Quoting that Counterpunch link:
“The production costs for the electricity supplied by new nuclear power plants are currently about twice as high as those of larger wind and solar plants,”.
In other words, nuclear power is about half the cost of wind or solar power once you take the capacity factor into account. And you can put it near where the demand is. And it’s much easier to manage and doesn’t destabilise the grid. And nuclear power stations can provide back-up for each other.
A lot of Americans do want cheap cars but there are no cheap EVs. About 50% of families can not afford the least expensive Tesla EV (partly because 40% of US households don’t pay federal income taxes, so can’t use a tax credit
But many lower income people also live in apartments, so have no garage to charge an EV in
EV sales are booming, but the number of suckers has to run out. They cost more and deliver less than ICEs and hybrids.
January 2024 Global BEV + PHEV sales up +69% from January 2023
February 2024 Ford US BEV sales up 80% versus February 2023
There is a difference between “inexpensive” and “cheap.” Everybody wants inexpensive, nobody wants cheap unless very-inexpensive is all they can afford
Do any of the BYD cars meet American safety standards? What is the range on a charge with the heater and defrosters running? If you can’t keep the windows clear, the car is not safe!
The article cited, and Mike Jonas’s reply nearby, makes for confusing reading. Full quote:
“The production costs for the electricity supplied by new nuclear power plants are currently about twice as high as those of larger wind and solar plants,” Brand said. “No matter how one assesses the risks of nuclear power, it is simply not economical to rely on new nuclear plants,”
No matter how a person dices this, there is no way to compare costs of wind/solar versus nuclear from the quotation itself. What do “about” and “larger” mean? The real thesis of this article is that the author and those quoted are incensed that ratepayers and their grandchildren are paying for “cheap” power by opaque means.
But this is exactly what people are being made to do the world over with taxpayer subsidies to wind/solar. Why the selective outrage? In addition ratepayers are slowly being squeezed by the burdens that wind/solar add to the grid; and then whacked a third time by the increases to the rate base of overbuilding nameplate ratings plus storage and needed return on that.
Not to mention the other subsidy of wind/solar vs nuclear. Nuclear generating stations in the US have to pay into a trust fund for providing permanent storage for the spent fuel as well as setting aside money for decommissioning the plant. AFAIK, wind plants are not required to set aside money for decommissioning the site.
“Less horsepower = more range?”
I’m not sure that’s true with regard to EV’s Tom. Unlike an ICE car, I think you will find an EV only uses the energy you ask it to, even when there is extra horsepower available. Bit like dimming a lightbulb.
Batteries lose charge even when not in use due to internal reactions. This is undesirable, so I doubt that people ask them to do this. It is not at all like dimming a lightbulb.
That is true, but EV’s are also far more efficient than ICE cars Gas-Powered Vehicle Energy Loss from 100% of Original Fuel75-84% of original energy is lost
68-72% engine losses
4-6% parasitic losses
3-5% drivetrain losses
0-2% auxiliary electricity use
Electric Vehicle Energy Loss from 100% of Original Fuel31-35% of original energy is lost, but 22% is returned through regenerative braking
What about the losses from the wind turbine / solar panel to the plug in the car
Transmission costs, and DC / AC and AC / DC conversion costs are not inconsiderable
True, up to a point, but how many lightbulbs weigh almost twice as much as an ICE car? Getting that weight of car up to 62 mph in 2.36 seconds must drain the battery pack by a whopping amount. Lightbulbs draw power from mains electricity, these cars draw power only from what they can carry onboard and you will hit a limit on how fast or far they can go. Several EV’s have successfully accomplished the Pikes Peak challenge, setting very fast times but only having enough power to complete the 12.4 mile course with very little left over.
“True, up to a point, but how many lightbulbs weigh almost twice as much as an ICE car? Getting that weight of car up to 62 mph in 2.36 seconds must drain the battery pack by a whopping amount.”
From my experience driving both quick ICE and EV cars, EV ‘s have a far less drain on the fuel/battery when you drive them hard than an ICE car. But that is only my observation so….. it would be interesting to see some tests done on this
Rolling resistance varies with the square of the velocity, and wind resistance with the cube of the velocity. If one takes advantage of the greater acceleration to spend more time driving at the maximum (+), then the battery will be drained more quickly and the range will be reduced proportionately.
Back during the Arab Oil Embargo in the ’70s, there was considerable discussion about the optimal speed for cars to get the best gas mileage. The consensus was used as a rationalization for the nationwide speed limit of 55 MPH. However, I suspect that the primary contribution to saving gasoline was through discouraging people from taking long trips because of the extra time and cost of overnight lodging.
What I haven’t seen is any claims for is the optimal speed for maximizing the range or duration of a battery charge. Perhaps it should be expressed as dollars per mile traveled.
It’s not important until I need to reach freeway speed in the length of a merge lane, and then it’s critical. I want to be able to give myself whiplash even though I never plan to use full power.
