Well all they have to do, in years to come, is dust it off then change it to 2024, 2025, 2026 and so on – then they’re good to go, another New Years tradition up and running!
Didn’t know it until until after I did just a basic internet search of the typo name: there is a Twitter account called “The Grauniad Official Parody” @grauniadmeme https://twitter.com/grauniadmeme . A few years out of date, but with really funny Greta material among others.
Ron Long
December 31, 2023 2:26 am
Never mind Polar Bears and Puffins as markers for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, use Florida instead. Florida was completely under water up to 30 million years ago, when enough ice started accumulating on land masses and sea level went down enough to establish terrestrial animals (first fossil around Gainsville in Oligocene). Then our planet enters an Ice Age, around 5 million years ago, and sea level goes up and down 120 to 160 meters, during inter or intra glacial phases. During a recent drive down to Key West (that should be on everyone’s bucket list, and be sure to eat at Hog Fish restaurant) I saw coral reef and re-worked, by Hurricanes, coral reef material. The highest land along the Keys is currently 18 feet. So, if you add another 10 feet, at least, for the sea level above that reef material, recent sea level along the Keys was 28 feet higher. Global Warming sea level rise? Call me when it goes up 28 feet, until then no anomaly signal, and no basis for CAGW theories.
Geologists have the best understanding of the Earth. It’s what they do- with the long view- unlike “climate scientists”- who claim to consider geology but focus too much on the short term.
My home is a mile above current sea level. But a mere seventy million years ago, the inland seas (probably at least twice over Earth’s history) were lapping against some sandy dunes several hundred feet higher. https://kuula.co/post/7yfPl/collection/7fQ4q
Along the beaches of modern-day Dinosaur Ridge, Morrison, are the footprints and bones of apatosaurs, stegasaurs (Colorado’s “State Dinosaur”), and other giants.
Interesting material, it was used in the construction of Castillo de San Marcus in St. Augustine in the late 1600’s by the Spanish. The fort is still standing.
Levelized Cost of Energy by US-EIA
Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to exist on the grid.
With increased W/S percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny.
Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies
The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE “analyses”, are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems
Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.
The excluded LCOE items became quantifiable at about 8% W/S on the US grid, and will become exponentially greater, with increased W/S on the grid, as shown on European grids.
The EIA, etc., deceptions reinforced the oft-repeated industry mantra, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.
The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.
W/S would not even exist without at least 50% subsidies
W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without the last four freebies. See list.
1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S to load centers
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365
4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/Speriods, and during high-W/Speriods, when rotors are feathered and locked,
5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced
Exactly! Flexible as in you have to be flexible about when you use electricity and when you stop.
Do you really want to roast a turkey that takes 5 hours? What if the power goes out for 48 hours after half an hour? You shouldn’t be eating all that meat or having such a big family anyway. Here, munch on some bugs, peasant!
According to the IEA China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines currently account for 70% of world coal demand. They expect that China and India alone will account for more than 70% of global coal consumption by 2026.
IEA ‘Coal 2023 Analysis and forecast to 2026’ Dec. 2023
Certainly not the lowest cost for power guaranteed to be available on demand 24/7/365 with 99.9% availability which is not even as good as we are used to (0.1% downtime is 8 hrs 45 mins per year, in the past year I guess we had maybe an hour of downtime over a handful of short events).
Maybe if you’re flexible enough to only use power during the 25% of the time the wind blows at night or the slightly higher percentage of time that either solar or wind is available during the day, then you could make that claim.
If you need storage in the form of batteries, pumped hydro, or “green” hydrogen sufficient to achieve even a lackluster 99.0% uptime (87.5 hrs downtime per year or about an hour and 40 mins every week if equally spaced), the total cost per KW-hr rises way above that of hydro, fossil fuels and nuclear.
It turns out that the up-front capital cost of wind and solar are far higher than conventional as well.
The “Leading Light Wind” project has a nameplate rating of 2100 MW and the actual preliminary estimate of the project cost is $8.2 billion + $ 5.1 billion in Supply Chain Investment Plans (https://leadinglightwind.Com/about-project ). Derating to 40% for offshore wind that’s 840 MW. $13,300,000,000 / 840 = $15,833,333/ MW.
These are real numbers from real projects, not theoretical models. This is why conventional plants are profitable and green nonsense requires enormous subsidies.
Now that’s just to amortize the initial capital cost over what may well be an optimistic 15-year useful life. How much more is needed to maintain the bird shredders during operation? The retail price of that electricity has to cover transmission and profit as well.
So, yes. Offshore wind is several multiples the cost of a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) based on your evidence.
And the next question would be how much CO2 emissions are needed to produce, deploy, and maintain those windmills? Over their useful lifetime how many tons of CO2 are avoided compared with CCGT (if any)?
And this is why Climastrology has the doctrine of the Miracle of Commercial Fusion.
“Solar panels contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. While disposal of solar panels has taken place in regular landfills, it is not recommended because the modules can break and toxic materials can leach into the soil, causing problems with drinking water. Solar panels can be recycled but the cost of recycling is generally more than the economic value of the material recovered.”
I find it both amusing and amazing how often the toxic waste issue gets totally ignored whenever the issue of renewables arises. If solar is going to replace coal and natural gas on a large scale for our electricity needs, hundreds of millions and billions of solar panels will be needed over time because of the low energy density of solar compared with fossil fuels and nuclear. The toxic waste buildup problem will be an absolute nightmare.
Not that you care about the toxic waste issue……or do you TFN?
Not many. There was an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) survey done in the US that showed that 31% of fire departments have never practiced putting out even a small lithium EV fire and over half don’t have any special procedures in place to deal with them. As far as a big lithium fire is concerned I don’t think any would know what to do other than letting it burn out.
At least the spontaneous battery fires did not take place in the garages of people’s houses.
Wow, it does not get much better than this.
The Washington, DC, perpetrators of these EV follies want to be re-elected to have power over you, to use more of your money, to do more of the same follies, “for as long as it takes”
All that is even more true, because the EV charging stations are unreliable, often are out of service, and to top it of, EVs are unreliable, have high repair bills, and have poor range in cold weather, especially when having more than one passenger, and some cargo, and going uphill, on cold, snowy days, as in New England, etc.
..
Currently, the vast majority of charging infrastructure is concentrated in more densely populated coastal areas, as opposed to more rural areas of the country, according to the Department of Energy (DOE).
Almost all people in rural areas, often with dirt roads, and snow and ice and cold, and longer distances, are definitely not giving up their pick-ups and SUVs to “switch to EVs”, especially in impoverished states, such as Maine and Vermont. Their Socialist governments lost all sense of reality, and think money grows on trees.
Insurance Costs Very High: EV insurance rates are about 3 times the rate of gasoline vehicles, completely wiping out any energy savings. Monthly Payments Very High: Because EVs are more expensive and interest rates are high, monthly payments are much higher than for gasoline cars, completely wiping out any benefits of subsidies. Useful Service Life Very Short: EV useful service lives are very short, usually at most 8 years.
No one in his/her right mind, would spend at least $15,000 to $20,000 to replace a battery in an 8-y-old EV, which by then. would have lost almost all of its value, unlike a gasoline vehicle. Charging Cost Very High: EV charging cost is very high, usually at least 30 c/kWh.
As a result, annual fuel cost savings are minimal, because EVs are driven fewer miles per year than gasoline cars, and the price of gasoline is about $3.20/gallon Minimal CO2 Reduction: EVs, driven, on average, about 72,000 miles for 8 years, do not reduce CO2 emissions compared to efficient gasoline vehicles, if CO2 evaluations are made on a mine to hazardous-waste landfill basis. Range Usually Much Less Than Advertised: EV owners experience much less range than advertised by EPA, especially with more than one passenger, with some luggage or a heavy load, cold weather, up and down hills, on wet/snowy dirt roads, hot weather, etc.
Teslas EVs, driven 75,000 to 80,000 miles, will have lost about 15 to 20% of battery capacity at end of year 8.
