Stephen Rasey at 11:01 pm:
Agreed. When you think of the effect that this one man, Kelly Johnson, had on intelligence gathering during the Cold War for decades, he is poorly honored. He belongs in the pantheon of the all time great Americans. He provided the US a technological advantage that was decades ahead of its time and for which there was no counter. They were able to shoot down a U-2, but never an SR-71.
Further please consider the unintended consequences of all those wind turbines. Each one is extracting a tangible amount of energy from the pool of global wind energy. What happens to weather patterns “downstream” from them?
Just as everyone removing water from a river has some effect on all the water users downstream, so the wind farms may have a very serious impact on not just the wind turbines downstream but also may have drastic, but as yet unknowable(?) effects on weather.
Anyone know if any studies have been made on possible consequences of mega-wind farms?
My plan for the USA States is much simpler, and I
absolutely guarantee that this will be 100% effective.
Add a biodegradable Green Dye to all liquid fuels,
and send electricity down wires covered in green
insulation, and add copper ions to all combustible
gasses, and then we shall have what is desirous.
“Green” fuels in every walk of life across the Globe !
No changes will be necessary to existing transport
or heating technologies whatsoever, except that
the operators will then all have supercilious grins.
RE: Liquid Hydrogen and energy loss.
I found a piece that said that 30% of the energy in a volume of liquid hydrogen is needed to liquefy it. I lost the link.
Wikipedia says: “Liquid hydrogen has less energy density by volume than hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline by approximately a factor of four. ” Which is why a LH2 airplane will never be practical. In addition to the bulk density of the fuel, the tanks require much insulation. It would do to have the wings ice up. The link Phil gave to a 2000 Airbus LH2 study had some comical configurations, such as 1/2 the passenger compartment of a traditional A330 jet replaced with LH2 tanks. A hydrogen economy could work, but some transportation fuels would need to be converted to methanol to make them practical and easier handling.
kenin (February 17, 2014 at 11:37 am) “there is no clean energy from water. To dam a beautiful free flowing river is one of the most destructive things you can do.”
Your examples (Quebec) might be valid. However there is nothing I would like more than a “destructive” dam on the “beautiful” river below my house. Since I live on a steep edge and there is a steep edge diagonally across from me, I would be upstream, or have the dam on my property. I have no problem with giving up land for the dam. I would also obviously lose flood plain but the benefits would be enormous. First, I would not be subjected to ridiculous floods (as high as 30 feet above low water) that wipe out everything. Second, I would have vastly improved recreation. Third I would have vastly improved fishing. I don’t even care about the energy although I recognize that would be a huge benefit to my neighbors.
Thanks to eco freaks and some genuinely valid criticism, my dream will never happen. But let’s at least try not to make blanket statements about damming since every case is unique.
I appreciate your statement, although I don’t understand it. Your simply talking about how it benefits you; in my statement, the examples I pointed would clearly effect everyone… and not for the better.
And here in Canada, the only people who benefit are big industry(diamond) and a de-facto government that eventually sells the energy to the U.S
I wonder what millions of displaced people along Chinas rivers would think.
And for the record, just to clarify that I personally am not an eco-freak. I would like to think that i’m a reasonable and rational man that takes everything into consideration.
kenin, there would be net benefits in the my case, not just to me personally. You simply cannot make a blanket claim that net benefits for dams are negative in all cases. The dividing line may well be size. In China there are probably a lot of net positive dams that are much smaller than 3 Gorges and in the case of that dam I have not seen a even-handed evaluation.
kenin:
In support of your opposition to dams which provide cheap, efficient and reliable hydropower, at February 18, 2014 at 8:26 am you say
Obviously, there will be many views about anything among “millions” of people. But the bulk of the displaced persons will probably appreciate their improved housing and the benefits they gain from obtaining electricity.
China is also building coal-fired and nuclear power stations, but hydropower is very competitive with them.
The Hoover Dam in the US was hailed as a great achievement for very good reasons.
Richard
FTR kenin, I never intended to place you in the eco-freak category, but I did not agree with your apparent blanket claim earlier in the thread.
richardscourtney, I should have avoided making generalizations myself. I didn’t give it too much thought, but speculated that large dams might be worse than small ones. At that point I had not read your comment about the Hoover dam which is obviously both large and beneficial.
Externalities can also be positive as well as negative. Isn’t it time we brought in the greening of the biosphere and increase agricultural output? [references] Coal powered stations are paying through the nose for their negative externalities. We need to look at the positive too.
Jimbo:
You make a good point in your post at February 18, 2014 at 8:53 am where you say
It really upsets ‘greens’ when the point is made.
As example I cite the reaction of an exceptionally obnoxious troll posting as drumphil who asserted that CO2 emissions should be accounted as being “a negative” when assigning costs to power generation systems. I replied by asking
For days the troll avoided an answer by floundering about making every imaginable excuse and waving various Red herrings. Any impartial onlooker could only conclude he was wrong and did not have a clue what he was talking about.