“ And fast acceleration is one of the few EV selling points” And reliability. Oh and running costs. And smoothness. Oh and quietness. And don’t forget the tech in these new machines. Other than that they are useless.
I was referring to a smaller electric motor in the context of using less electricity.
My thinking is: One has a battery in an EV that has a fixed amount of output. A smaller electric motor would draw less power from that battery than a larger electric motor, so therefore, the battery would have charge for a longer period of time using the smaller electric motor which would give it greater range.
If that is the case, then I don’t understand why EV manufacturers are not promoting smaller electric motors with greater range, since range anxiety seems to be a sticking point for buyers.
I agree that the fast acceleration is a selling point for the EV’s.
I personally, don’t have a need to go from zero to 60mph in less than three seconds. Six seconds would do me just fine. 🙂
How much warming is natural, and how much are humans causing?
How, exactly, would the non-natural be isolated from the natural?
And for that matter, “warming” of what, exactly?
The claim is that it is the global average surface temperature that is responding to non-natural “forcing.”
But wait. There is about 3.8C of warming and 3.8C of cooling every year, for the planet as a whole, estimated using our best numerical methods of data assimilation and representation.
Let’s take 0.15C per decade, or 0.015C per year, as the recent trend, per UAH TLT.
3.8/0.015=253.
Not many seem to appreciate this attribution problem, to reliably determine the cause for 1 part in 253 of impeded cooling or 1 part in 253 of excess warming.
253 parts are obviously natural, but the 1 part must somehow be non-natural? No.
Your NIST link doesn’t tell is anything we don’t already know.
Methane absorption bands overlap water, CO2 and NOx bands, and are quite narrow, so the total heat they absorb can be claimed to be significant, but if you removed all the methane, it wouldn’t make much difference. So the new methane sat will be easily able to detect these bands, but the amount of warming they cause will still be a cause of dispute.
The warming caused by methane is not spelled out anywhere. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) numbers for greenhouse gases are inversely proportional to the their concentration in the atmosphere, and have nothing to do with with their absorption spectrums.
Methane is increasing in the atmosphere at ~7 ppb annually so by 2100 it will cause less than 0.1°C of warming probably less less than 0.05°C. If anyone says it’s anymore than that, they should pipe up and show their work or source.
“… not spelled out anywhere…”
geez Steve, the heat involved is just width of band times average height of band times number of photons times the energy per photon at that wavelength. A physics or heat transfer engineering grad student, maybe even 3rd year undergrad can work it out. CliSci’s apparently not.
Yes, it is very close to irrelevant to the atmosphere for CH4….so in the “publish or perish” worlds of academia and media, nobody likes to publish anything that has the conclusion “it’s really a nothing-burger, sorry I wasted your time.”
And you can plug a doubling of CH4 or take it out entirely in UChicago Modtran too…
You didn’t say how much warming methane will cause by 2100 or in 100 years or if it doubles either. Willis E. some time ago went to Modtran and came up with an answer in W/m² which means nothing to the average person much less a less an ivory tower politician. Policy makers need to understand that the Global Warming Potential numbers are total bullshit. Ordinary people need to understand what a crock the methane scare is.
Select Earth Scaled emissions, H2O, CO2, CH4
Then unselect CH4….hmmm, nearly no effect on intensity…
And you can select lab spectra and scaled spectra and see how the climate crazies are interpreting the basic data without using some basic integral math over the Earth’s actual spectrum.…
What DMacKenzie says. Use Modtran (U of Chicago portal) here. It is just absurd for there to be any concern about methane in respect to a “warming” result. https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
This part of the spectrum is off the plot to the left at the NIST link you shared.
They mention a capability to detect differences of 3 ppb, which is pretty impressive considering that the bulk atmospheric concentration is about 1700 ppb. For fluxes, I suppose some kind of dispersion modeling would have to be applied.
I don’t know about other satellite methane detection sensors, as to what part of the spectrum they use.
Two slices of bread plus your comment adds up to a baloney sandwich
Back radiation is increasing
Air pollution is being reduced
Antarctica is not melting or getting warmer
Most temperature records are TMIN rather than TMAX
The stratosphere has cooled rather than warmed
Top of the atmosphere solar energy has declined since the 1970s.
Cloudiness has declined but the percentage of cloudiness may not be an accurate proxy for the amount of solar energy that clouds block. That depends on types of clouds and the timing of the clouds. There are no accurate data for global annual average solar energy blocked by clouds.
Evidence of manmade warming since 1975 is stronger than evidence if natural warming, but the percentage split is unknown
Your 1 of 253 theory is either the theory of a genius or the theory of a fool. I think you know what side i am on.
Mr. Greene: He knows, as the consensus of nearly 100% of posters here know, that you are on the side of the fools. You’re so eager to prove it, over and over again. Here’s another display in the Greene Hall of Shame- “Evidence of manmade warming since 1975 ……. unknown.” It’s unknown, yet he knows one is stronger. Fool.