If traveling with one or more passengers, with some luggage, was a challenge on a longer trip, and even more of a challenge on a cold/snowy day, then an older EV has all that, and more, which is a good reason not to buy one. Charging Batteries at Less than 32 F: If an EV owner parks at an airport, goes away for a few days or a week, upon return he/she may find the EV with an empty battery, if during that week the weather were below freezing, because the battery thermal management system, BTMS, will maintain battery temperature, until the battery is empty, then the battery freezes to below 32F, or less.
Charging would not be allowed, until the battery is warmed up in a garage.
You would have to wait your turn to get a tow to the warm garage, pay about $500, get charged, and be on your way, after 8 hours or so!! Losing Value After 3 Years: Used EVs retain about 60% of their high original value, whereas gasoline vehicles retain at least 70% of their not so high original value, by the end of year 3.
Losing 40% of a $45,000 EV = $18,000
Losing 30% of $35,000 gasoline vehicle = $10,500 The loss difference wipes out any subsidies.
A very clear explanation of why they can’t just subsidize EVs. They must ban ICE cars so that they can drop the unsustainable EV subsidies. If you can’t afford an EV they don’t care because taking away your freedom of movement is the whole point in the first place.
The next logical step which I’m actually surprised we haven’t heard yet is that they need to phase out all gasoline and diesel production so that we don’t end up with Havana Syndrome (maintaining old cars decades past their expected useful life).
When the story plays out, most people will have to go without a personal vehicle other than their e-bike perhaps. Only the Politburo will be taking private transportation. Even those privileged enough to afford an EV will be subject to restrictions on when and where they may travel enforced by remote kill-switch software.
There has been a fair amount of discussion here and on other sites about the likely duration of the current El Niño. I don’t generally do forecasts, but I will make an exception here. This prediction is based solely on observations of historical temperature data variations. Plus, if the forecast is incorrect, that would be interesting too because of the deviation from past temperature data patterns.
One of the primary indicators, and classification, of El Niño/La Niña events is the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI), which is the rolling three-month average of the sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly in the Niño-3.4 region in the equatorial Pacific Ocean (5oN-5oS, 120o-170oW). In my view, it is instructive to look at the measured SST values instead of simply focussing on the ONI (anomaly) values derived from them. In the plot below, the monthly SST values are shown by the red line and the climatology (average SST over a 30-year base period) is shown in blue. The difference between the two curves reflects the monthly anomaly values, which are then averaged over three months to obtain the ONI value. I have updated the reported SST value for November; December values should be available in the next few days.
A number of interesting observations can be made on the basis of this plot (which can be shown back to 1950, but loses clarity with too much compressed data). A key, and clearly observable, characteristic of the two very strong El Niño events shown here (1997-1998 and 2015-2016) is that the end of the El Niño coincides within a month or so of the peak SST of the 30-year average, which is in May. This characteristic is seen in every strong or very strong El Niño event since 1950 (8 in total) with only one exception, the 1987-1988 event, which ‘merged’ with the prior year moderate El Niño and seems to have been affected by it. So, my prediction for the current El Niño, which looks likely to be classified as ‘strong’, is that it will be over by May, plus or minus a month.
It appears the Nino 1.2 region has already fallen back into the normal range. That’s a good indicator that Nino 3.4 should start to cool soon. The subsurface currents do not show any obvious cooling yet which probably means a few more months of El Nino warmth. I’d say April-May looks like the best choice.
More interesting than the exact date is most models are forecasting a La Nina will follow. That could lead to a major dip in global temperature right during the US presidential campaign.
The other interesting observation is that the ENSO 3.4 region isn’t warming. This is interesting because the rest of ocean is. What this does is amplify the effect of La Ninas and attenuate the effect of El Ninos. We are seeing this in the MEI – ONI value. As of today the ONI is 1.8 (strong El Nino) but the MEI is only 0.8 (weak El Nino). There is a shift to move from the ONI to the RONI (relative ONI). The RONI is currently 1.3. [Oldenborgh et al. 2021]
I disagree. SSTs in the Niño-3.4 region are warming and this is most obvious from the observed maximum (El Niño) and minimum (La Niña) SSTs, both of which have increased by about 1C since 1950.
Using calculated trends over short periods where the seasonal variations are so large will suffer from significant uncertainties due to the end effects. I am using the full SST data set from 1950 as used to compute the published ONI data. I see no reason in limiting it to the UAH data for the purposes of my analysis, though I have of course studied that too.
I don’t disagree with using a broader date range. And my post wasn’t meant as a criticism of your analysis. It is but another interesting observation over a period for which WUWT participants have traditionally been more tolerant of. And, of course, UAH is featured on the home page.
Yes, it looks like we’ve had weaker El Nino events and stronger La Nina events. This allows those pushing AGW to claim that ENSO has been a cooling influence.
I’m not “pushing AGW” at all. My view is that the current mild warming is wholly beneficial and may be mostly unrelated to CO2. But I think it’s likely that ENSO is an emergent phenomenon that has a net cooling influence on the ocean. Under the current (past 50 years) state of the climate that is, regardless of why it’s warming (AGW or NGW).
The oceans are “blowing off steam” reducing the rate of ocean heat accumulation. (More accurately surface layer ocean heat content). Paradoxically that warms the atmosphere, so the idea that ENSO has a cooling influence may seem counter-intuitive.
Why the oceans are warming is a different question. The warming is famously correlated with increasing CO2, but correlation does not demonstrate causation. To me it remains possible that part or even most of the warming (delayed cooling) is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (GHE), but it might also be a very minor factor.
I agree with those who say that other than El Niño events, there hasn’t been much atmospheric warming. Where we apparently disagree is on whether that precludes enhanced GHE as a primary/significant or minor cause of the ocean warming that drives El Niño events.
I’m not entirely sure that both sides aren’t right in this; that given either a warming or cooling cycle in the Pacific, that the El Nino/La Nina system might either cool or warm. Maintaining a warm level in a cool period then cooling during a warm period, almost like a governor – we’ve seen something like this occur with cloud systems before so it seems plausible.
Right, Richard, that’s actually what I was trying to express.
It’s an oscillation which releases ocean heat into the atmosphere during the Niño phase and then warms the ocean again during the Niña phase. It’s two (or more?) physical mechanisms opposing each other. One “goes too far” and so the opposing effect emerges and eventually dominates until it too “goes too far” causing the original effect to emerge and then dominate.
If we’re in a climatic trend of more energy accumulation in the sea surface layer, then ENSO should result in net transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere over the full ENSO cycle. That I referred to as ‘cooling’ the ocean, but more accurately the ocean could still be accumulating energy and thus increasing in temperature, just not as fast as it would have accumulated energy absent the ENSO mechanism.
It’s as though ENSO is like the difference between boiling water in a saucepan with the lid off or on. Convective ‘cooling’ off the liquid surface delays boiling if the pan is not covered, yet the water is still getting hotter.
But it’s not all Niño all the time. It’s an oscillation. During the Niñas we see pauses or even dips in temperature, despite the long-term warming trend.
Now if the energy input at the surface starts to trend down, so that the oceans are in a long-term cooling trend, then we should see the opposite effect—temperature drops alternating with pauses or even short periods of warming.
And if energy input holds stable, ENSO would alternate between warming the atmosphere and then cooling it back down again with no long-term trend.
Seventy-one percent of the earth surface is ocean. It seems intuitively obvious to me that the oceans should have a dominant effect on atmospheric temperature. But 29% land surface is not negligible, so there are certainly other effects in the incredibly complex climate system.
I believe I was the one who initiated the discussion. I was basing my ‘prediction’ on the UAH temperature graph, not on an index that smears out the definition.
If the behavior of lower-troposphere temperatures is different from the past, it will raise the obvious question of “Why?”