This outcome must have hurt the troll because this morning he jumped into another WUWT thread herewith the sole purpose of aiming personal abuse at me. My response was to again demand an answer to the question and the resulting discussion in the thread exposed his irrational behaviour for all to see. Importantly, Jimbo, it demonstrated both the truth and the importance of your point for all to see.
Richard
@Phil at 8:32 pm
I’ll give Jacobson this, he does show his work: http://www.rsc.org/suppdata/ee/b8/b809990c/b809990c.pdf
I was struck by the calculation for Turbine Power:
Wind turbine characteristics (High Low)
D1(S8): Mean annual wind speed (m/s) 8.500E+00 7.000E+00
D2 (S9): Turbine rated power (kW) 5.000E+03 5.000E+03
D3 (S9): Turbine rotor diameter (m) 1.260E+02 1.260E+02
D4=(0.087*D1-D2/D3^2)
(S10): Turbine capacity factor 4.246E-01 2.941E-01
D5: Hours per year (hrs) 8.760E+03 8.760E+03
D6=D2*D4*D5: Turbine energy output without losses (kWh/yr) 1.860E+07 1.288E+07
D7: Turbine effic. with transmission,conversion, array losses 9.000E-01 8.500E-01
D8=D6*D7: Turbine energy output with losses (kWh/yr) 1.674E+07 1.095E+07
D9=(4*D3)*(7*D3)/10^6:
(S10) Area for one turbine accounting for spacing (km2) 4.445E-01 4.445E-01
First, it is based upon a 5 MW name plate, whereas most installed today are 1.5-2 MW nameplate. at $2-4 Million each. 126 meter diameter. Estimated cost should be about $10 million each (onshore).
But the kicker is that the energy is based upon MEAN annual wind speed with a historically high capacity factor. Maybe it is a reasonable approximation for the integrated power curve. The D4 formula looks a little wonky. It’s dimensional result is kW/m2. Is it missing ()? Is it a typo?
If you take a 5 MW/turbine (nameplate), 25% Capacity factor, and 8760 h/yr, you can get 11 GWhr/yr/turbine. D8 (w/ losses) is estimating 17 to 11 GWhr/yr/turbine. A little high for my taste, but not obviously wrong.
But at $0.057/kwh, that 11 GWhr/yr/turbine generates $0.624 million/yr/turbine. So capital accounting payout, no discounting, sans maintenance, is 16 years.
He lists only an energy payback time of 0.14-0.36 years at D16.
Just proving that SNODFART UTIVERSINY is still in Pola Atlo.
@Stephen Rasey at 10:32 am:
Using last year’s German capacity factor of 16.57%, I came up with only 6,17 GWhr/yr/turbine for D8. And the 11 GWhr/yr/turbine was at 29.4% capacity factor, not 25%.
However, looking further at this, it starts to get weird. In column one, he states that the formula for capacity factor is 0.87 times D1, the mean annual wind speed (m/s), – D2, the turbine rated power, divided by D3 squared, the turbine rotor diameter (m). He references footnote S10. S10 in turn cites references 11 and 33 in the original paper.
Reference 11 is a 654 page book by G. M. Masters titled Renewable and Efficient Electric Power Systems. G.M. Masters is another Stanford University professor that is also a co-author with Jacobson of Reference 33, which is a Science magazine “Policy Forum” article titled: “Exploiting Wind versus Coal.”
In Reference 33, Masters and Jacobson explain their formula for capacity factor:
Ref. 7 reads: G.M. Masters, in preparation.
Catharine M. Lawton prepared a refutation of “Exploiting Wind versus Coal” here.
She states:
The rest is worth a read.
In Ms. Lawton’s refutation, there is a very interesting part where she speculates that:
I found Reference 11 here.
On page 391 of the pdf, Masters derives the formula theoretically as Equation 6.65, which is a linear fit of the roughly linear portion of an S-shaped curve, for a turbine operating in winds that follow Rayleigh statistics. The whole thing is a theoretical derivation. In short, the difference between Master’s and Jacobson’s capacity factor used in their calculations and the capacity factor I calculated from the German report for 2013 may be operational factors. It would seem that no turbine could exceed the capacity factor model used by Master and Jacobson. The fact that they seem to make no allowance for mechanical breakdowns, etc. would seem to indicate extreme “ivory tower” thinking, with little connection to reality.
The actual German capacity factor for 2013 implies that Jacobson would need, at best, between 2 and 3 times as many turbines as he thinks – a substantial difference.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 17, 2014 at 11:51 am
You will excuse me I hope if I do not hold my breath ?
These are the same idiots that hand wave their way past the material requirements. Get ready to triple worldwide production of rare earths just to handle the US conversion. Just more of the rehashed garbage they published in the ironically named SciAm a few years ago.