I wrote that the evidence of manmade warming is stronger than the evidence of natural warming since 1975 but the manmade to natural warming ratio is unknown.
One of the great mysteries is how changes in cloudiness are affecting the amount of solar energy reaching the surface.
Less air pollution is one cause.
The exact effects of cloudiness changes are not known.
A smaller percentage of cloudiness suggests an important natural cause of warming. But exactly what percentage of warming can be attributed to clouds is a mystery.
It’s no mystery that your science free insult post made no attempt to refute anything I had written. Better luck next time, Mr. Corduroy. You should be sedated.
Mr. Greene: I read what you wrote, another great mystery is your notion that you are qualified to say the things you say. You apparently read somewhere that air pollution decreasing is causing warming ( I may agree, but I’m the “no-science” commenter), and now you’re an expert on the matter and all here are nutters. You haven’t the tools to assess natural warming, or manmade warming, never mind compare/contrast the two. I daresay nobody has such tools, which is why you deserve the derision you get here. I don’t need to say something that sounds scientific to you to show you are a great fool. You can call me a fabric (??!!) as you like, it won’t warp my woof.
“Evidence of manmade warming since 1975 is stronger than evidence of natural warming, but the percentage split is unknown”
What evidence? Saying it is so, doesn’t necessarily make it so.
This is an unsubstantiated assertion. The mainstay of alarmist climate science, which is made up solely of unsubstantiated assumptions/assertions about CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere. This claim is another one of those.
I briefly listed the evidence in my post that you obviously do not understand.
Are you claiming that nearly 100% of the scientists who have studied the climate since 1896 were all wrong when they claimd humans can affect the climate?
The climate is a non-linear, chaotic system. It does what it damn well pleases. Linear systems respond to their inputs in linear ways. Non-linear systems do not. You and your ilk need to show how CO2 is causing the current warming and all warmings of the past. That is something that no climate scientist (oxymoron) has done.
Time made me a smarty pants. I’ve been watching this human-caused climate change narrative since the human-caused global cooling narrative of the 1970’s, and to date, have not seen any evidence that CO2 is measurably affecting the Earth’s atmosphere.
I don’t deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I just don’t see any evidence that anyone can demonstrate that this is heating up the Earth’s atmosphere, or is making extreme weather more extreme.
Some scientists think the CO2 actually cools the Earth after all feedbacks are figured in. Wouldn’t that be a kick in the head for climate alarmists!
The Earth’s atmosphere is a complicated place. CO2, so far, is just a bit player at best, going by current knowledge.
Yes, I was skeptical of Human-caused Global Cooling. Not at first. At first, I thought these guys may be on to something. But as time went along, I realized they had no evidence that SO2 was sending the Earth into another Ice Age. All they really had was speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions about SO2 and global cooling. This cause me a lot of pain at seeing how science was being bastardized, and I became skeptical of their claims.
It turns out I was correct to be skeptical. The Human-caused Global Cooling crowd didn’t have the evidence they claimed to have.
So, in the late 1970’s, the temperature started warming up and all the climate alarmists switched from declaring SO2 to be an emergency to declaring that CO2 is an emergency.
Naturally, because of history, I’m skeptical of these claims, and am even more so now, because I have spent decades looking for one shred of evidence that CO2 is detrimental to the Earth’s atmosphere or to human beings.
No evidence, man! I’ve been looking a *long* time.
If anyone has any evidence, please present it now. I think I can say with confidence that no evidence will be presented.
Fool me once (Human-caused Global Cooling), shame on you. Fool me twice (Human-caused Global Warming), shame on me.
I won’t be fooled twice. I’m wise to these dishonest climate alarmist “scientists” now.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the response, confirming that you remain undead. Hey, even as we disagree, I am concerned about your well-being.
“Your 1 of 253 theory…” It’s just arithmetic, pointing out the tiny portion of extra warming or inhibited cooling one would have to isolate for reliable attribution to non-natural causes. You have not responded with any substance on that point.
Be well.
Back radiation from CO2 induces increases in evaporative cooling. It can’t cause warming due to the 2LOT.
Cloudiness has declined but the percentage of cloudiness may not be an accurate …
CERES measures absorbed solar energy. Since 2000 the amount appears to have increased by close to 2%. That is a large warming influence.
?fit=1218%2C822&ssl=1
The stratosphere has cooled rather than warmed
The stratosphere cooled as a result of two major eruptions. Other than that, there’s been almost no change. In addition, it doesn’t tell us anything about surface warming.
Air pollution is being reduced
We generally only see temperature effects from volcanic eruptions when they involved major equatorial events. Why do you think human production of aerosols has any effect?
It appears to me that most of your views are baloney.
Whether it’s more warming, or less cooling is an important distinction. If it’s more warming, you could make the argument that it’s related to solar heating. Since several recent warming events have coincided with el Nino events, the heat could be coming from the oceans.