Yes and I responded to your comment on that thread, but I guess you had moved on by then. I am using the SSTs for that reason too – avoiding the ONI index. ONI is partly smeared (3 month average) and it is also de-trended by applying a moving baseline.
strativarius
December 31, 2023 5:37 am
Gen Z discovers vinyl
“”…this isn’t only about music. LPs are objects. They offer a haptic experience as well as an aural one: the gentle easing of the record from its sleeve; the dainty lowering of the needle on to the disc. The fingers stretch over its liquorice expanses, the thumb carefully finding its middle. Its packaging is deliberate and important, a vital part of the whole. The cover may be a work of art in its own right, with or without extensive sleeve notes. Or it may make some other kind of point.”” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/31/the-observer-view-on-the-joys-of-the-vinyl-record-resurgence
Keep this just between you and me so that the Just Stop Plastic mob doesn’t hear about it: When I go on my summer camp-outs in the mountains and the firewood is a bit too damp to easily light up, I use my old VHS tapes discs as firestarters to get the wood warm enough and dried out enough to catch fire. Once you get one of those cassette boxes going, they don’t go out.
“Singularities don’t exist,” claims black hole pioneer Roy Kerr
The brilliant mind who discovered the spacetime solution for rotating black holes claims singularities don’t physically exist. Is he right?
By Ethan Siegel
December 31, 2023
“The theorist who laid the foundation for how realistic black holes form in the Universe, Roger Penrose, subsequently won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2020 for his contributions to physics, including for the notion that a singularity must exist at the center of every black hole.
But in a surprising twist, the legendary physicist who discovered the spacetime solution for rotating black holes — Roy Kerr, way back in 1963 — has just written a new paper challenging that idea with some very compelling arguments. Here’s why, perhaps, singularities may not exist within every black hole, and what the key issues are that we should all be thinking about.. .
“The problem with Hawking & Penrose
It’s kind of remarkable, if you go back in history, to realize how much of our acceptance of the existence of a singularity depends on an unproven assertion.”
end excerpts
I found this article very interesting. A little mind-bending, but very interesting. 🙂
Unproven assertions are not limited to black holes. That’s all we have in alarmist climate science is unproven assertions.
Many years ago Penrose had developed a 2-D non-repeating tiling. Then he found that one of the big paper companies produced a toilet roll allegedly with this tiling on it and he filed suit or threatened to for having violated his intellectual property. It seemed to me that if the disguishing characteristic of his IP was that it filled space without repeating, then it was nigh impossible for a toilet roll to duplicate it because the pattern on the roll as manufactured (and I have been in paper mills) just about has to repeat, and not over any long distance either. It was all a very weird news report. I never did learn the outcome.
I have spent decades on the periphery of academia, in and out of faculty positions in a variety of departments, alternating with stints consulting in a variety of industries, and I find academics are highly over-rated. There are some very wise and intelligent people among the faculty and adminstration, but there are others, brilliant though they may be but in a such a narrow sense that they come close to what Richard Greene often says; knowing everything about nothing.
“It seemed to me that if the disguishing characteristic of his IP was that it filled space without repeating, then it was nigh impossible for a toilet roll to duplicate it”
Even if the toilet roll did duplicate itself, how would one know? At some point it might duplicate, but when? It could be a long time theorectically.
It sounds like a crazy lawsuit.
“and I find academics are highly over-rated”
I do, too, and more evidence of it is made available every day in the news, with alarmist climate change leading the unsubstantiated-claim pack when it comes to unproven assertions made by supposedly intelligent people.
It appears to me that too many people can’t tell the difference between evidence/facts, and speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions.
I think in the future there should be a required course in schools that teaches how to tell the difference between fact and science fiction.
““Singularities don’t exist,” claims black hole pioneer Roy Kerr”
I remember reading a book about black holes decades ago. Ring singularities were known back then. That is, a rotating black hole would have a ring singularity instead of a point singularity.
I don’t know what happens inside a black hole, but there’s a time dilation as you approach the event horizon. It takes an infinite amount of time to approach the event horizon as viewed from far outside the black hole. If so and if Hawking radiation is true, then the black hole will evaporate long before the event horizon is reached.
It’s obvious that black holes can increase in size. In that case, what happens when the event horizon extends beyond your position, is probably unknown. I always thought that approaching the singularity as viewed from far outside the black hole would also take an infinite amount of time. So the same argument applies. However . . . .
Story tip:
Wind and solar are intermittent, widely variable in minutes.Transmission and Distribution grid operations are managed in fractions of a second! So the issue is “what is the real cost of equivalent wind/solar energy production?”.
I would like to see examples of actual individual array power output (kW, MW–not kWH,or MWh) on a minute scale.
Then the same scale and output of a fossil unit.
The capacity “gaps” will be easier to understand. And the necessary running or available make-up capacity will be clear…and on what scale or timing difference.
The issue of make-up capacity for grid compensated or on-site fuel or battery produced will be clearer than arithmetic manipulations and claims.
Sample visuals of the experienced gaps in wind/solar could educate clearer to public.
The cost of wind/solar for consistency could then be shown consistent with grid operations and specific for sample arrays of installed wind or solar systems.
Hourly is misleading and doesn’t show the zero or very low generation periods. Time frames for frequency, voltage or current surges is in cycles (1/60 second at 60HZ). Large magnitude faults or machine failures are potential widespread area blackouts if not isolated in minutes (?)
Clouds change output of a solar array immediately (seconds, minutes? ). The sun angle changes continuously before and after solar noon. Wind changes direction and speed within seconds, minutes…large wind turbines take significant time to optimize. Wind machines also have high wind limits to prevent damage.
Actual installation outputs on a shorter time scale are needed to show the critical need for significant, total make-up capacity for short to long time period wind and solar output intermittency.
Recall that energy is tabulated in metering by demand over a select time period. !00 kW for 1/100 of a minute is the same energy as 1kW for 1 minute. 100 kW for 4/100 of a minute is the same energy as 25kW for 1 minute. (Check my math please) . That is a lot of difference compared to rotating machines on a transmission/distribution system.
Would like to hear from grid operators on what is managed (frequency, voltage, phase angles, MVA, etc) and on what time frames (cycles, seconds, minutes, continuously, or with intervention, etc?).
Individual W/S systems have up/down outputs with varying ramp rates.
The varying ramp rates are smoothed by quick reacting gas turbines or t/g sets, and in very woke grids with lots of money, by battery systems.
The up/down outputs are smoothed by slower reacting CCGTs and hydro plants.
Some plants are so slow-reacting, they do not contribute to the smoothing, such as nuclear and coal plants; they just go on and on at high outputs. They provide the base load and do some load following.
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging EXCERPT: Batteries Far from an Economic Alternative to Power Plant Fleets
Turnkey capital costs of large scale-battery systems are $575/installed kWh; based on 2023 pricing of Tesla-Megapack systems. See article
With 6.5% money on a 50% bank loan, and 10% for owner return on a 50% investment, and 19% loss from HV grid to HV grid, and 15-y life:
At 10% throughput, the delivered electricity cost is about 184.5 c/kWh, no subsidies, about 92.3 c/kWh with 50% subsidies, on top of the 6 c/kWh cost of the electricity drawn from the HV grid to charge the batteries
At 40% throughput, about 23.1 c/kWh, on top of the 6 c/kWh Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% loss from HV grid-to-HV grid, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites.
NOTE: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging
Why should electric customers and taxpayers pay for make-up capacity to accept wind/ solar into the grids?
Why don’t the intermittent sources provide full equivalent, dispatchable capacity?
They should each have full onsite make-up capacity and fuel to deliver electricity with all the features required for grid equivalency.
That would make all sources the same, electrically, and each would be selected on lowest cost.
The climate crisis enthusiasts would be thrilled at the new honest transparency!
Ha!
I would be great to force W/S owners to provide counter-acting capacity, MW, to provide a steady MW to the grid, 24/7/365, plus get no subsidies and receive only grid prices, like all other generators
Why don’t the intermittent sources provide full equivalent, dispatchable capacity?
There would be no “renewable” generation on the grid if this was a requirement.
Ponzi schemes work by shifting the cost from the first to get in the scheme, the beneficiaries, to the last entrants, the losers. The scheme gets to a saturation point then collapses.
