Mylittlepony is quite right to point out that we all (supposedly) have free speech, even the author of this article has free speech to write utter bollox, unsupported by facts and full of wishful thinking. Mylittlepony is also exercising their right to live in a complete fantasy world with no possible connection to reality.
EROEI is largely nonsensical. Let me explain why. The goal is not energy per se, but the utility that final form of energy represents. We use cheap electrical energy dervied from coal, with its attendant conversion of efficiency end to end of less than 35% to pump oil from stripper wells. The entire chain of conversion makes sense because liquid petroleum fuels have utility for transportation that coal and electricity do not possess. Efficiency is often secondary to the important topic which is economic utility.
The key problem with using hydrogen as an “energy carrier” is that, unlike coal or natural gas, hydrogen cannot be extracted directly in elemental form and then used. Instead, hydrogen, like electricity, must be manufactured. And in contrast to crude oil that must be refined into usable products like gasoline and diesel fuel, more energy is required to manufacture hydrogen than that hydrogen contains. No technology can change this immutable thermodynamic fact. Consequently, and in contrast to fossil fuels and nuclear power, hydrogen’s “energy return on investment” (EROI), i.e., the ratio of energy output to energy input, is less than one. Coupled with the additional lost energy from combusting (burning) hydrogen directly or using it in a fuel cell, hydrogen’s overall energy efficiency is dismal, making its use as a primary energy carrier self-defeating.
That hasn’t stopped the federal government from pouring public money onto research institutions to do unnecessary investigations into the suitability of hydrogen as an energy source.
A best, hydrogen could function as a sort of battery – but at best it would be much more expensive than just using methane and forgetting about the wind/solar/storage Rube Goldberg mechanination.
Because facts don’t matter to progressive wingnuts – only appearances and political donations.
strativarius
February 4, 2024 3:20 am
The old ones still work – apparently.
Years ago we in Furzedown (Tooting, London) had a CPZ (Controlled Parking Zone) imposed on us. Currently, parking the car outside the house costs ~£170 per annum.
There was a consultation (ha!) asking if people were for or against the scheme. Their principal argument? A crackdown on parking and ‘prioritising’ us lucky residents. The consultation, I was informed by the council, gave a positive response. I asked how many houses (out of 250 or so in the street) voted in favour? I was told 23 houses voted and that was a majority was for the scheme.
I asked isn’t that just a little democratically deficient? They said: That’s how we elect the [UK] government.
And now that councils are going bust in big numbers, money is definitely the order of the day…
“residents have spoken out about a new parking scheme that could see people pay £70 a year just to park their vehicles outside of their homes. People living in Didcot could be required to pay for a new permit to crack down on the number of vehicles parking in residential areas through a new controlled parking zone (CPZ).” https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/new-parking-scheme-charges-residential-didcot-reaction
Will a new one work? After all, Khan’s Transport for London has a mega financial black hole to fill and Ulez won’t bring that much in over time.
Here’s a headline for you: Climate Crisis Discontinued – AI Says Heat is not “Trapped” After All!!
This was the conclusion to a long exchange with ChatGPT:
**********
“User
But please recall that in this session you already stated that it is incorrect to refer to energy being “trapped” at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by greenhouse gases, because of overturning circulation, which is itself a response to absorbed energy.
ChatGPT
You are correct, and I appreciate your attention to the nuances of the discussion. The term “trapped” can be misleading when discussing the overall energy dynamics in the Earth’s atmosphere. While greenhouse gases do absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere has dynamic processes, such as overturning circulation, that allow for the redistribution of energy vertically.
The term “trapped” is often used in the context of the greenhouse effect, describing the temporary retention of some infrared radiation in the lower atmosphere. However, as we discussed earlier, the atmosphere’s dynamic processes, including vertical circulation, eventually allow for the dissipation of energy to space from higher altitudes.
So, in the context of your original question about the concentration of CO2 promoting the transfer of energy from the surface to the lower atmosphere, it’s more accurate to say that increased greenhouse gas concentrations contribute to warming the lower atmosphere rather than trapping energy in a way that prevents its ultimate release to space. The term “trapped” can be misleading when not considering the larger context of atmospheric dynamics and energy redistribution.”
********
There you go. Disaster averted. No Hiroshima bombs or boiling oceans. No Net Zero nonsense required. ChatGPT figured it out.
David, the AI says CO2 absorbs IR and IR causes vibration not translation (which is what leads to warming) can it explain a step by step way the absorption causes warming?
Although I don’t see it in the AI discussion posted by David Dibbell, it is incorrect (for AI or anyone else) to assert that an atmospheric CO2 molecule absorbing LWIR emitted from Earth’s surface only absorbs that/those photons as vibrational energy. LWIR photons, like all EM photons, carry momentum as well as energy so the Law of Conservation of Momentum dictates that a CO2 molecule must absorb the linear momentum of an incoming LWIR photon. The “law” of Equipartition of Energy says that the total absorbed energy will be split between the energy of additional translational motion (in the vector of the absorbed photon) and the energy of additional axial/bending/rotational modes of CO2 molecular vibrations.
LWIR radiation does not have sufficient energy to create excited electron states or ionization in CO2 molecules in the troposphere.
Also, the temperature of a gas (in this case, CO2) reflects the sensible energy contained in all available degrees of freedom . . . this includes molecular translational velocity and molecular vibrational modes. IOW, CO2 translation kinetic energy modes also lead to warming of other atmospheric gases (mainly N2 and O2) during molecular collisions in a mixed atmosphere.
Mate, arguing online with an “AI” bot has to leave you with fewer brain cells than when you started the “discussion”.
(Full disclosure – I freely admit that I’ve probably lost more brain cells through alcohol consumption over the past 60 years or so.
But that was usually socially convivial and informative about life in many ways.)
Fundamental problem with AI, as I see, it starting from the early days of neural networks to the large language models of today is this: You never quite know just what it learned during the training process.
True. Curiosity about “just what it learned” is why I engaged at all.
climatereason
Editor
February 4, 2024 4:15 am
Simple question. A new operator is opening fast charge stations along the UK’s motorways. The intention is that EV’s can receive enough juice in a 5 minute charge to get them approximately 100 miles.( a long way in a small country like the UK)
It used to be that fast charging was considered highly detrimental to batteries. Has technology moved on?