I saw the recent paper by the Russian team running the least inaccurate global warming model describes ENSO as ‘asymmetric’ – that certainly does not sound like it averages out or is ‘temperature neutral in the long run’ does it? Interesting – I was hoping that WUWT might do a post on their paper.
The entire trend can be placed squarely on changing sunlight.
If you look at UAH from inception in 1980 to most recent, the high latitudes in the NH are warming and the high latitudes of the SH are cooling. These changes are entirely related to shifting sunlight due to the precession cycle. Land has a a response coefficient to sunlight compared with oceans. The land mass responds 10 times more to solar forcing than the oceans in the SH.
So combine the sunlight shifting northward with the distribution of land and the higher thermal response of land to sunlight and you get “global” warming.
All climate models warm the high latitudes in SH and cool the high latitudes in the NH relative to measured because their CO2 induced warming acts everywhere much the same.
You might be right, and it might also be true that other factors are involved. But in any case, you picked up on the well-demonstrated natural reason for the annual cycle of globally averaged surface temperature to begin with – the land v ocean asymmetry of NH and SH.
Ireneusz
March 10, 2024 3:59 am
How much water will fall on the US west coast by March 13.
strativarius
March 10, 2024 4:28 am
Moonbat Watch
“”On a planet getting hotter and drier by the year, governments are wilfully ignoring a looming crisis … Above all, we need to change our diets. Those of us with dietary choice (in other words, the richer half of the world’s population) should seek to minimise the water footprint of our food. With apologies for harping on about it, this is yet another reason to switch to an animal-free diet, which reduces both total crop demand and, in most cases, water use. … I hate to pile yet more on to you, but some of us have to try to counter the endless bias…”” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/04/water-world-run-out-planet-hotter-looming-crisis
Poor George. Faith blinds him to the well known fact that increases in his bete noir – Carbon dioxide – increases the water efficiency of plants. But what about actual rainfall in this allegedly hotter, drier world George inhabits?
Apart from making “green hydrogen” there aren’t many processes that actually destroy water.
Farming in desserts using fossil water won’t work if the wells run dry, but that is nothing to do with climate change.
Also I don’t know which part of the UK is the natural habitat of the moobat, but the farmers round here are walking the fields roped together in case one of them goes under in the mud.
“Now I lay me down to sleepIn mud that’s many fathoms deep. If I’m not here when you awake Just hunt me up with an oyster rake.” —Shelby Foote
Quite right about dessert farming. Many desserts start out moist, but after a few days they dry out. Even a moist chocolate cake with cherries and whipped cream on top will eventually end up too dry to grow anything.
Why do I get the impression that Moonbat, and the other alarmist morons, begin writing their inane rants with the alarmist-scream-of-the-week and work backwards until they find a culprit, no matter how ridiculous.
I’ll support Moonbat’s right to say whatever the hell he likes, no matter how unhinged, but I just wish he’d stop using “we” or “us” – no, George, it’s really just you and a very small minority that believe those things.
Urban Heat Archipelagos, such as on the US East Coast, from Portland, Maine, to Norfolk, Virginia, significantly contribute to local warming. That area used to be covered with forests.
Many large solar systems in the US Southwest add up to a heat archipelago.
Adaptation, such as increasing the width and height of dikes, and capacities of culvert and storm sewer systems, etc., planting billions of trees each year, rebuilding the rain forests, etc., will be required.
Because, huge quantities of solar energy are collected in the Tropics to warm the planet each day, preservation of the world’s equatorial rain forest belt is vital for the future well-being of the earth.
That should have priority over wind, solar, EV, heat pump, etc., measures, implemented mostly in temperate zones.
. https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12390020087?profile=RESIZE_710x . Important Role of CO2 for Flora Growth .
Many plants require greater CO2 than 400 ppm to survive and thrive, so they became extinct, along with the fauna they supported. As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts. The current CO2 needs to at least double or triple to reinvigorate the world’s flora and fauna.
CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm in 1900 to 423 ppm at end 2023. It increased:
.
1) Greening of the world by at least 10 to 15%, as measured by satellites since 1979.
2) Crop yields per acre.
3) Partially due to burning fossil fuels
. https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-and https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-not-pollution-it-s-the-currency-of-life
After vote in Brussels last Monday evening, a majority of the European Parliament favored a Commission proposal that would no longer automatically classify electric cars as climate-neutral vehicles.
As usual, that’s what European Democracy is, a non elected group of people, in general not so successful politicians from EU countries that decides over our lives. And the elected parliament says “yes”.
What could be causing this epidemic of whale suicide? Some scientists say it’s due to anxiety about boiling oceans. A pod of adolescent whales protested the lack of concrete action by beaching themselves this past week. According to the group’s spokesman, Capt. Ahab Ceeley (he/him), the group demands more offshore wind and a return to pre-kerosene lighting standards of the nineteenth century.
House arrest, huh? Because if you’ve logged on at home and said something that another feels is offensive then what they really need to do is give you more time to do it again in the comfort of your own home.