Most of the Australian regions are already saturated with intermittents. New entrants lower the income of existing entrants. The Snowy 2 pumped hydro scheme will enable more intermittent supply but it may be working by the end of this decade. And the cost continue to spiral up. Its cost would go close to renewing the existing coal generators.
“Renewables” are unsustainable. They and the support system use more carbon in their manufacture than they can save. They are fossil fuel intensive. The world is simply shifting fossil fuel consumption to India and China as they become manufacturing hubs for all the useless junk being installed by countries that have demonised coal.
As David says nearby, the EIA dashborad is very interesting, but I wouldn’t mind seeing some minute by minute data as that is down near the ultimate time span where balance must occur.
I spent some time in the middle of wind turbine farms trying to record and come to an understanding of wind turbine noise. The best I can say is that it is elusive — not apparently possible to capture on good stereo recordings what the ear can hear. I digress. During one of these recording sessions there was a lull in the wind. I mean, the whole wind farm around me for a long distance (possbly many tens of MW or production) went dead in a matter of a minute or so, stayed dead for a time, then the wind returned abruptly. I would have loved to see that event on something like the EIA dashboard, minute by minute, along with how the remaining grid around this region dealt with it.
Alberta has a really good webpage for this, live updates every 30 seconds.
I have stopped on hwy1 beside Brooks on a mostly sunny day and watched as cumulonimbus clouds roll thru, the output dropping 60-70% in seconds then rebounding.
A nightmare for a grid operator if there is too much of this garbage power connected.
They will force many ratepayers and taxpayers to cary the cart for as long as it takes, aka subsidies for ever, to prove Hydrogen (and wind and solar and batteries and CO2 capture, and wave power, etc.) was a boondoggle to begin with, that made some Democrat insiders filthy rich, and screwed all others, for decades, with one hare-brained scheme after another.
The IMO (International Maritime Organisation) announced it will be introducing new, mandatory safety regulations and standards for ships carrying Lithium batteries either as a main cargo or as components in cars or other items during 2024. These will include new fire equipment such as battery-penetrating fire extinguishers, chemical fire supression equipment, special fire blankets and increased distance/dispersion between batteries. Shipping companies are also calling for all EV’s to be marked on the windscreen with the type of EV and it’s ground clearance. They also say that all Lithium batteries should have passed rigorous safety/crush tests according to the UN Manual of Tests of Criteria and that all EV’s carried should have certification proving they have an undamaged battery system. There are some rightfully nervous and annoyed people that want far more done to prevent shipboard fires and are not satisfied with governments semming to sweep the problems under the carpet.
There is a very nice letter from Clintel in my inbox this morning. It presents an interesting take on the just concluded COP28. Very optimistic that the focus is shifting from climate hysteria to energy supplies and prosperity.
It makes two propositions that I can agree with.
We need to broaden our focus from mainly CO2 to a wider “systems” sort of approach to climate.
That we all need to become as active as possible in the political and regulatory decisions, as these have to become better informed in order to vanquish the unscientific hysteria involved.
A Monday [12-18] storm in Maine resulted in a power outage so great its Board of Environmental Protection postponed a vote on electric vehicle mandates Thursday.
Rain across 14 of Maine’s 16 counties resulted in floods and an emergency order from Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME). Affected counties lost power as trees fell on power lines and towers were knocked over. While Central Maine Power was able to restore 92% of its customers by Thursday evening, BEP opted to postpone its meeting indefinitely.
BEP had a vote slated on an electric vehicle mandate for Thursday. The board was inviting residents to Augusta, Maine, to offer comment ahead of the vote. However, the Kennebec River, which runs through the city, flooded and made travel there difficult on top of the power outage.
The rule in question would mandate that 43% of new car sales for 2027 be zero-emission EVs and then increase that mandate to 82% by 2032. …
Found an interesting linear decline in cosmic ray counts for the Antartica Dome A and B cosmic ray detectors that appears to begin at the HT eruption date.
Covering all the bases Grauniad style
“”Climate scientists hail 2023 as ‘beginning of the end’ for fossil fuel era””
“”World will look back at 2023 as year humanity exposed its inability to tackle climate crisis, scientists say””
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/environment
Oh well
Well all they have to do, in years to come, is dust it off then change it to 2024, 2025, 2026 and so on – then they’re good to go, another New Years tradition up and running!
Just like ice free Arctic
There is good news regarding the energy transition. Since 1990, global CO₂ emissions have increased by more than 60 percent.
The plants are happy to hear that!
Didn’t know it until until after I did just a basic internet search of the typo name: there is a Twitter account called “The Grauniad Official Parody” @grauniadmeme https://twitter.com/grauniadmeme . A few years out of date, but with really funny Greta material among others.
Never mind Polar Bears and Puffins as markers for Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, use Florida instead. Florida was completely under water up to 30 million years ago, when enough ice started accumulating on land masses and sea level went down enough to establish terrestrial animals (first fossil around Gainsville in Oligocene). Then our planet enters an Ice Age, around 5 million years ago, and sea level goes up and down 120 to 160 meters, during inter or intra glacial phases. During a recent drive down to Key West (that should be on everyone’s bucket list, and be sure to eat at Hog Fish restaurant) I saw coral reef and re-worked, by Hurricanes, coral reef material. The highest land along the Keys is currently 18 feet. So, if you add another 10 feet, at least, for the sea level above that reef material, recent sea level along the Keys was 28 feet higher. Global Warming sea level rise? Call me when it goes up 28 feet, until then no anomaly signal, and no basis for CAGW theories.
Imagine prior to a hurricane, EV trucks trying to evacuate with boats in tow.
Towing a Mobil home?
Geologists have the best understanding of the Earth. It’s what they do- with the long view- unlike “climate scientists”- who claim to consider geology but focus too much on the short term.
My home is a mile above current sea level. But a mere seventy million years ago, the inland seas (probably at least twice over Earth’s history) were lapping against some sandy dunes several hundred feet higher. https://kuula.co/post/7yfPl/collection/7fQ4q
Along the beaches of modern-day Dinosaur Ridge, Morrison, are the footprints and bones of apatosaurs, stegasaurs (Colorado’s “State Dinosaur”), and other giants.
And the tide rises, the tide falls.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44651/the-tide-rises-the-tide-falls
Ron here is a picture from Wiki showing where shellfish used to live but is now dry land. There were reefs inland in Florida.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coquina
Interesting material, it was used in the construction of Castillo de San Marcus in St. Augustine in the late 1600’s by the Spanish. The fort is still standing.
Flexible power technologies will make Africa’s energy leapfrogging a reality
https://www.zawya.com/en/world/africa/flexible-power-technologies-will-make-africas-energy-leapfrogging-a-reality-jvu3h1p3
A puff piece if ever there were one.
“”Africa wants to exploit its fossil fuel for many more decades””
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/le-monde-africa/article/2022/05/27/climate-africa-wants-to-exploit-its-fossil-fuel-for-many-more-decades_5984870_124.html
Solar and Wind ARE NOT FLEXIBLE.
Wind only works when its windy
Solar only works during a few hours of daylight.
They are the EXACT OPPOSITE of flexible.
“As intermittent renewable energy becomes the new baseload”
These twerps are smoking way too much funny stuff !!
Levelized Cost of Energy by US-EIA
Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to exist on the grid.
With increased W/S percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny.
Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies
The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE “analyses”, are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems
Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.
The excluded LCOE items became quantifiable at about 8% W/S on the US grid, and will become exponentially greater, with increased W/S on the grid, as shown on European grids.
The EIA, etc., deceptions reinforced the oft-repeated industry mantra, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.
The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.
W/S would not even exist without at least 50% subsidies
W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without the last four freebies. See list.
1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S to load centers
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365
4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,
5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced
You want flexibility.
Go to COAL, GAS, and NUCLEAR.
And of course, the guys is talking about DIESEL GENERATORS.
Not the best way to virtue-seek a reduction in CO2 emissions. 😉
Yes it is Wartzila selling ICE generators, but they say “gas powered” not diesel. Hilarious.