DirkH says: @ February 17, 2014 at 10:30 pm
No problem, I am glad you did.
Phil says: @ February 17, 2014 at 10:31 pm
Here is the final technical report for the liquid hydrogen fueled Cryoplane…. The safety discussions center around the Hindenburg, which is not comparable. They think that the chances of a detonation are slim….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They have never had the experience of trying to keep the hydrogen tank and plumbing to the gas chromatograph from leaking day in and day out for decades. No matter what state I was in or what company I worked for the darn system ALWAYS LEAKED. And those systems were not traveling and therefore vibrating. I have also had two tanks blow. Luckily while I wasn’t nearby. One company had their propane fill system blow. It was used to fill deodorant cans after CFCs were banned.
richardscourtney says: @ February 18, 2014 at 9:27 am
….Externalities can also be positive as well as negative….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For what it is worth. The USA went from producing 100 bushels of corn on 2-1/2 acres in 1890 with commercial fertilizers to producing 100 bushels of corn on 1-1/8 acres in 1987. For 1945 it was 100 bushels of corn on 2 acres. Corn is a C4 plant.
US farmers were producing 100 bushels of wheat on 5 acres in 1890, and 100 bushels of wheat on 3 acres in 1987. For 1955 it was 100 bushels of wheat on 4 acres. Wheat is a C3 plant.
Of course not all the gain is from CO2. Improved seed, herbicides, insecticides and irrigation would have a major effect.
On the other hand ALL those gains can be attributed to fossil fuels from the fertilizers to the herbicides, insecticides and even the irrigation and seed breeding.
You do not have time for improving seed stock and hybridizing if you are in third world poverty conditions.
About 85% of plant species are C3 plants. They include the cereal grains such as wheat, rice, barley, oats. Also Peanuts, cotton, sugar beets, tobacco, spinach, soybeans and other beans, vegetables, fruit trees, nut trees, and most other trees. C3 plants have the most growth response to higher levels of CO2 and also require less water.
I have yet to see any down sides to CO 2 levels under 2000 ppm.
@Phil at 4:24 pm
Nice digging on that D4 formula references. I said it was wonky, but I agree with weird, too.
The dimensional analysis doesn’t make sense as written.
The Turbine capacity factor (D4) must be: (0.087V-P/D²) and dimensionless because P X 8750 is already kwh/yr. Yet P/D² is a weird kw/m² cross-sectional energy density.
Furthermore, the power is proposed to be linear with mean windspeed in a Rayleigh distribution. Yet with Turbine power typically a function of V^3 for a steady velocity. One expects an exponent on mean velocity greater than 1, at least until the Capacity factor asymptotically approaches 1. That upper limit of 1.0 is also missing from the formula. The function is a blunder. Historical operating conditions aren’t even half of what he proposes.
Stephen Rasey said at 9:56 pm:
That’s because it is a fit of a linear function to the more or less linear portion of a non-linear function. You need to look at the link to Master’s book on page 391 or so. The derivation doesn’t look crazy to me, but I would look at it like I would look at the thermal efficiency of a Carnot cycle engine, when one is actually running a gasoline engine. Actual real world figures don’t come anywhere close to the ideal.
@Phil 10:51 pm
A better approximation for the Turbine Capacity Factor as a function of mean wind speed (given a Rayleigh distribution of speeds) would be of the form:
TCF = Fmax* [(V-vco1)(V-vco2)^2] / V^3
Where V is the mean wind speed, valid for V .GE. vco2 .GE. vco1
vco1, vco2 are curve fitting parameters functionally equivalent to wind speed cut offs for a given turbine design, replacing the P and D parameters.
Fmax is the maximum TCF allowable because as wind speeds increase, the probability of a high speed cutoff increases. At high V, d(TCF)/dv must go negative, so there has to be a max V where the formula can be applied, too.
I will admit to a fondness for curve fitting employing non-integer exponents. Geometric Programming lends itself to some neat optimization solutions if you condense posynomial terms into power functions with non-integer exponents. It is a clever approach to problems, but the dimension analysis of that approach yields nonsense. You have to compare it to the original function you attempting to simplify.
@ Stephen Rasey
I am sorry for not replying sooner, as I have had to attend to other matters. Let me begin by retracting my previous comments about using theoretical numbers to estimate the number of turbines needed, especially the one about “ivory towers.” I have expressed myself thoughtlessly and inappropriately and, in addition to retracting the comments, I want to apologize for them, as they did not convey what I intended.
My thoughts were on the appropriateness of using theoretical figures to calculate the number of turbines needed, as opposed to using published numbers from actual experience. Specifically, Jacobson used a theoretical turbine capacity factor to calculate the number of turbines needed that is very different from the capacity factor that I calculated from the 2013 German report, which I assume represents actual experience. There is nothing wrong mathematically in the derivation of the theoretical capacity factor in Master’s book, it seems to me. It is no more incorrect than calculating the theoretical efficiency of an engine using the Carnot cycle.