How rich do you have to be that you can ignore the tanking economy, most of us getting poorer, and just prioritise being happy? These people do not live in the real world.
That is 100% postmodern woke philosophy. An addiction to “wellbeing” & the therapeutic state. Utterly wrong on so many levels. That collectivist philosophy weakens societies, it does not strengthen the individual at all, it does the very opposite.
“Well meaning” wellbeing, is altruistic at its core to its core, and devoid of rationale or objectivity. It has infested societies at all levels, particularly education. It assumes that every human needs help in some way, and the State is here to provide you with the only means of attaining “happiness”.
You get “wellness” when you “detox” your body.
Anyone ever seen reports about what the toxins are, the ones that modern quackery remove from the body?
MaYbe they are trendy items liKe “anti-oxidants” or “heavy metals”.
Any other candidates?
The whole concept of “wellness” is yet another scam from uneducated money-takers.
Geoff S
Mr. S: /s/- Yes, the first report on these toxins, identified as “free radicals”, was in a James Bond movie, “Never Say Never Again”. Appropos.
Richard Greene
March 10, 2024 7:48 am
There will never be a reasonable Nut Zero plan for battery capacity since such a plan could be costed and found to be far beyond affordable.
Not that you can run an electric grid on batteries.
A real engineering project has a detailed plan for feasibility studies, cost estimates and critical path timing estimates.
Funding is arranged before any work starts.
Nut Zero has no detailed plan.
Therefore, it is a fake engineering project.
There is also no hope of stopping the rise of atmospheric CO2, and no reason to do so.
Almost seven billion people live in nations that could not care less about CO2 emissions.
Those nations include every nation with a high birth rate.
Is the US pressuring China, India, Russia, etc. in any way to join Nut Zero?
If climate was the rel goal, that problem would be VERY important. But there is no pressure or financial penalties for nations ignoring Nut Zero.
When you combine the lack of a detailed Nut Zero plan, including reasonable battery capacity requirements, and the many nations ignoring Nut Zero, the conclusion is NUT ZERO is not about the climate.
NUT ZERO is a political strategy to gain power, not a real engineering project.
Nut Zero is a fake engineering project to fight a fake climate crisis.
Leftist engineers know a grid will get more less reliable as unreliable sources of power are added.
But they remain silent to keep their jobs.
People who remain silent, when they see evil, are evil themselves.
——————————————–
Why are some January 6 prisoners still in prison with no trial after over three years?
Because an election is coming this year and those political prisoners are the fascist style warming message for conservatives and Republicans to avoid protesting the huge election fraud I expect in November 2024.
If 2024 election fraud is as large as I expect, the result will be another American civil war. And not just a war of words.
——————————————–
Meanwhile, fascism is growing even faster in Cubanada than in the US, thanks to PM Fidel TrueDope (He looks like Fidel, without the cigar)
Fidel TrueDope’s Canada Will Imprison Anyone It Think ‘Might’ Commit a Hate Crime, Could Punish Them With Life Sentences
I agree, battery systems are totally unaffordable, even at high 40% throughputs.
They would add a huge cost to already =high electricity cost of wind and solar
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging EXCERPT: 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% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) 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. Excluded costs would add at least 10 – 15 c/kWh
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 excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, 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 COMMENTS ON CALCULATION:
Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.
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 the 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 MWh from the HV grid to deliver about 40 MWh 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, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.
“The operation of the electricity grid requires a significant amount of inertia to start it from a system black as well as to ensure the correct operation of the protection systems.
Battery storage does not provide inertia and neither does a solar power generator or a wind generator.
The other challenge is that “renewable” energy generators mostly provide dc power which has to be converted to ac for the grid.
Generally, these systems require the grid to be functioning so that the grid voltage and frequency can be used to allow the inverters to synchronise and deliver power into the grid.
Whilst there are some grid forming inverters available that in principle do not need the grid to first establish voltage and frequency, they are not many.
And the proposition that many could be used to establish the grid directly from batteries is just not feasible considering the different operating characteristics of these devices.
Interestingly, while certainly it’s easy to calculate how much storage would be required to provide say a month’s backup for any electricity system, would that be enough?
The calculation should include the associated system losses as well as allow for the appropriate depth of discharge for the batteries.
However, the greater challenge would be the operating strategy for the batteries – when to charge and when to discharge!
Also remember that the batteries would be required for a grid stabilising function (frequency control) and need to be able to absorb excess power in the event of the loss of a transmission line or provide additional power in the event of the loss of a major load.
For amusement I’ve asked a number of my electrical engineering colleagues what the control algorithm would be to operate such a system and none can come up with a workable answer.
And the reason is simply it can’t be done. Don Quixote’s “Tilting at Windmills” comes to mind.”
Don’t worry. Riding to the rescue apparently is a new start up in the UK which claims to have £10 bn to invest in a portfolio of battery storage projects. NatPower says it will submit proposals for two gigaparks in the North of England and one in the West. This will be followed by a further 10 next year.