Ah, “flexible power,” in other words, intermittent power is good enough for black people.
Exactly! Flexible as in you have to be flexible about when you use electricity and when you stop.
Do you really want to roast a turkey that takes 5 hours? What if the power goes out for 48 hours after half an hour? You shouldn’t be eating all that meat or having such a big family anyway. Here, munch on some bugs, peasant!
from that link
“renewables are the cheapest power generation option available today by a significant margin”
You get what you pay for!
Hmmm… Are people stupid? Why are China and India building enormous numbers of coal plants if solar and wind are cheaper?
benefit/cost
Yep, Solar and Wind, are much more expensive!
According to the IEA China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines currently account for 70% of world coal demand. They expect that China and India alone will account for more than 70% of global coal consumption by 2026.
IEA ‘Coal 2023 Analysis and forecast to 2026’ Dec. 2023
What does ‘cheaper’ mean in this context?
Certainly not the lowest cost for power guaranteed to be available on demand 24/7/365 with 99.9% availability which is not even as good as we are used to (0.1% downtime is 8 hrs 45 mins per year, in the past year I guess we had maybe an hour of downtime over a handful of short events).
Maybe if you’re flexible enough to only use power during the 25% of the time the wind blows at night or the slightly higher percentage of time that either solar or wind is available during the day, then you could make that claim.
If you need storage in the form of batteries, pumped hydro, or “green” hydrogen sufficient to achieve even a lackluster 99.0% uptime (87.5 hrs downtime per year or about an hour and 40 mins every week if equally spaced), the total cost per KW-hr rises way above that of hydro, fossil fuels and nuclear.
It turns out that the up-front capital cost of wind and solar are far higher than conventional as well.
The “Leading Light Wind” project has a nameplate rating of 2100 MW and the actual preliminary estimate of the project cost is $8.2 billion + $ 5.1 billion in Supply Chain Investment Plans (https://leadinglightwind.Com/about-project ). Derating to 40% for offshore wind that’s 840 MW. $13,300,000,000 / 840 = $15,833,333/ MW.
Ah, another data point. Atlantic Shores Offshore Wind https://www.power-technology.com/marketdata/atlantic-shores-offshore-wind-farm-us/ has a 1,510 MW nameplate rating and a $7.290 billion cost. Derating to the usual 40% for offshore wind that’s 604 MW. $7.290 billion / 604 = $12,069,536/MW.
Duke Energy brought its 625 MW Sutton combined cycle natural gas plant https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/081115-combined-cycle-gas-fired-unit-costs-coming-in-below-expectations-duke in at $551 Million. $551 Million/ 625 MW = $881,600/MW.
These are real numbers from real projects, not theoretical models. This is why conventional plants are profitable and green nonsense requires enormous subsidies.
(840MW)(24hr/day)(365days/yr)(15 yrs)(1000KW/MW)
=110,376,000,000KW-hr
$13,300,000,000/110,376,000,000KW-hr
= $0.1205/KW-hr
Now that’s just to amortize the initial capital cost over what may well be an optimistic 15-year useful life. How much more is needed to maintain the bird shredders during operation? The retail price of that electricity has to cover transmission and profit as well.
So, yes. Offshore wind is several multiples the cost of a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) based on your evidence.
And the next question would be how much CO2 emissions are needed to produce, deploy, and maintain those windmills? Over their useful lifetime how many tons of CO2 are avoided compared with CCGT (if any)?
And this is why Climastrology has the doctrine of the Miracle of Commercial Fusion.
TFN,
The idea of flexibility doesn’t mean a heck of a lot when there is a serious toxic waste issue with renewables and with solar panels in particular.
http://tinyurl.com/2buyn4ha
“Solar panels contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. While disposal of solar panels has taken place in regular landfills, it is not recommended because the modules can break and toxic materials can leach into the soil, causing problems with drinking water. Solar panels can be recycled but the cost of recycling is generally more than the economic value of the material recovered.”
I find it both amusing and amazing how often the toxic waste issue gets totally ignored whenever the issue of renewables arises. If solar is going to replace coal and natural gas on a large scale for our electricity needs, hundreds of millions and billions of solar panels will be needed over time because of the low energy density of solar compared with fossil fuels and nuclear. The toxic waste buildup problem will be an absolute nightmare.
Not that you care about the toxic waste issue……or do you TFN?
Happy New Year to all, including you TFN.
Oops, MUN not TFN.
It’s easy to confuse the two, both have a biased viewpoint that is completely at odds with reality.
Are you saying that the Rusty Nail changed monikers to Lusername?
Two hours and change left in 2023 in my part of the world.
2024? Good health and success!!! (Scientists say)
It just turned into 2024 a few minutes ago here. Happy New Year. 🎉
Well, it looks like we have another ship on fire caused by lithium batteries:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cargo-ship-carrying-burning-lithium-ion-batteries-kept-offshore-alaska-rcna131729
Cargo ship carrying burning lithium-ion batteries kept offshore of Alaska port
Luckily this is (so far) contained to the cargo hold. When will they learn?
That infra-red image, almost make the ship look transparent!
Why would lithium batteries be going to Dutch Harbor, Alaska? Seems an odd destination.
They weren’t – the ship got diverted to Alaska away from its original destination of San Diego.
Ah, thnx.
In California, more battery fires are needed to finally wake up the brainwashed woke folks
Are we sure that it wasn’t the fault of smuggled children playing with matches?
I wonder how many fire departments are prepared to fight big lithium fires?
Not many. There was an NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) survey done in the US that showed that 31% of fire departments have never practiced putting out even a small lithium EV fire and over half don’t have any special procedures in place to deal with them. As far as a big lithium fire is concerned I don’t think any would know what to do other than letting it burn out.
PotentialBabylonBee2024Headline™: “Lithium-Ion Battery Fires 61% Contributors to Climate Change—Scientists Fear Figure May Double by 2025”
Well played Russell. Predicting the satirical headlines that predict the real future headlines.
When I grow up (don’t wait for it) that’s what I want to do: cross the Pacific on a container ship carrying lithium batteries.
Death Wish VI
Putin did it!
At least the spontaneous battery fires did not take place in the garages of people’s houses.
Wow, it does not get much better than this.
The Washington, DC, perpetrators of these EV follies want to be re-elected to have power over you, to use more of your money, to do more of the same follies, “for as long as it takes”
All that is even more true, because the EV charging stations are unreliable, often are out of service, and to top it of, EVs are unreliable, have high repair bills, and have poor range in cold weather, especially when having more than one passenger, and some cargo, and going uphill, on cold, snowy days, as in New England, etc.
..
Currently, the vast majority of charging infrastructure is concentrated in more densely populated coastal areas, as opposed to more rural areas of the country, according to the Department of Energy (DOE).
Almost all people in rural areas, often with dirt roads, and snow and ice and cold, and longer distances, are definitely not giving up their pick-ups and SUVs to “switch to EVs”, especially in impoverished states, such as Maine and Vermont. Their Socialist governments lost all sense of reality, and think money grows on trees.
Insurance Costs Very High: EV insurance rates are about 3 times the rate of gasoline vehicles, completely wiping out any energy savings.
Monthly Payments Very High: Because EVs are more expensive and interest rates are high, monthly payments are much higher than for gasoline cars, completely wiping out any benefits of subsidies.
Useful Service Life Very Short: EV useful service lives are very short, usually at most 8 years.
No one in his/her right mind, would spend at least $15,000 to $20,000 to replace a battery in an 8-y-old EV, which by then. would have lost almost all of its value, unlike a gasoline vehicle.
Charging Cost Very High: EV charging cost is very high, usually at least 30 c/kWh.
As a result, annual fuel cost savings are minimal, because EVs are driven fewer miles per year than gasoline cars, and the price of gasoline is about $3.20/gallon
Minimal CO2 Reduction: EVs, driven, on average, about 72,000 miles for 8 years, do not reduce CO2 emissions compared to efficient gasoline vehicles, if CO2 evaluations are made on a mine to hazardous-waste landfill basis.