I can understand that a once in a blue moon fast charge will not cause harm, but suspect that due to the convenience many EV drivers will use the fast charging facility regularly.
“”The impact of fast charging on battery capacity varies depending on factors such as the battery chemistry, temperature, and charging frequency. Therefore, it is important to follow EV charging best practices for battery longevity, such as avoiding frequent fast charging and using Level 1 or Level 2 charging whenever possible.”” https://carsofelectric.com/do-fast-chargers-shorten-electric-vehicle-battery-life/
Increasing range by 100 miles in 5 minutes for a typical 100 kWh battery pack designed to provide about 300 miles range in a typical EV on a single charge would be equivalent to charging said battery at a rate of about 400 kW/hr . . . a charge rate sure to overheat and destroy any existing Li-ion battery pack.
So, 40kWhr delivered in 5 minutes…That is a 480kW power level even assuming 100% efficiency. Fooling with such utilities in general usually requires plasma arc protection and some level of training…and then there is the heat associated with even a little bit of inefficiency at such power levels. Even 5% amounts to 2.4kW which is equivalent to my rangetop.
And don’t mention the magnetic field. 480kW into a 400V battery is over a 1000 amps. Whatever you do, don’t leave a coil loose on the ground, it may jump up and grab you.
And bad luck for those with a pacemaker….
I would also love to see a rapid disconnection, just to see if there was any stray induction in the circuit. (Look up collapsing magnetic field for pics).
vboring
February 4, 2024 4:50 am
Chinese process to convert coal into animal feed link.
If China is innovating in these directions indicates they actually plan to use fossil fuels forever, nothing the rest of the world does to reduce emissions can possibly matter.
Especially true because China’s approach to helping lower income countries develop is more effective and welcome than ours, and is spreading faster.
Our insisting that low income countries not industrialize with fossil fuels essentially makes them go to China for help. This guarantees emissions reductions can’t happen.
China consumes more than half of the world’s coal and produces half of it. In 2023 coal production reached a record 4.66 bn tonnes according to the state National Bureau of Statistics.
The IEA expect China and India to account for more than 70% of global coal consumption by 2026.
IEA ‘Coal 2023 Analysis and forecast to 2026’ (Dec 2023)
Oh dear me, it seems a nice little tourist town in Chile has burned to the ground
by attention to the attached, can anyone guess why?
Or do we need to call in eagle-eyed Greta and see if she can see the carbon oxide which will, in due course, be claimed to be wot caused it
Ireneusz Palmowski
February 4, 2024 5:42 am
Is El Niño causing drought in Australia? It doesn’t. But it does bring flooding in Peru and California. Lake Tulare is going to get bigger again.
Expensive virtue signalling is endemic in the world of climate change anxiety. Small, relatively insignificant portions of that world led by the most climate anxious put in place plans that will have no measurable effect on global or local climate but will have serious negative effects on society. This is what “democracy” looks like.
A real Democracy, in order to operate properly, needs to have the truth. People can’t vote properly if they don’t have the real facts.
Unfortunately, the Leftwing Media is focused on hiding the real facts from people, and creating a false reality for them to live in.
virtuallygrey
February 4, 2024 7:05 am
I’m posing a question here. I understand and agree that any warming of the planet is certainly not (wholly) caused by mankind’s generation of CO2, clearly there are many understood (to varying degress) other causes / influences on the overall Earth’s temperature. But there is one “source” of potential warming that I hardly see mentioned and I’m wondering whether it is one of the other sources.
The question is simply put … a huge proportion of the energy generated on the planet gives rise to the production of heat. Once “used” for multitudinous purposes it dissipates into the surroundings, the atmosphere. I have no concept of whether this heat is significant in relation to warming the planet. Please help me understand whether this is a significant contributor, or truly insignificant. I understand “heat islands” and how their temperature records increasingly distort the true temperature trend at particular locations. But once dissipated to the atmosphere is this heat “diluted” to the point of overall insignificance. Thank you.
It’s not discussed because it is too small to be of importance.
The reasons can be understood without looking at exact (and immeasurable) numbers.
1) The planet is big. And mostly uninhabited by humans. There are very few towns in the oceans.
2) The thermal heat capacity of water is huge. There is a lot of water. Think about a kettle with a heating element. It is intended to heat water and takes a long time to do so. Waste energy in the form of heat is tiny compared to an ocean.
3) It’s not just human energy processes that are less than 100% efficient and dissipate in to heat. It’s everything. Laws of Thermodynamics, as it looks like you understand. Every raindrop falling. Every wave crashing. Every mould digesting dead vegetable matter. They all give off heat. And so does everything else. Think of the scale of the extra human impact. It’s not a lot.
4) Waste heat is a cost. Although total human energy processing has increased, efficiency has increased also. It’s not clear that the waster heat is expected to be increasing (probably is with the industrialisation of the BRICs but not certain).
5) Even if it was a significant source of extra heat, it would still radiate out to space. Heat goes from hot to cold and space is cold, relative to our cosy planet’s surface. It’s the restrictions on emissions that must matter. Else the extra heat just speeds up the extra heat loss.
Hope this helps, even without contentious estimates of actual numbers.
As I was watching a local river yesterday (one of hundreds in our small region of the planet) disgorge millions of tonnes of snow-melt water into the estuary, I was thinking that some pointy-head somewhere is going to get his digital slide-rule out and regale us with “facts” about how much the sea level will now rise because of this “global warming event”.
It pisses me off that such thoughts now intrude on my moments of awe when observing the “shock and awe” events that nature regularly presents.
You can work it out yourself. Mankind’s energy production is reported to be approx. 14,800 million tonnes of oil equivalent per year.
One tonne of oil is commonly considered to be equivalent to 41.9 GigaJoules of heat.
Giga=10^9
Work out Joules per year of Mankind’s produced energy ( all converted to heat)…..
Sunlight striking the Earth is about 240 watts per sq.M. (after 30% is reflected)
Area of Earth=510.1 million Sq. Km.
1 sq km = 10^6 sq . M.
1 Joule= 1 watt per second
1 year = 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 seconds
Work out Joules of Sunlight per year.
Answer.