They obviously haven’t read the Royal Society’s September 2023 Report ‘Large scale electricity storage policy briefing’ which said
“some tens of TWhs of very long duration storage will be needed. For comparison the TWhs are 1000 times more than is currently provided by pumped hydro and far more than could be provided cost effectively by batteries”
The Grauniad says NatPower is part of a specialist European energy group that “is backed by its management team and a private equity firm”
“Why are some January 6 prisoners still in prison with no trial after over three years?
Because an election is coming this year and those political prisoners are the fascist style warning message for conservatives and Republicans to avoid protesting the huge election fraud I expect in November 2024.”
That’s probably true. Trump will pardon most of the prisoners and people yet to stand trial, with the exception of any who actually committed violent acts.
“If 2024 election fraud is as large as I expect, the result will be another American civil war. And not just a war of words.”
That’s probably true, too. I don’t know if actual fighting will break out, but conservative States are not going to follow a Democrat Dictator down the road to hell. Separation from the Union may be necessary, in that case, and conservative States will go their own way. Let the Radical Democrats destroy themselves, not us.
Trump is putting a lot of effort into seeing that Democrat election cheating is not successful this time.
“That’s probably true. Trump will pardon most of the prisoners and people yet to stand trial, with the exception of any who actually committed violent acts.”
So are some in prison who have not been accused of violent acts?
“Trump is putting a lot of effort into seeing that Democrat election cheating is not successful this time.”
I’d be curious to know exactly what he is doing to stop cheating, Tom that is not already being done?
And I see many on both sides are delighted with the success of mail in voting for the last lot of primaries. So much easier for all to not have to stand in queues. And after all, surely in a healthy democracy, the easier it is for all to vote the higher chance everyone who wants to vote can. and that can only be good. don’t want to suppress votes.
“So are some in prison who have not been accused of violent acts?”
They may be accused of violent acts, but, for example, the guy wearing Viking horns is in jail and he didn’t commit any violent acts. His tour of the Capitol Building was recorded. He had Capitol Police opening doors for him. He looked more like a Stoner than an Insurrectionist. He did nothing violent yet he is still in jail.
There are a lot of people like that. The radical Democrats don’t really care if the charges are correct, they just want bodies to put in jail in order to sell their Insurrection Lie. They have corrupt judges and prosecutors and that’s exactly what they are doing..
It’s all a setup by the weaponized Biden Department of “Justice”. They’ve been going after Trump for years and now they are going after his supporters, too.
As for Trump’s efforts to stop vote cheating, he is asking for volunteer poll watchers to keep an eye on the Democrats. You can sign up on his website. And Trump has numerous lawyers working every angle. Republicans in every State are working to keep the vote honest.
As for a healthy Democracy, come back in November. We’ll see how healthy it really is. Another stolen election may be the end of the U.S. as a Democracy. Those stolen from are not going to cooperate with the thieves.
So I read about jacob Chansley. He was charged with “knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and with violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds” It seems he entered through a smashed glass window….”On March 16, 2021, the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. released previously unseen video footage of Chansley entering the Capitol building after windows were smashed.[42]”
And the concept that the guards provided a tour is just not true. They were overwhelmed and terrified so many decided to not resist with the invasion. Many accounts by guards were offered during the trials, but none supported Tucker Carlson’s silly idea they somehow acted as guides.
And, I’m not sure what Trumps poll watchers will do that the ones they have now don’t?
That reminds me, whatever happened to that BLM guy caught inside that claimed he was just an “observer” despite the fact that there is (maybe “was” now) video of him inciting the crowd to enter the building?
“And the concept that the guards provided a tour is just not true.”
No, it is true. I saw it with my own eyes. The Capitol Police escorted the Viking into various rooms and even unlocked doors for him.
And if you get a chance to see the video, there’s no way you would call the guy a threat to anyone.
It’s all trumped up by dishonest, dangerous radical Democrats.
And btw, just to show how corrupt the Democrats are, and how much they want to get Trump, the Democrat New York State legislature modified a law to allow E Jean Carroll to file sex assault charges against Trump because the statutes of limitation had run out. After she filed her complaint, the New York Legislature retuned the law to its original form.
Trump says he didn’t even know who E Jean Carroll was. Her lawyer claims that is further defamation of his client and is threatening, and probably will sue Trump over it, and will probably win in the corrupt jurisdiction of New York State.
Getting Trump is a huge radical Democrat operation. All hands on deck! All coordinated from the Biden White House.
The Radical Democrats are trying to steal our nation away from the People. They are just as dangerous to our personal freedoms as are the Communist Chinese to the personal freedoms of Chinese people.
I am frankly ambivalent on that point. Certainly not in support of actively suppressing legal voting, but as to the value of making sure that everyone votes, regardless of whether they have bothered to inform themselves on the issues.