Range Usually Much Less Than Advertised: EV owners experience much less range than advertised by EPA, especially with more than one passenger, with some luggage or a heavy load, cold weather, up and down hills, on wet/snowy dirt roads, hot weather, etc.
Teslas EVs, driven 75,000 to 80,000 miles, will have lost about 15 to 20% of battery capacity at end of year 8.
If traveling with one or more passengers, with some luggage, was a challenge on a longer trip, and even more of a challenge on a cold/snowy day, then an older EV has all that, and more, which is a good reason not to buy one.
Charging Batteries at Less than 32 F: If an EV owner parks at an airport, goes away for a few days or a week, upon return he/she may find the EV with an empty battery, if during that week the weather were below freezing, because the battery thermal management system, BTMS, will maintain battery temperature, until the battery is empty, then the battery freezes to below 32F, or less.
Charging would not be allowed, until the battery is warmed up in a garage.
You would have to wait your turn to get a tow to the warm garage, pay about $500, get charged, and be on your way, after 8 hours or so!!
Losing Value After 3 Years: Used EVs retain about 60% of their high original value, whereas gasoline vehicles retain at least 70% of their not so high original value, by the end of year 3.
Losing 40% of a $45,000 EV = $18,000
Losing 30% of $35,000 gasoline vehicle = $10,500
The loss difference wipes out any subsidies.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/investors-are-avoiding-evs-a-key-pillar-of-biden-s-climate-agenda
A very clear explanation of why they can’t just subsidize EVs. They must ban ICE cars so that they can drop the unsustainable EV subsidies. If you can’t afford an EV they don’t care because taking away your freedom of movement is the whole point in the first place.
The next logical step which I’m actually surprised we haven’t heard yet is that they need to phase out all gasoline and diesel production so that we don’t end up with Havana Syndrome (maintaining old cars decades past their expected useful life).
When the story plays out, most people will have to go without a personal vehicle other than their e-bike perhaps. Only the Politburo will be taking private transportation. Even those privileged enough to afford an EV will be subject to restrictions on when and where they may travel enforced by remote kill-switch software.
great comment.
Will add verbiage to my article
There has been a fair amount of discussion here and on other sites about the likely duration of the current El Niño. I don’t generally do forecasts, but I will make an exception here. This prediction is based solely on observations of historical temperature data variations. Plus, if the forecast is incorrect, that would be interesting too because of the deviation from past temperature data patterns.
One of the primary indicators, and classification, of El Niño/La Niña events is the Oceanic Niño Index (ONI), which is the rolling three-month average of the sea surface temperature (SST) anomaly in the Niño-3.4 region in the equatorial Pacific Ocean (5oN-5oS, 120o-170oW). In my view, it is instructive to look at the measured SST values instead of simply focussing on the ONI (anomaly) values derived from them. In the plot below, the monthly SST values are shown by the red line and the climatology (average SST over a 30-year base period) is shown in blue. The difference between the two curves reflects the monthly anomaly values, which are then averaged over three months to obtain the ONI value. I have updated the reported SST value for November; December values should be available in the next few days.
A number of interesting observations can be made on the basis of this plot (which can be shown back to 1950, but loses clarity with too much compressed data). A key, and clearly observable, characteristic of the two very strong El Niño events shown here (1997-1998 and 2015-2016) is that the end of the El Niño coincides within a month or so of the peak SST of the 30-year average, which is in May. This characteristic is seen in every strong or very strong El Niño event since 1950 (8 in total) with only one exception, the 1987-1988 event, which ‘merged’ with the prior year moderate El Niño and seems to have been affected by it. So, my prediction for the current El Niño, which looks likely to be classified as ‘strong’, is that it will be over by May, plus or minus a month.
When this was raised a few weeks ago, I thought April so we’ll have to see what happens. Should be interesting either way.
Yes, interesting. May I ask what was the primary basis for your prediction.
Like yours, previous patterns of development – it seemed to fit an earlier pattern with a shorter duration.
Well that and a complete guess. If it does finish in April, as opposed to May or June, I’ll be just as surprised!
This is the sort of study, I like to see. Analysis of historical data, and a tentative prediction. Without doom mongering. 🤞
Thank you Bob. Much appreciated.
It appears the Nino 1.2 region has already fallen back into the normal range. That’s a good indicator that Nino 3.4 should start to cool soon. The subsurface currents do not show any obvious cooling yet which probably means a few more months of El Nino warmth. I’d say April-May looks like the best choice.
More interesting than the exact date is most models are forecasting a La Nina will follow. That could lead to a major dip in global temperature right during the US presidential campaign.
The other interesting observation is that the ENSO 3.4 region isn’t warming. This is interesting because the rest of ocean is. What this does is amplify the effect of La Ninas and attenuate the effect of El Ninos. We are seeing this in the MEI – ONI value. As of today the ONI is 1.8 (strong El Nino) but the MEI is only 0.8 (weak El Nino). There is a shift to move from the ONI to the RONI (relative ONI). The RONI is currently 1.3. [Oldenborgh et al. 2021]
I disagree. SSTs in the Niño-3.4 region are warming and this is most obvious from the observed maximum (El Niño) and minimum (La Niña) SSTs, both of which have increased by about 1C since 1950.
I should have been more clear.
The trend in the ENSO 3.4 region since 1979 is -0.02 C/decade.
The trend in the global region since 1979 is +0.12 C/decade.
So over the UAH period of record the difference between the global SST and ENSO 3.4 SST has expanded by 0.61 C.
When viewed relative to the global perspective La Ninas are strengthening and El Ninos are weakening.
Using calculated trends over short periods where the seasonal variations are so large will suffer from significant uncertainties due to the end effects. I am using the full SST data set from 1950 as used to compute the published ONI data. I see no reason in limiting it to the UAH data for the purposes of my analysis, though I have of course studied that too.
I don’t disagree with using a broader date range. And my post wasn’t meant as a criticism of your analysis. It is but another interesting observation over a period for which WUWT participants have traditionally been more tolerant of. And, of course, UAH is featured on the home page.
We love UAH! 🙂
Yes, it looks like we’ve had weaker El Nino events and stronger La Nina events. This allows those pushing AGW to claim that ENSO has been a cooling influence.
It is also suggestive of a negative feedback loop constraining warming.
Negative feedback…yeah possible.
I’m not “pushing AGW” at all. My view is that the current mild warming is wholly beneficial and may be mostly unrelated to CO2. But I think it’s likely that ENSO is an emergent phenomenon that has a net cooling influence on the ocean. Under the current (past 50 years) state of the climate that is, regardless of why it’s warming (AGW or NGW).
The oceans are “blowing off steam” reducing the rate of ocean heat accumulation. (More accurately surface layer ocean heat content). Paradoxically that warms the atmosphere, so the idea that ENSO has a cooling influence may seem counter-intuitive.
Why the oceans are warming is a different question. The warming is famously correlated with increasing CO2, but correlation does not demonstrate causation. To me it remains possible that part or even most of the warming (delayed cooling) is due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (GHE), but it might also be a very minor factor.
I agree with those who say that other than El Niño events, there hasn’t been much atmospheric warming. Where we apparently disagree is on whether that precludes enhanced GHE as a primary/significant or minor cause of the ocean warming that drives El Niño events.
I’m not entirely sure that both sides aren’t right in this; that given either a warming or cooling cycle in the Pacific, that the El Nino/La Nina system might either cool or warm. Maintaining a warm level in a cool period then cooling during a warm period, almost like a governor – we’ve seen something like this occur with cloud systems before so it seems plausible.
Right, Richard, that’s actually what I was trying to express.
It’s an oscillation which releases ocean heat into the atmosphere during the Niño phase and then warms the ocean again during the Niña phase. It’s two (or more?) physical mechanisms opposing each other. One “goes too far” and so the opposing effect emerges and eventually dominates until it too “goes too far” causing the original effect to emerge and then dominate.