Human energy production. 580 x 10^18 Joules per year
Solar. 385,500 x 10^18 Joules per year
Ratio 0.0015
Might be worthy of notice that if the Sun heats the planet up by about 285 degrees Kelvin above the temperature of outer space, and mankind another .0015 of that, then a 1.0015 ratio would be .43 degrees warmer….just by extrapolation….or is my math maybe incorrect ?
zero answers are possible without knowing the residence time of said input into the system, defined here as the land surface, the oceans, and the atmosphere.
The residence time of soar input varies by the incoming solar w/l, and the materials encountered. (some s/w penetrates up to 800′ into the oceans, and may have a residence time of many many years, some s/w refracts from cloud tops, and is gone in fractions of a second.) Most manmade heat is is discharged into the atmosphere and has a fairly short residence time.
Do climate change deniers bend the facts to avoid having to modify their environmentally harmful behavior? Researchers from the University of Bonn and the Institute of Labor Economics (IZA) ran an online experiment involving 4,000 US adults, and found no evidence to support this idea. The authors of the study were themselves surprised by the results. Whether they are good or bad news for the fight against global heating remains to be seen. The study is being published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
A surprisingly large number of people still downplay the impact of climate change or deny that it is primarily a product of human activity.
But why? One hypothesis is that these misconceptions are rooted in a specific form of self-deception, namely that people simply find it easier to live with their own climate failings if they do not believe that things will actually get all that bad.
“We call this thought process ‘motivated reasoning,'” says Professor Florian Zimmermann, an economist at the University of Bonn and Research Director at IZA.
Motivated reasoning helps us to justify our behavior. For instance, someone who flies off on holiday several times a year can give themselves the excuse that the plane would still be taking off without them, or that just one flight will not make any difference, or — more to the point — that nobody has proven the existence of human-made climate change anyway.
All these patterns of argument are examples of motivated reasoning.
Bending the facts until it allows us to maintain a positive image of ourselves while maintaining our harmful behavior.
Self-deception to preserve a positive self-image
But what role does this form of self-deception play in how people think about climate change?
Previously, there had been little scientific evidence produced to answer the question.
The latest study has now closed this knowledge gap — and has thrown up some unexpected results.
Zimmermann and his colleague Lasse Stötzer ran a series of online experiments, using a representative sample of 4,000 US adults.
At the center of the experiments was a donation worth $20. Participants were allocated at random to one of two groups.
The members of the first group were able to split the $20 between two organizations, both of which were committed to combating climate change.
By contrast, those in the second group could decide to keep the $20 for themselves instead of giving it away and would then actually receive the money at the end.
“Anyone keeping hold of the donation needs to justify it to themselves,” says Zimmermann, who is also a member of the ECONtribute Cluster of Excellence, the Collaborative Research Center Transregio 224 and the Transdisciplinary Research Area “Individuals & Societies” at the University of Bonn.
“One way to do that is to deny the existence of climate change.”
As it happened, nearly half of those in the second group decided to hold on to the money.
The researchers now wanted to know whether these individuals would justify their decision retrospectively by repudiating climate change.
The two groups had been put together at random. Without “motivated reasoning,” therefore, they should essentially share a similar attitude to human-made global heating.
If those who kept the money for themselves justified their actions through self-deception, however, then their group should exhibit greater doubt over climate change.
“Yet we didn’t see any sign of that effect,” Zimmermann reveals.
Climate change denial: a hallmark of one’s identity?
This finding was also borne out in two further experiments. “In other words, our study didn’t give us any indications that the widespread misconceptions regarding climate change are due to this kind of self-deception,” says Zimmermann, summing up his work.
On the face of it, this is good news for policymakers, because the results could mean that it is indeed possible to correct climate change misconceptions, simply by providing comprehensive information.
If people are bending reality, by contrast, then this approach is very much a non-starter.
Zimmermann advises to be cautious, however: “Our data does reveal some indications of a variant of motivated reasoning, specifically that denying the existence of human-made global heating forms part of the political identity of certain groups of people.” Put another way, some people may to an extent define themselves by the very fact that they do not believe in climate change.
As far as they are concerned, this way of thinking is an important trait that sets them apart from other political groups, and thus they are likely to simply not care what researchers have to say on the topic.
Institutions involved and funding secured:
The University of Bonn and the Institute on Behaviour and Inequality (briq) were involved in the study. briq is now part of the Institute of Labor Economics (IZA). The work was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).
“and the Institute on Behaviour and Inequality” “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good, will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven, yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very “kindness” stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease, is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” – C.S. Lewis
Floating Offshore Wind in Maine Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.
Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh
Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 17.913 c/kWh
NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 – 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:
Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh
Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh . Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Additional Gridwork on Shore
A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system
There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England high voltage grid.
The onshore grid will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.
Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People
Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy. . Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.
Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.
Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.
With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.
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 various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.
The adders become exponentially greater, with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid
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.
Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, 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 exist without at least 50% subsidies
W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.
1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems 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 100% 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
6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries.
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh At 10% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh At 40% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 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 COMMENT ON CALCULATION
Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid, no matter what.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment
If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.
According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.
A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening.
They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations
Remember, you have to draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid, because of a-to-z system losses. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.
Ireneusz Palmowski
February 4, 2024 11:41 pm
Stronger precipitation in Southern California today.
Official Contribution to Greenhouse Effect
.
Below is a summary of official numbers regarding the greenhouse effect. They can be found on many websites.
They were determined in a laboratory by relatively few people
Atmospheric scientists cannot definitively say, based on direct experiments, exactly how much greenhouse effect is caused by each GHG.
They cannot simply remove one gas and see how the absorption of IR photons changes. Instead, they must use models of the atmosphere to predict the likely changes.
So, they run their models with one GHG removed; say, for instance, water vapor. They might find that this results in a 36% reduction in the greenhouse effect.
I have been unable to find the calculations and or measurements that yielded these values https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_ga…;
H2O molecules, as water vapor, 39 to 62%
Clouds, 15 to 36%
Water vapor and clouds, 67 to 85%
CO2 molecules, 14 to 25%. See below Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat
All other GHGs, 5 to 9% http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9636.pdf
. Allocating Available IR photons
.
We assume, for simplicity, H2O and CO2 molecules have equal global warming capacity.
About 22% of IR photons escape to space through an atmospheric window, per Image 11A, blue part.