Having said that, I would be happy to see a process whereby every eligible voter is assured of a convenient means of voting, but where the process is so nearly impervious to fraud that we all could be fully confident that meaningful fraud is impossible. I’d happily see uninformed voters voting if it came with an assurance of the practical elimination of fraud.
Mail-in ballots, unguarded drop boxes, same-day registration, voting without proof of identity, ballot harvesting, failure to maintain voting rolls so that deceased persons and those who have moved out of the voting district remain on the list for years, are some of the reasons why conservative voters have lost all confidence in the integrity of our elections.
Badly vetted voter rolls combined with ballot harvesting is an obvious opportunity for massive fraud.
Eliminating voter ID requirements is likewise an invitation to fraud including voting as persons known to the perpetrator to be deceased or no longer residing in the jurisdiction as well as voting by non-citizens if the registration process is not rigorous enough.
It would be possible in many jurisdictions for public records to be scrutinized to identify inappropriate names on voting rolls and then pay a criminal to travel from polling place to polling place impersonating voters who can be confidently assumed will never appear to vote. Each such fraudster could easily cast 20 or more fraudulent ballots on election day in an urban area—without the need for corrupt election officials in the polling places. In jurisdictions where there is extended voting, the opportunities multiply.
In corrupted situations where the opposition oversight has been paid to look the other way or intimidated into silence, or tricked into believing that they could trust the corrupt party, hundreds and thousands of fraudulent votes might be introduced voting as people who did not actually vote.
Mail-in ballots are insecure, period. Ballot harvesting is subject to intimidation and loss of confidentiality.
Let there be early in-person voting over several weeks of voting opportunities and for those physically unable to go to a polling center, have those limited special cases handled by some highly secure process.
Require that every second of polling, ballot handling, and counting be securely recorded on video. Every vote should be marked on paper by the voter, or should generate a paper record which the voter reviews and then personally places into a locked ballot box. The electronic count must be auditable.
There must be very rigorous processes for proof of identity and eligibility. Voting rolls should be purged very frequently and automatically when death certificates are issued or when a voter registers, immediately removing them from the voting rolls in their prior place of residence.
Anyone who opposes these common sense approaches is in favor of fraud.
“Mail-in ballots, unguarded drop boxes, same-day registration, voting without proof of identity, ballot harvesting, failure to maintain voting rolls so that deceased persons and those who have moved out of the voting district remain on the list for years, are some of the reasons why conservative voters have lost all confidence in the integrity of our elections.”
I would suggest that the reason conservative voters have lost confidence is they have been repeatedly told the election was stolen by a man who can’t take defeat. To their shame they are prepared to believe this man despite:
the fact that numerous inquiries have found nothing unusual.
the man responsible for monitoring the integrity of the election, who was appointed by Trump, telling the world the elections were free and fair.
No, Simon. There is a world of difference between it being proven secure and the actual case of there just being no proof.
The fact is that there is no proof possible because the process is designed to be untraceable. We must have a secret ballot. If mail-in ballots are separated as they were from the authenticating outer envelope without properly evaluating whether the ballot is authentic, and then the outer envelopes are destroyed, any fraudulent ballots are necessarily indistinguishable from legitimate ballots. Even if the outer envelopes had not been destroyed, once they are separated, it would be impossible to remove an invalid ballot from the count if the information on the outer envelope were subsequently determined to be invalid. There is no evidence because it was designed to avoid evidence.
In-person voting with proper voter id against properly maintained voter rolls, and chain of custody over the ballots, is necessary to assure that every ballot counted is a legitimate ballot.
Quite apart from whether Trump is right or wrong, confidence comes from a secure process. Intentionally insecure process undermines confidence. Lack of confidence doesn’t require proof of fraud, just the reasonable possibility of fraud. Those who oppose measures to assure a secure election can only be doing so because they hope to benefit from fraud.
“No, Simon. There is a world of difference between it being proven secure and the actual case of there just being no proof.” He said it was secure. He was the man in charge. Good enough for me.
Your whole argument seems to be it’s possible there was fraud, so therte must have been.
“Those who oppose measures to assure a secure election can only be doing so because they hope to benefit from fraud.” Orrrrr…. they want to find a sweet spot where it is easy for everyone to vote, even those working three jobs who struggle to find the time…. and at the same time be secure…..
Simon,
I do not know the extent of fraud and I cannot know the extent of fraud any more than any ‘man in charge’ can know that under the circumstances. Furthermore, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that there are fifty women and men in charge in our federal system.
Many think that when an election is decided in a state by a few thousand votes out of millions, it is possible but unlikely that there was no fraud at all. It is possible at the same time that there was sufficient fraud that the outcome was reversed. If there was some fraud in Massachusetts or in Alabama, where the outcome was never in doubt, that is reprehensible, but also irrelevant.