If we’re in a climatic trend of more energy accumulation in the sea surface layer, then ENSO should result in net transfer of heat from the oceans to the atmosphere over the full ENSO cycle. That I referred to as ‘cooling’ the ocean, but more accurately the ocean could still be accumulating energy and thus increasing in temperature, just not as fast as it would have accumulated energy absent the ENSO mechanism.
It’s as though ENSO is like the difference between boiling water in a saucepan with the lid off or on. Convective ‘cooling’ off the liquid surface delays boiling if the pan is not covered, yet the water is still getting hotter.
But it’s not all Niño all the time. It’s an oscillation. During the Niñas we see pauses or even dips in temperature, despite the long-term warming trend.
Now if the energy input at the surface starts to trend down, so that the oceans are in a long-term cooling trend, then we should see the opposite effect—temperature drops alternating with pauses or even short periods of warming.
And if energy input holds stable, ENSO would alternate between warming the atmosphere and then cooling it back down again with no long-term trend.
Seventy-one percent of the earth surface is ocean. It seems intuitively obvious to me that the oceans should have a dominant effect on atmospheric temperature. But 29% land surface is not negligible, so there are certainly other effects in the incredibly complex climate system.
I believe I was the one who initiated the discussion. I was basing my ‘prediction’ on the UAH temperature graph, not on an index that smears out the definition.
If the behavior of lower-troposphere temperatures is different from the past, it will raise the obvious question of “Why?”
Tongan eruption?
The Tongan eruption is certainly something that should be considered if this El Nino turns out to be anomalous.
Yes and I responded to your comment on that thread, but I guess you had moved on by then. I am using the SSTs for that reason too – avoiding the ONI index. ONI is partly smeared (3 month average) and it is also de-trended by applying a moving baseline.
Gen Z discovers vinyl
“”…this isn’t only about music. LPs are objects. They offer a haptic experience as well as an aural one: the gentle easing of the record from its sleeve; the dainty lowering of the needle on to the disc. The fingers stretch over its liquorice expanses, the thumb carefully finding its middle. Its packaging is deliberate and important, a vital part of the whole. The cover may be a work of art in its own right, with or without extensive sleeve notes. Or it may make some other kind of point.””
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/31/the-observer-view-on-the-joys-of-the-vinyl-record-resurgence
Next week cassette and 8 track tape
They’re forgetting about the scratches which detract from the sound and may ruin the LP.
Give them time, it’s all, we’ll, very new
I imagine LPs could become all the rage at Just Stop Oil banquets.
Keep this just between you and me so that the Just Stop Plastic mob doesn’t hear about it: When I go on my summer camp-outs in the mountains and the firewood is a bit too damp to easily light up, I use my old VHS tapes discs as firestarters to get the wood warm enough and dried out enough to catch fire. Once you get one of those cassette boxes going, they don’t go out.
Typo – “my old VHS tapes and CD discs” (we still need an Edit feature here)
Wait til they try and count the lion heads on Santana’s first LP.
I can hear Santana now. Somebody told me his wife was playing the drums as part of the introduction segment, at a recent televised NFL football game.
I listen to 103.3, the Eagle, Tulsa, Ok for Classical Rock. One of the best around.
“They offer a haptic experience”
That made me laugh! 🙂
https://www.freethink.com/space/black-holes-singularities
“Singularities don’t exist,” claims black hole pioneer Roy Kerr
The brilliant mind who discovered the spacetime solution for rotating black holes claims singularities don’t physically exist. Is he right?
By Ethan Siegel
December 31, 2023
“The theorist who laid the foundation for how realistic black holes form in the Universe, Roger Penrose, subsequently won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2020 for his contributions to physics, including for the notion that a singularity must exist at the center of every black hole.
But in a surprising twist, the legendary physicist who discovered the spacetime solution for rotating black holes — Roy Kerr, way back in 1963 — has just written a new paper challenging that idea with some very compelling arguments. Here’s why, perhaps, singularities may not exist within every black hole, and what the key issues are that we should all be thinking about.. .
“The problem with Hawking & Penrose
It’s kind of remarkable, if you go back in history, to realize how much of our acceptance of the existence of a singularity depends on an unproven assertion.”
end excerpts
I found this article very interesting. A little mind-bending, but very interesting. 🙂
Unproven assertions are not limited to black holes. That’s all we have in alarmist climate science is unproven assertions.
Penrose and Hawking were/are basically brilliant mathematicians.
I’m basically a simple engineer.
In Physics and Engineering many solutions to problems lead to infinite answers.
Physicists and Mathematicians tend to believe these answers and call it a singularity.
Engineers know that materials change their behaviour by devices such as cracking (in concrete) or plasticity (in steel) and the singularity goes away.
So can the physics at the centre of a black hole change in a way that is hidden from our view and is at present unknown to us?
Many years ago Penrose had developed a 2-D non-repeating tiling. Then he found that one of the big paper companies produced a toilet roll allegedly with this tiling on it and he filed suit or threatened to for having violated his intellectual property. It seemed to me that if the disguishing characteristic of his IP was that it filled space without repeating, then it was nigh impossible for a toilet roll to duplicate it because the pattern on the roll as manufactured (and I have been in paper mills) just about has to repeat, and not over any long distance either. It was all a very weird news report. I never did learn the outcome.
I have spent decades on the periphery of academia, in and out of faculty positions in a variety of departments, alternating with stints consulting in a variety of industries, and I find academics are highly over-rated. There are some very wise and intelligent people among the faculty and adminstration, but there are others, brilliant though they may be but in a such a narrow sense that they come close to what Richard Greene often says; knowing everything about nothing.
“It seemed to me that if the disguishing characteristic of his IP was that it filled space without repeating, then it was nigh impossible for a toilet roll to duplicate it”
Even if the toilet roll did duplicate itself, how would one know? At some point it might duplicate, but when? It could be a long time theorectically.
It sounds like a crazy lawsuit.
“and I find academics are highly over-rated”
I do, too, and more evidence of it is made available every day in the news, with alarmist climate change leading the unsubstantiated-claim pack when it comes to unproven assertions made by supposedly intelligent people.
It appears to me that too many people can’t tell the difference between evidence/facts, and speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions.
I think in the future there should be a required course in schools that teaches how to tell the difference between fact and science fiction.
““Singularities don’t exist,” claims black hole pioneer Roy Kerr”
I remember reading a book about black holes decades ago. Ring singularities were known back then. That is, a rotating black hole would have a ring singularity instead of a point singularity.
I don’t know what happens inside a black hole, but there’s a time dilation as you approach the event horizon. It takes an infinite amount of time to approach the event horizon as viewed from far outside the black hole. If so and if Hawking radiation is true, then the black hole will evaporate long before the event horizon is reached.
It’s obvious that black holes can increase in size. In that case, what happens when the event horizon extends beyond your position, is probably unknown. I always thought that approaching the singularity as viewed from far outside the black hole would also take an infinite amount of time. So the same argument applies. However . . . .
As I said: “Mind-bending.” 🙂
Best wishes to all at WUWT in 2024.
Much appreciation to Anthony, Charles, and all the moderators, contributors, and commenters.
I second that wish!
Story tip:
Wind and solar are intermittent, widely variable in minutes.Transmission and Distribution grid operations are managed in fractions of a second! So the issue is “what is the real cost of equivalent wind/solar energy production?”.
I would like to see examples of actual individual array power output (kW, MW–not kWH,or MWh) on a minute scale.
Then the same scale and output of a fossil unit.
The capacity “gaps” will be easier to understand. And the necessary running or available make-up capacity will be clear…and on what scale or timing difference.
The issue of make-up capacity for grid compensated or on-site fuel or battery produced will be clearer than arithmetic manipulations and claims.
Sample visuals of the experienced gaps in wind/solar could educate clearer to public.
The cost of wind/solar for consistency could then be shown consistent with grid operations and specific for sample arrays of installed wind or solar systems.