That leaves 78% to be allocated to H20 and CO2 molecules, as follows:
Worldwide basis: H2O molecules absorb 78 x 4037/(4037 + 423) = 70.6%, and CO2 molecules 7.4%; some sources state up to 8% of IR photons is absorbed by CO2 Temperate zone basis: H2O molecules absorb 78 x 9022/(9022 + 423) = 74.5% and CO2 molecules 3.5% Tropics: H2O molecules absorb 78 x 29806/(29806 + 423) = 77%, and CO2 molecules 1%
It appears, CO2 has almost no global warming role to play in the Tropics, where huge quantities of water vapor is heated, that is distributed to the rest of the earth, by normal circulation processes.
If H2O molecules had greater global warming capacity than CO2 molecules, the CO2 role regarding global warming would be even less.
Atmospheric Window. See Image 11A
The window exists, primarily due to the reduced absorption of IR photons by water vapor.
The window varies from 15 to 30%, primarily due to changes in water vapor ppm and cloud cover
The IR photon absorption spectrum of H2O, from 20 to 70 micrometers, almost entirely limits the right side of the blue part, plus the spectrum, from 4 to 10 micrometers, slightly reduces the left side of the blue part
The IR photon absorption spectrum of CO2, centered on 14.9 micrometers, slightly reduces the right side of the blue part.
Water vapor plays the dominant role absorbing IR photons, because H2O molecules are 9.54 more prevalent than CO2 molecules, on worldwide average Image 11A
According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW
Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.
The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.
Nuclear Plants: A typical plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually about 1,200 MW each
.
In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW,
The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.
As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU
.
In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom
.
In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.
Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed
In Bangladesh: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the Rooppur Power Station
Capital cost $12.65 billionis 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess spent nuclear fuel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant
.
Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures
Nuclear vs Wind: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions
They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years
Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France
.
Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.
They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places
They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment
They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced
Major Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.
American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.
Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants
Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.
New nuclear: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table
Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation,
Total nuclear about 11+ 5 = 16%, in 2050. It would have minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm.
Being the climate science spectator (and low-level social scientist) that I am. I have frequently asked the questions, “what is the relationship of earth’s core heat and sea surface and atmospheric temperatures?’. ‘And has anyone measured it’s variation and made correlations with other variables like the sun?’. I generally get smacked down with highly abstract and theoretical responses that conclude; none! Yet there is no permafrost below my feet in PA nor is the seafloor anywhere on planet earth solid ice. So, in reality no one really knows how much heat is transferred ambiently through the crust into the oceans and atmosphere, nor it’s variation over time. Relevance: We live in a world where our reality about who we are and the existential risks we face is being focused and shaped around one variable: consuming humanity. I think this is the greatest risk of human civilization. It is far better for human civilization to be organized around questions like “how do we make better stuff”, even “how do we get people to want stuff they don’t need” even “what has God said?”, than ask the question, ‘how do we reduce consumption in order to or by reducing the consuming masses?’. This is why science is more important now than ever. Sea levels, Ocean acidification, Ocean heat, Sea ice are all points of contention in the description of how the consuming masses are putting themselves and the wellbeing of the earth’s entire ecosystem at risk. A one variable science is no science; it’s propaganda, which is fundamentally a political and/or market tool. Yet it motivates science to answer scientific questions using actual science, to keep the propagandists honest and protect consuming humanity from those who want to consolidate it and rule it all. Clearly regional variation in sea ice, sea acidification, sea surface temperature, sea level is related to multiple variables. The two primary heat sources are the Sun and the Earth itself. Macro measures like global atmospheric temperatures etc., will not help see the variation of these ocean related variables at the regional level. Regional variabilities and anomalies in sea ice melting, sea surface temperature, acidification (heat and submarine SO2 emissions) and sea level point to regional heat anomalies. Ambient geothermal heating and volcanistic heating are pertinent variables to measure. Longitudinal monitoring of a sample of volcanic vents to measure global variation in volcanism maybe helpful especially if paired with gravitational variance at the crust level and seamount (submarine volcanic) level……in in longitudinal time frames. For example, if a + gravitational anomaly develops under a region of an ocean, and in the same region the geothermal vents show and increase in heat output, a sea surface heat anomaly emerges with increased acidification in the same region and a resulting sea surface heat anomaly is being carried by current to a area of sea ice, then we can it can be demonstrated without equivocation that a variation in the emission of the earth’s heat is melting a region of sea ice. The ability to demonstrate that a region of sea ice is melting due to a regional increase in geothermal heating of the ocean is essential. Regional sea level anomalies in heat, acidification, and sea level could be investigated in the same way.
(positive gravitational anomalies lower sea level by an increasing in gravity in one area yet depending on the ocean and wind currents can contribution to the piling up of the sea level as it flows into a area of average sea level or gravitation and worse yet if into an area of – gravitation anomaly and lower than average sea level. It is a dynamic I hardly understand and is not being studied)
The key is to have a long-term monitoring of the earth’s gravitational variance at both micro and macro scales at least for 3-4 solar cycles. Both the GRACE and GOCE satellite projects used gravity measurements and demonstrated gravitational anomalies in measure sea levels. My guess is if either GRACE and GOCE satellite projects were able to prove human civilization is causing accelerated sea level increases we would have ongoing continuous gravitational variance vigilance. Furthermore, we may even have a bigger piece in the puzzle in understanding how to predict earthquakes, if they are predicable… we just don’t know.
Positive gravitational anomalies are either permeant (Mountains, deep bedrock formational like the Appalachian shield) or variable and dynamic increase pressure of magma into the mantel or crust. and vice versa. At the micro level, the question would it be possible to measure small gravitational variances of Teutonic compression and monitor it and the heat it generates etc within the relationship at a macro scale with the movement of magma (measured by micro scale gravitation variance) within a particular or regional Teutonic plate/fissure system etc.
Energy Return On Investment Rears Its Misshapen Head Again
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/02/energy-return-on-investment-rears-its-misshapen-head-again/
“”It’s time for some disambiguation.””
Unreliables are uber expensive and do not work
Mylittlepony is quite right to point out that we all (supposedly) have free speech, even the author of this article has free speech to write utter bollox, unsupported by facts and full of wishful thinking. Mylittlepony is also exercising their right to live in a complete fantasy world with no possible connection to reality.