What is incorrect is using this idealized and never achievable in real life number to calculate the capacity needed to replace existing fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. It is, at least, an error in judgement. Using the Carnot cycle efficiencies to estimate the fuel mileage of a real vehicle using an internal combustion engine, would yield wildly unrealistic numbers. The same is true of using Master’s theoretical capacity factors (specifically, ~42% to ~29%: D4 under the columns titled “low case” and “high case”) instead of the number I calculated from the 2013 German report (~16%). The difference would result in a number of turbines closer to 10 million than the 3.8 million he estimates in Table 4 here.
Yet, when it comes to the efficiencies of gasoline powered cars, he uses numbers that seem to me to be a whole lot more realistic than idealistic: A7: 16% (low case) and 18% (high case.) Thus, it would appear that he is inconsistent in a way that would make renewables more attractive. The 16% to 18% would reflect an engine thermal efficiency of ~20% to ~23% with a transmission efficiency of 80% (jacobson_hydrogen_cars_long2).
@Phil at 2/20 2:05pm
It takes class to retract some heated words about “ivory towers”…. especially when I think they were justifiable given the difference between their theoretical TCF and the practical field TCF. TCF is a key component in their calculations. If they are 2X higher than what we see in practice, it deserves more review.
I was uncomfortable with the power they delivered from the slow speed part of their curve. This might be a theoretical power available, but the slow speeds are not sufficient to connect to the grid. Perhaps the Turbine Capacity Factor needs to incorporate a Grid Connection Factor which is also a function of mean wind velocity, size of wind farm, and transmission capacity.
Maybe this GCF time their theoretical TCF is how we get to the practical field capacity factors.
@ Stephen Rasey
You are too kind. Thanks. In one description, these big wind turbines were described as having as much going on in pumps, motors, heaters, instrumentation, etc. as a tug boat. That would mean that there is a base energy draw when you flick the “on” switch that should be fairly constant, whether the prop is turning or not. Yaw control motor current might vary with wind, but current for heaters for lubricating fluids would vary with the seasons. Computers should be fairly constant. Lubricating pumps should be fairly constant. Then there are mechanical failures. The most common, apparently, are electrical, but they are fairly easy to fix, supposedly. The biggie is transmission failure. That can be a months-long show stopper.
Their TCF varies, theoretically, with blade diameter. Although, one of my links criticized that, I don’t think Master is wrong. One thought, but I don’t have enough metadata, would be to try and correct the actual 2013 German figures for blade diameter to try and estimate a real world TCF for the bigger turbines being proposed, but that too would be somewhat theoretical. He may have a point about bigger turbines being a better investment, but that would depend on solving the engineering problems. They might have to start putting in elevators. 😉
In my experience, when things start getting this complex, it is too much to hope for to expect that it can run on automation alone. You may need a crew present on the wind farm, but that then adds labor cost. It becomes a never ending game of “now thats” Now that you have these huge machines, you need mechanics on site. Now that you have mechanics on site, you need a building. Etc. Etc. I just don’t think Jacobson understands the scalability issues.
@Phil at 10:54 pm
My problem is less with mechanical losses as it is with the slow-wind-speed phase and load matching to the grid. There is also the problem that at high wind speeds, you might not be able to transmit all the power. On reflection, while I think these are important factors missing from his equation, I don’t think they account for a 50% difference between theoretical and practical.
Another point we have glossed over…. The TCF function Master derives is from curve fitting of 0.1 MW to 1.5 MW turbines. But in The Solutions Project, they are using 5 MW turbines. So it is a leap in extrapolation.
Returning to P/D^2 as a “derived” intercept in the linearized curve fitting I view this a nothing more than convenient accident. The P/D^2 term doesn’t have a scaling constant. Heck, PI() isn’t involved.
Lastly, remember that the only payback Jacobson calculated was an energy payback. A monetary payback was ignored. All I did was use a rough industry rule of thumb of $2 million per nameplate MW. How close is that at 5 MW size? Lengthening turbine blades will quickly run into diminishing returns because costs rise as D^(1.2 to 2) and TCF rises as D^(-2) for the same power output.
@Stephen Rasey
Sorry, I have been busy elsewhere. You point about extrapolation is very good. I missed that. Also, your point about making the turbines bigger leading to diminishing returns is also very insightful.
See also:
Claim: Offshore Wind Turbines for ‘Taming Hurricanes’ (Univ. of Delaware)
WUWT Feb. 27, 2014
Jacobson is mentioned in the PR release, but does not appear to be a co-author.
I agree! It is possible, this transformation to 100% green energy….because there will be vitually nobody left in the states that go that way!