Not by minute, but by hour. Default page is USA48. You can select any of the individual systems within the U.S.(NYISO, PJM, etc.) to drill down to get a better appreciation for the effects you want to highlight.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/gridmonitor/dashboard/electric_overview/US48/US48
Hourly is misleading and doesn’t show the zero or very low generation periods. Time frames for frequency, voltage or current surges is in cycles (1/60 second at 60HZ). Large magnitude faults or machine failures are potential widespread area blackouts if not isolated in minutes (?)
Clouds change output of a solar array immediately (seconds, minutes? ). The sun angle changes continuously before and after solar noon. Wind changes direction and speed within seconds, minutes…large wind turbines take significant time to optimize. Wind machines also have high wind limits to prevent damage.
Actual installation outputs on a shorter time scale are needed to show the critical need for significant, total make-up capacity for short to long time period wind and solar output intermittency.
Recall that energy is tabulated in metering by demand over a select time period. !00 kW for 1/100 of a minute is the same energy as 1kW for 1 minute. 100 kW for 4/100 of a minute is the same energy as 25kW for 1 minute. (Check my math please) . That is a lot of difference compared to rotating machines on a transmission/distribution system.
Would like to hear from grid operators on what is managed (frequency, voltage, phase angles, MVA, etc) and on what time frames (cycles, seconds, minutes, continuously, or with intervention, etc?).
Individual W/S systems have up/down outputs with varying ramp rates.
The varying ramp rates are smoothed by quick reacting gas turbines or t/g sets, and in very woke grids with lots of money, by battery systems.
The up/down outputs are smoothed by slower reacting CCGTs and hydro plants.
Some plants are so slow-reacting, they do not contribute to the smoothing, such as nuclear and coal plants; they just go on and on at high outputs. They provide the base load and do some load following.
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
EXCERPT:
Batteries Far from an Economic Alternative to Power Plant Fleets
Turnkey capital costs of large scale-battery systems are $575/installed kWh; based on 2023 pricing of Tesla-Megapack systems. See article
With 6.5% money on a 50% bank loan, and 10% for owner return on a 50% investment, and 19% loss from HV grid to HV grid, and 15-y life:
At 10% throughput, the delivered electricity cost is about 184.5 c/kWh, no subsidies, about 92.3 c/kWh with 50% subsidies, on top of the 6 c/kWh cost of the electricity drawn from the HV grid to charge the batteries
At 40% throughput, about 23.1 c/kWh, on top of the 6 c/kWh
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% loss from HV grid-to-HV grid, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites.
NOTE: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging
NOTE: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia
Why should electric customers and taxpayers pay for make-up capacity to accept wind/ solar into the grids?
Why don’t the intermittent sources provide full equivalent, dispatchable capacity?
They should each have full onsite make-up capacity and fuel to deliver electricity with all the features required for grid equivalency.
That would make all sources the same, electrically, and each would be selected on lowest cost.
The climate crisis enthusiasts would be thrilled at the new honest transparency!
Ha!
I agree.
I would be great to force W/S owners to provide counter-acting capacity, MW, to provide a steady MW to the grid, 24/7/365, plus get no subsidies and receive only grid prices, like all other generators
There would be no “renewable” generation on the grid if this was a requirement.
Ponzi schemes work by shifting the cost from the first to get in the scheme, the beneficiaries, to the last entrants, the losers. The scheme gets to a saturation point then collapses.
Most of the Australian regions are already saturated with intermittents. New entrants lower the income of existing entrants. The Snowy 2 pumped hydro scheme will enable more intermittent supply but it may be working by the end of this decade. And the cost continue to spiral up. Its cost would go close to renewing the existing coal generators.
“Renewables” are unsustainable. They and the support system use more carbon in their manufacture than they can save. They are fossil fuel intensive. The world is simply shifting fossil fuel consumption to India and China as they become manufacturing hubs for all the useless junk being installed by countries that have demonised coal.
Exactly correct.
As David says nearby, the EIA dashborad is very interesting, but I wouldn’t mind seeing some minute by minute data as that is down near the ultimate time span where balance must occur.
I spent some time in the middle of wind turbine farms trying to record and come to an understanding of wind turbine noise. The best I can say is that it is elusive — not apparently possible to capture on good stereo recordings what the ear can hear. I digress. During one of these recording sessions there was a lull in the wind. I mean, the whole wind farm around me for a long distance (possbly many tens of MW or production) went dead in a matter of a minute or so, stayed dead for a time, then the wind returned abruptly. I would have loved to see that event on something like the EIA dashboard, minute by minute, along with how the remaining grid around this region dealt with it.
Alberta has a really good webpage for this, live updates every 30 seconds.
I have stopped on hwy1 beside Brooks on a mostly sunny day and watched as cumulonimbus clouds roll thru, the output dropping 60-70% in seconds then rebounding.
A nightmare for a grid operator if there is too much of this garbage power connected.
http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet
You might find the graphs here interesting: https://fnetpublic.utk.edu/
“remain always a child”
A Tony Heller video
“Climate superstitions are nothing new, and are based on a lack of knowledge of both science and history”
And the alarmists accuse us of being ignorant of science.
Climate alarmists just ignore anything that doesn’t fit the narrative.
is the greenhouse effect increasing?
No, why do you ask?
deduction
Perhaps the wheels are starting to fall off the hydrogen go cart:
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/25/new-hydrogen-pipeline-vs-hvdc-study-less-wrong-more-clearly-shows-hydrogen-uneconomic/amp/
Reality biting deep into their fantasy.
That would be an uplifting story.
No wheels, no problem
They will force many ratepayers and taxpayers to cary the cart for as long as it takes, aka subsidies for ever, to prove Hydrogen (and wind and solar and batteries and CO2 capture, and wave power, etc.) was a boondoggle to begin with, that made some Democrat insiders filthy rich, and screwed all others, for decades, with one hare-brained scheme after another.
READY FOR COLD FUSION?.
The sooner the better!
Lithium Ion, still not 100% safe to ship:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cargo-ship-carrying-burning-lithium-202847259.html
The IMO (International Maritime Organisation) announced it will be introducing new, mandatory safety regulations and standards for ships carrying Lithium batteries either as a main cargo or as components in cars or other items during 2024. These will include new fire equipment such as battery-penetrating fire extinguishers, chemical fire supression equipment, special fire blankets and increased distance/dispersion between batteries. Shipping companies are also calling for all EV’s to be marked on the windscreen with the type of EV and it’s ground clearance. They also say that all Lithium batteries should have passed rigorous safety/crush tests according to the UN Manual of Tests of Criteria and that all EV’s carried should have certification proving they have an undamaged battery system. There are some rightfully nervous and annoyed people that want far more done to prevent shipboard fires and are not satisfied with governments semming to sweep the problems under the carpet.
It sounds like ship insurance rates are going to go higher and the cost for lithium batteries is going higher, too.
I saw this link in WUWT Facebook page but not on WUWT itself. It looks kind of important – is this a good piece of work that we can rely on?
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/09/29/causality-and-climate/
There is a very nice letter from Clintel in my inbox this morning. It presents an interesting take on the just concluded COP28. Very optimistic that the focus is shifting from climate hysteria to energy supplies and prosperity.
It makes two propositions that I can agree with.
Happy New Year, all.
More misdirected bureaucratic largesse that flies in the face of reality.
Happy New Year! to Everyone. Onward and Upward!
I saw a video of the Sydney, Austrailia fireworks display ringing in the New Year. It was really impressive.
Story Tip (although a bit late):
The irony was too thick not submit this:
“Maine delays EV mandate vote over near statewide power outage” by Jenny Goldsberry, Social Media Producer, on December 22, 2023
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/energy-environment/maine-delays-ev-mandate-vote-statewide-power-outage
The rule in question would mandate that 43% of new car sales for 2027 be zero-emission EVs and then increase that mandate to 82% by 2032. …
HT Correlations everywhere.
Found an interesting linear decline in cosmic ray counts for the Antartica Dome A and B cosmic ray detectors that appears to begin at the HT eruption date.
Oulu Cosmic Ray Station
That’s interesting.