EROEI is largely nonsensical. Let me explain why. The goal is not energy per se, but the utility that final form of energy represents. We use cheap electrical energy dervied from coal, with its attendant conversion of efficiency end to end of less than 35% to pump oil from stripper wells. The entire chain of conversion makes sense because liquid petroleum fuels have utility for transportation that coal and electricity do not possess. Efficiency is often secondary to the important topic which is economic utility.
Green Hydrogen: A Multibillion-Dollar Energy Boondoggle
Extract —
The key problem with using hydrogen as an “energy carrier” is that, unlike coal or natural gas, hydrogen cannot be extracted directly in elemental form and then used. Instead, hydrogen, like electricity, must be manufactured. And in contrast to crude oil that must be refined into usable products like gasoline and diesel fuel, more energy is required to manufacture hydrogen than that hydrogen contains. No technology can change this immutable thermodynamic fact. Consequently, and in contrast to fossil fuels and nuclear power, hydrogen’s “energy return on investment” (EROI), i.e., the ratio of energy output to energy input, is less than one. Coupled with the additional lost energy from combusting (burning) hydrogen directly or using it in a fuel cell, hydrogen’s overall energy efficiency is dismal, making its use as a primary energy carrier self-defeating.
That hasn’t stopped the federal government from pouring public money onto research institutions to do unnecessary investigations into the suitability of hydrogen as an energy source.
A best, hydrogen could function as a sort of battery – but at best it would be much more expensive than just using methane and forgetting about the wind/solar/storage Rube Goldberg mechanination.
Because facts don’t matter to progressive wingnuts – only appearances and political donations.
The old ones still work – apparently.
Years ago we in Furzedown (Tooting, London) had a CPZ (Controlled Parking Zone) imposed on us. Currently, parking the car outside the house costs ~£170 per annum.
There was a consultation (ha!) asking if people were for or against the scheme. Their principal argument? A crackdown on parking and ‘prioritising’ us lucky residents. The consultation, I was informed by the council, gave a positive response. I asked how many houses (out of 250 or so in the street) voted in favour? I was told 23 houses voted and that was a majority was for the scheme.
I asked isn’t that just a little democratically deficient? They said: That’s how we elect the [UK] government.
And now that councils are going bust in big numbers, money is definitely the order of the day…
“residents have spoken out about a new parking scheme that could see people pay £70 a year just to park their vehicles outside of their homes. People living in Didcot could be required to pay for a new permit to crack down on the number of vehicles parking in residential areas through a new controlled parking zone (CPZ).”
https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/new-parking-scheme-charges-residential-didcot-reaction
Will a new one work? After all, Khan’s Transport for London has a mega financial black hole to fill and Ulez won’t bring that much in over time.
“Sadiq Khan says he will monitor effectiveness of Paris plan to raise charges on SUVs
Mayor says he will monitor Paris plan to triple SUV levies”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/02/london-could-introduce-suv-parking-charge-sadiq-khan-indicates?ref=upstract.com
“The war on motorists is a myth”
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2023/09/case-against-cars-ulez-government
Gaslighting is very much de rigeur.
So much much is a London Tube train-driver paid these days, gotta be nudging £200grand for what, 25 hours per week?
They get between £55k and £65k
For a 36 hour week
https://www.thesun.co.uk/travel/7422750/tube-drivers-paid-london-underground-salary/
And on the Victoria Line (which is automatic) all they have to do is push a button or two occasionally…
Makes you wonder why they never tried the driverless car idea in trains – are the rail unions just too strong?
Here’s a headline for you:
Climate Crisis Discontinued – AI Says Heat is not “Trapped” After All!!
This was the conclusion to a long exchange with ChatGPT:
**********
“User
But please recall that in this session you already stated that it is incorrect to refer to energy being “trapped” at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by greenhouse gases, because of overturning circulation, which is itself a response to absorbed energy.
ChatGPT
You are correct, and I appreciate your attention to the nuances of the discussion. The term “trapped” can be misleading when discussing the overall energy dynamics in the Earth’s atmosphere. While greenhouse gases do absorb and re-emit infrared radiation, the atmosphere has dynamic processes, such as overturning circulation, that allow for the redistribution of energy vertically.
The term “trapped” is often used in the context of the greenhouse effect, describing the temporary retention of some infrared radiation in the lower atmosphere. However, as we discussed earlier, the atmosphere’s dynamic processes, including vertical circulation, eventually allow for the dissipation of energy to space from higher altitudes.
So, in the context of your original question about the concentration of CO2 promoting the transfer of energy from the surface to the lower atmosphere, it’s more accurate to say that increased greenhouse gas concentrations contribute to warming the lower atmosphere rather than trapping energy in a way that prevents its ultimate release to space. The term “trapped” can be misleading when not considering the larger context of atmospheric dynamics and energy redistribution.”
********
There you go. Disaster averted. No Hiroshima bombs or boiling oceans. No Net Zero nonsense required. ChatGPT figured it out.
David, the AI says CO2 absorbs IR and IR causes vibration not translation (which is what leads to warming) can it explain a step by step way the absorption causes warming?
Although I don’t see it in the AI discussion posted by David Dibbell, it is incorrect (for AI or anyone else) to assert that an atmospheric CO2 molecule absorbing LWIR emitted from Earth’s surface only absorbs that/those photons as vibrational energy. LWIR photons, like all EM photons, carry momentum as well as energy so the Law of Conservation of Momentum dictates that a CO2 molecule must absorb the linear momentum of an incoming LWIR photon. The “law” of Equipartition of Energy says that the total absorbed energy will be split between the energy of additional translational motion (in the vector of the absorbed photon) and the energy of additional axial/bending/rotational modes of CO2 molecular vibrations.
LWIR radiation does not have sufficient energy to create excited electron states or ionization in CO2 molecules in the troposphere.
Also, the temperature of a gas (in this case, CO2) reflects the sensible energy contained in all available degrees of freedom . . . this includes molecular translational velocity and molecular vibrational modes. IOW, CO2 translation kinetic energy modes also lead to warming of other atmospheric gases (mainly N2 and O2) during molecular collisions in a mixed atmosphere.
Sounds like you have taught it that the gas laws are controlling energy movement in the atmosphere. 😉
Radiative energy transfer is a blip compared to mass transfer by pressure/density differences.
Mate, arguing online with an “AI” bot has to leave you with fewer brain cells than when you started the “discussion”.
(Full disclosure – I freely admit that I’ve probably lost more brain cells through alcohol consumption over the past 60 years or so.
But that was usually socially convivial and informative about life in many ways.)
A fair point. But the exchange nevertheless reveals what the humans behind the climate movement actually do know but won’t say it out loud.
Fundamental problem with AI, as I see, it starting from the early days of neural networks to the large language models of today is this: You never quite know just what it learned during the training process.
True. Curiosity about “just what it learned” is why I engaged at all.
Simple question. A new operator is opening fast charge stations along the UK’s motorways. The intention is that EV’s can receive enough juice in a 5 minute charge to get them approximately 100 miles.( a long way in a small country like the UK)
It used to be that fast charging was considered highly detrimental to batteries. Has technology moved on?
I can understand that a once in a blue moon fast charge will not cause harm, but suspect that due to the convenience many EV drivers will use the fast charging facility regularly.
Anyone know if this is OK?
If batteries have changed I missed it
“”The impact of fast charging on battery capacity varies depending on factors such as the battery chemistry, temperature, and charging frequency. Therefore, it is important to follow EV charging best practices for battery longevity, such as avoiding frequent fast charging and using Level 1 or Level 2 charging whenever possible.””
https://carsofelectric.com/do-fast-chargers-shorten-electric-vehicle-battery-life/
Increasing range by 100 miles in 5 minutes for a typical 100 kWh battery pack designed to provide about 300 miles range in a typical EV on a single charge would be equivalent to charging said battery at a rate of about 400 kW/hr . . . a charge rate sure to overheat and destroy any existing Li-ion battery pack.
I didn’t notice this before I posted…seems far-fetched doesn’t it?
Here’s the article-some behind a pay wall but you get the gist. I saw the whole of the original in the paper. Sounds problematic
UK service stations to get up to 1,000 ultra-rapid plug-in points to charge EVs in 5 minutes (msn.com)
I hope they have very local fire-fighting equipment !!
Not that that would help.
So, 40kWhr delivered in 5 minutes…That is a 480kW power level even assuming 100% efficiency. Fooling with such utilities in general usually requires plasma arc protection and some level of training…and then there is the heat associated with even a little bit of inefficiency at such power levels. Even 5% amounts to 2.4kW which is equivalent to my rangetop.
These fast charger claims make me wonder a bit.
And don’t mention the magnetic field. 480kW into a 400V battery is over a 1000 amps. Whatever you do, don’t leave a coil loose on the ground, it may jump up and grab you.
And bad luck for those with a pacemaker….
I would also love to see a rapid disconnection, just to see if there was any stray induction in the circuit. (Look up collapsing magnetic field for pics).
Chinese process to convert coal into animal feed link.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3247350/chinese-scientists-convert-coal-protein-answer-animal-feed-demand-major-breakthrough
And China discovered a big oil field.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3250189/china-boasts-bubbling-crude-discovery-oil-107-million-tonnes-henan-province-adding-fuel-energy
If China is innovating in these directions indicates they actually plan to use fossil fuels forever, nothing the rest of the world does to reduce emissions can possibly matter.
Especially true because China’s approach to helping lower income countries develop is more effective and welcome than ours, and is spreading faster.
Our insisting that low income countries not industrialize with fossil fuels essentially makes them go to China for help. This guarantees emissions reductions can’t happen.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative is now building more Renewables, less Coal
https://energypost.eu/chinas-belt-and-road-initiative-is-now-building-more-renewables-less-coal/
Small beer
China consumes more than half of the world’s coal and produces half of it. In 2023 coal production reached a record 4.66 bn tonnes according to the state National Bureau of Statistics.
The IEA expect China and India to account for more than 70% of global coal consumption by 2026.
IEA ‘Coal 2023 Analysis and forecast to 2026’ (Dec 2023)
and it’s low-grade, high particulates-producing coal at that.
Luckily, China is building those high-temperature, low particulates producing power plants.
I suspect that they’re mostly doing this to minimize smog though, rather than the dreaded CO2 molecules.
As the climate propaganda money FLOODS into third world countries..
… fuelling corruption, and denying those countries solid reliable electricity.
It is anti-human, and should be looked on as tantamount to criminal behaviour.
Luckily it doesn’t matter anyway.
The beginning of rain and snowfall in California.
Oh dear me, it seems a nice little tourist town in Chile has burned to the ground
by attention to the attached, can anyone guess why?
Or do we need to call in eagle-eyed Greta and see if she can see the carbon oxide which will, in due course, be claimed to be wot caused it
Is El Niño causing drought in Australia? It doesn’t. But it does bring flooding in Peru and California. Lake Tulare is going to get bigger again.
Kia in Oz looking to address really bad EV depreciation as well as that shocking Hyundai replacement battery price prospective buyers get palpitations and wobbly legs over-
Kia’s plan to solve electric vehicle resale in Australia: Local battery repairs and guaranteed future values coming for brand’s EV range – Car News | CarsGuide
Stay tuned folks!
PS: They’re an anxious bunch of guinea pigs needing Gummint funded counselling no doubt-
Charger anxiety takes over from range anxiety as new worry for electric vehicle owners (msn.com)
Expensive virtue signalling is endemic in the world of climate change anxiety. Small, relatively insignificant portions of that world led by the most climate anxious put in place plans that will have no measurable effect on global or local climate but will have serious negative effects on society. This is what “democracy” looks like.
A real Democracy, in order to operate properly, needs to have the truth. People can’t vote properly if they don’t have the real facts.
Unfortunately, the Leftwing Media is focused on hiding the real facts from people, and creating a false reality for them to live in.
I’m posing a question here. I understand and agree that any warming of the planet is certainly not (wholly) caused by mankind’s generation of CO2, clearly there are many understood (to varying degress) other causes / influences on the overall Earth’s temperature. But there is one “source” of potential warming that I hardly see mentioned and I’m wondering whether it is one of the other sources.
The question is simply put … a huge proportion of the energy generated on the planet gives rise to the production of heat. Once “used” for multitudinous purposes it dissipates into the surroundings, the atmosphere. I have no concept of whether this heat is significant in relation to warming the planet. Please help me understand whether this is a significant contributor, or truly insignificant. I understand “heat islands” and how their temperature records increasingly distort the true temperature trend at particular locations. But once dissipated to the atmosphere is this heat “diluted” to the point of overall insignificance. Thank you.
It’s not discussed because it is too small to be of importance.
The reasons can be understood without looking at exact (and immeasurable) numbers.
1) The planet is big. And mostly uninhabited by humans. There are very few towns in the oceans.
2) The thermal heat capacity of water is huge. There is a lot of water. Think about a kettle with a heating element. It is intended to heat water and takes a long time to do so. Waste energy in the form of heat is tiny compared to an ocean.
3) It’s not just human energy processes that are less than 100% efficient and dissipate in to heat. It’s everything. Laws of Thermodynamics, as it looks like you understand. Every raindrop falling. Every wave crashing. Every mould digesting dead vegetable matter. They all give off heat. And so does everything else. Think of the scale of the extra human impact. It’s not a lot.
4) Waste heat is a cost. Although total human energy processing has increased, efficiency has increased also. It’s not clear that the waster heat is expected to be increasing (probably is with the industrialisation of the BRICs but not certain).
5) Even if it was a significant source of extra heat, it would still radiate out to space. Heat goes from hot to cold and space is cold, relative to our cosy planet’s surface. It’s the restrictions on emissions that must matter. Else the extra heat just speeds up the extra heat loss.
Hope this helps, even without contentious estimates of actual numbers.
So true MCourtney.
As I was watching a local river yesterday (one of hundreds in our small region of the planet) disgorge millions of tonnes of snow-melt water into the estuary, I was thinking that some pointy-head somewhere is going to get his digital slide-rule out and regale us with “facts” about how much the sea level will now rise because of this “global warming event”.
It pisses me off that such thoughts now intrude on my moments of awe when observing the “shock and awe” events that nature regularly presents.
You can work it out yourself. Mankind’s energy production is reported to be approx. 14,800 million tonnes of oil equivalent per year.
One tonne of oil is commonly considered to be equivalent to 41.9 GigaJoules of heat.
Giga=10^9
Work out Joules per year of Mankind’s produced energy ( all converted to heat)…..
Sunlight striking the Earth is about 240 watts per sq.M. (after 30% is reflected)
Area of Earth=510.1 million Sq. Km.
1 sq km = 10^6 sq . M.
1 Joule= 1 watt per second
1 year = 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 seconds
Work out Joules of Sunlight per year.
And the ratio is…..
Answer.
Human energy production. 580 x 10^18 Joules per year
Solar. 385,500 x 10^18 Joules per year
Ratio 0.0015
Might be worthy of notice that if the Sun heats the planet up by about 285 degrees Kelvin above the temperature of outer space, and mankind another .0015 of that, then a 1.0015 ratio would be .43 degrees warmer….just by extrapolation….or is my math maybe incorrect ?
zero answers are possible without knowing the residence time of said input into the system, defined here as the land surface, the oceans, and the atmosphere.
The residence time of soar input varies by the incoming solar w/l, and the materials encountered. (some s/w penetrates up to 800′ into the oceans, and may have a residence time of many many years, some s/w refracts from cloud tops, and is gone in fractions of a second.) Most manmade heat is is discharged into the atmosphere and has a fairly short residence time.
not sure if I already uploaded this in a previous thread, probably not
Why are people climate change deniers?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/02/240202114938.htm
There it is folks, we’re all experiencing self-deception. We should all now apologize to Mickey Mann et. al. and join the climate emergency cult. 🙂
“and the Institute on Behaviour and Inequality”
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good, will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven, yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very “kindness” stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease, is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
– C.S. Lewis
That C.S. Lewis quote should be posted periodically.
Yes, there are a lot of moral busybodies out there. Petty dictators, eager to tell you how to run your life.
Communications from within the bubble of delusion.
Do these folks ever ponder what a world without fossil fuels would be like? Can they even imagine just their own lives without fossil fuels?
No. To Both.
Give me $20.. I’ll spend it on petrol. !
Last people I would give it to is a “true-believer”
What a fatuous, contrived load of malarky !
An academic economist pretending to do psychology..
Hilarious. 🙂
Floating Offshore Wind in Maine
Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.
Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh
Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 17.913 c/kWh
NOTE: If li-ion battery systems were contemplated, they would add 20 to 40 c/kWh to the cost of any electricity passing through them, during their about 15-y useful service lives! See Part 1 of URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 – 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:
Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh
Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh
.
Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Additional Gridwork on Shore
A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system
There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England high voltage grid.
The onshore grid will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.
Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People
Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy.
.
Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.
even that “ 5 c/kWh,” is higher then it would be if they were not already crippled by subserviant status to existing wind and solar.
Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.
Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.
With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.
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 various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.
The adders become exponentially greater, with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid
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.
Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, 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 exist without at least 50% subsidies
W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.
1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems 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 100% 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
6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries.
Bingo, a steep but hidden subsidy all steady state producers pay due to being second class servants to wind and solar.
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh
At 10% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh
At 40% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 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
COMMENT ON CALCULATION
Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid, no matter what.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment
If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.
According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.
A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening.
They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations
Remember, you have to draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid, because of a-to-z system losses. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.
Stronger precipitation in Southern California today.
El Niños and the Hunga Tonga Sub-Surface Volcanic Eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
EXCERPT
Official Contribution to Greenhouse Effect
.
Below is a summary of official numbers regarding the greenhouse effect. They can be found on many websites.
They were determined in a laboratory by relatively few people
Atmospheric scientists cannot definitively say, based on direct experiments, exactly how much greenhouse effect is caused by each GHG.
They cannot simply remove one gas and see how the absorption of IR photons changes. Instead, they must use models of the atmosphere to predict the likely changes.
So, they run their models with one GHG removed; say, for instance, water vapor. They might find that this results in a 36% reduction in the greenhouse effect.
I have been unable to find the calculations and or measurements that yielded these values
https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_ga…;
H2O molecules, as water vapor, 39 to 62%
Clouds, 15 to 36%
Water vapor and clouds, 67 to 85%
CO2 molecules, 14 to 25%. See below Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat
All other GHGs, 5 to 9%
http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9636.pdf
.
Allocating Available IR photons
.
We assume, for simplicity, H2O and CO2 molecules have equal global warming capacity.
About 22% of IR photons escape to space through an atmospheric window, per Image 11A, blue part.
That leaves 78% to be allocated to H20 and CO2 molecules, as follows:
Worldwide basis: H2O molecules absorb 78 x 4037/(4037 + 423) = 70.6%, and CO2 molecules 7.4%; some sources state up to 8% of IR photons is absorbed by CO2
Temperate zone basis: H2O molecules absorb 78 x 9022/(9022 + 423) = 74.5% and CO2 molecules 3.5%
Tropics: H2O molecules absorb 78 x 29806/(29806 + 423) = 77%, and CO2 molecules 1%
It appears, CO2 has almost no global warming role to play in the Tropics, where huge quantities of water vapor is heated, that is distributed to the rest of the earth, by normal circulation processes.
If H2O molecules had greater global warming capacity than CO2 molecules, the CO2 role regarding global warming would be even less.
Atmospheric Window. See Image 11A
The window exists, primarily due to the reduced absorption of IR photons by water vapor.
The window varies from 15 to 30%, primarily due to changes in water vapor ppm and cloud cover
The IR photon absorption spectrum of H2O, from 20 to 70 micrometers, almost entirely limits the right side of the blue part, plus the spectrum, from 4 to 10 micrometers, slightly reduces the left side of the blue part
The IR photon absorption spectrum of CO2, centered on 14.9 micrometers, slightly reduces the right side of the blue part.
Water vapor plays the dominant role absorbing IR photons, because H2O molecules are 9.54 more prevalent than CO2 molecules, on worldwide average
Image 11A
Polar cyclone over northern California.
Nuclear Plants by Russia
According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW
Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england
Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.
The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.
Nuclear Plants: A typical plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually about 1,200 MW each
.
In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW,
The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.
As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU
.
In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom
.
In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.
Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed
In Bangladesh: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the Rooppur Power Station
Capital cost $12.65 billion is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant
.
Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures
Nuclear vs Wind: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions
They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years
Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France
.
Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.
They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places
They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment
They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced
Major Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.
American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.
Tripling Nuclear a Total Fantasy: During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.
https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html
Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants
Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.
New nuclear: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table
Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation,
Total nuclear about 11+ 5 = 16%, in 2050. It would have minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm.
Infrastructures and Manpower: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-2022/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%2029%2C165.2%20terawatt%20hours,2.3%25%20from%20the%20previous%20year.
Being the climate science spectator (and low-level social scientist) that I am. I have frequently asked the questions, “what is the relationship of earth’s core heat and sea surface and atmospheric temperatures?’. ‘And has anyone measured it’s variation and made correlations with other variables like the sun?’. I generally get smacked down with highly abstract and theoretical responses that conclude; none!
Yet there is no permafrost below my feet in PA nor is the seafloor anywhere on planet earth solid ice.
So, in reality no one really knows how much heat is transferred ambiently through the crust into the oceans and atmosphere, nor it’s variation over time.
Relevance: We live in a world where our reality about who we are and the existential risks we face is being focused and shaped around one variable: consuming humanity. I think this is the greatest risk of human civilization. It is far better for human civilization to be organized around questions like “how do we make better stuff”, even “how do we get people to want stuff they don’t need” even “what has God said?”, than ask the question, ‘how do we reduce consumption in order to or by reducing the consuming masses?’.
This is why science is more important now than ever. Sea levels, Ocean acidification, Ocean heat, Sea ice are all points of contention in the description of how the consuming masses are putting themselves and the wellbeing of the earth’s entire ecosystem at risk.
A one variable science is no science; it’s propaganda, which is fundamentally a political and/or market tool. Yet it motivates science to answer scientific questions using actual science, to keep the propagandists honest and protect consuming humanity from those who want to consolidate it and rule it all.
Clearly regional variation in sea ice, sea acidification, sea surface temperature, sea level is related to multiple variables. The two primary heat sources are the Sun and the Earth itself. Macro measures like global atmospheric temperatures etc., will not help see the variation of these ocean related variables at the regional level.
Regional variabilities and anomalies in sea ice melting, sea surface temperature, acidification (heat and submarine SO2 emissions) and sea level point to regional heat anomalies. Ambient geothermal heating and volcanistic heating are pertinent variables to measure. Longitudinal monitoring of a sample of volcanic vents to measure global variation in volcanism maybe helpful especially if paired with gravitational variance at the crust level and seamount (submarine volcanic) level……in in longitudinal time frames. For example, if a + gravitational anomaly develops under a region of an ocean, and in the same region the geothermal vents show and increase in heat output, a sea surface heat anomaly emerges with increased acidification in the same region and a resulting sea surface heat anomaly is being carried by current to a area of sea ice, then we can it can be demonstrated without equivocation that a variation in the emission of the earth’s heat is melting a region of sea ice. The ability to demonstrate that a region of sea ice is melting due to a regional increase in geothermal heating of the ocean is essential. Regional sea level anomalies in heat, acidification, and sea level could be investigated in the same way.
(positive gravitational anomalies lower sea level by an increasing in gravity in one area yet depending on the ocean and wind currents can contribution to the piling up of the sea level as it flows into a area of average sea level or gravitation and worse yet if into an area of – gravitation anomaly and lower than average sea level. It is a dynamic I hardly understand and is not being studied)
The key is to have a long-term monitoring of the earth’s gravitational variance at both micro and macro scales at least for 3-4 solar cycles. Both the GRACE and GOCE satellite projects used gravity measurements and demonstrated gravitational anomalies in measure sea levels. My guess is if either GRACE and GOCE satellite projects were able to prove human civilization is causing accelerated sea level increases we would have ongoing continuous gravitational variance vigilance. Furthermore, we may even have a bigger piece in the puzzle in understanding how to predict earthquakes, if they are predicable… we just don’t know.
Positive gravitational anomalies are either permeant (Mountains, deep bedrock formational like the Appalachian shield) or variable and dynamic increase pressure of magma into the mantel or crust. and vice versa. At the micro level, the question would it be possible to measure small gravitational variances of Teutonic compression and monitor it and the heat it generates etc within the relationship at a macro scale with the movement of magma (measured by micro scale gravitation variance) within a particular or regional Teutonic plate/fissure system etc.
War on free speech in Canada:
https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-372/first-reading