It is absurd to say that inherently insecure mail-in ballots placed into unsecured drop boxes is the ‘sweet spot’ vs. extended in-person voting with robust voter ID. The longest I ever waited to vote in person was maybe 15 minutes. A person who is ‘working three jobs’ is not so inconvenienced by filling out their ballot at a polling center vs. filling it out at home and bringing it to a post office or dropbox.
We are talking about a difference of a few minutes every two years. And that massive sacrifice enables the losing side to say I don’t like the outcome but I acknowledge that it was the legitimate outcome. If you think that Trump is disingenuously claiming fraud and bemoaning the fact that people have doubts, you should want to support my position on this.
What you mean to say is that the outcome went the way you preferred so the process must have been good enough.
But the 2020 election was the safest and most secure election in history! One wonders what the second most secure and safest election was–that they can’t tell you, because it’s all propaganda nonsense.
Yes Simon, mail-in voting was certainly a success, and so easy; why – some people did it 3 or 4 times it was that easy. There has to be a compromise point where ease of voting and increased turnout is balanced by voter security. Let us all know when the US states reach that point, won’t you?
I remember a poll worker in Cincinnati was convicted of voter fraud during one of the Obama elections.
She sent in an absentee ballot AND voted in person. She also sent in her daughter’s absentee ballot plus, I think it was, 3 other absentee ballots from her address for people that she claimed “used to live there”.
(In Ohio you have to request an absentee ballot.)
“Trump will pardon every one of them” Of course he will. He like them is a crook. And they did what he asked them to do which was try to subvert the democratic process. But like him they failed.
“And they did what he asked them to do which was try to subvert the democratic process.”
Of course, there’s no evidence that ever happened. That’s a figment of your imagination, Simon.
Two days before the incident at the Capitol Building, Trump offered 10,000 National Guard troops to go guard the Capitol Bulding. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, rejected this offer of troops. And the day before the Capitol Building incident, Trump again offered to put National Guard troops around the Capitol Building and again Nancy Pelosi refused the offer.
Does that sound like the activity of a man who wants to take over the Capitol Building?
If Trump really wanted to take over the Capitol Building, he wouldn’t have offered any troops in the first place.
There is no evidence Trump had anything to do with anything that took place at the Capitol Building that day. Some of the people there got carried away and did some unlawful things, but there was no direction from Trump for them to do so. Trump told everyone in his speech that people should demonstrate “peacefully”.
The radical Democrats are trying to gin up an Insurrection to use as a political weapon against Trump and Republicans.
And it seems that the Jan 6 committee has destroyed a large portion of the evidence they used in their Insurrection investigation. Thousands of hours of video and other documents have been destroyed. Why would the Demcorats destroy the evidence? We know why. Because they are no-good, low-life’s, trying to lie themselves into political power.
The evidence had to be destroyed to save Democracy ™ duh
Ireneusz
March 10, 2024 9:37 am
Snowfall in the mountains of Oregon and northern California.
Eben
March 10, 2024 10:00 am
The UAH now spans 1.5C temperature variation , it is proof that 1.5C temperature increase causes absolutely nothing.
The catastrophe touting climate shysterz are spewing nothing but lies
Russell Cook
March 10, 2024 10:42 am
City of Chicago v. BP PLC, et al. — my dissection of this one here.
Contrary to what enviro-activists want you to believe, this lawsuit is not one more in the flood of climate damages lawsuits, it is little more than the same basic lawsuit template offered in a traveling circus act designed to dazzle state / county / city leaders into jumping onto the “ExxonKnew” lawfare bandwagon. But in this latest effort, the citation source substitution for their blatantly false accusation against Dr Willie Soon is a pretty good indication that the handlers of these lawsuits knew for quite some time now that there’s something fatally wrong with it.
Some admissions that we already know, for example that academics will do just about anything, even pay out of their own pockets, to get their scribblings published in “The Literature”.
Apparently, they need to resort to these measures to keep their jobs and get research grants.
Seems that “The Literature” is a closed-shop business just like New York state’s justice system is.
Latitia James, the New York State Attorney General who is persecuting Trump gave a speech yesterday for some New York City employees, and New York City Firefighters in the crowd started booing her and chanting “Trump!, Trump! Trump!. Latitia wants to find out who these protesters are so she can punish them for speaking their minds. If Latitia can persecute Trump, she can certainly persecute disrespectful New York City Firefighters.
All these radical Democrats like James are crooked as a dog’s hind leg. And they just love turning the justice system into a weapon to use against their political opponents. That’s their only avenue to political power.
James and these other corrupt Democrats better hope Biden wins and Republicans don’t get a majority in the House or Senate because if that doesn’t happen, then the Republicans are going to unearth all the sordid details of this political hit job on Trump and the Republican Party. And let the chips fall where they may.
Here’s a horrible human trajedy. You need to spend every moment as though it is your last, because it just may be your last. Everything to live for and dies like this. Terrible.
I noted that they seemed to have trouble breaking the Tesla’s windows to get the woman out, and the tow truck driver said he was leery of attaching a tow cable to the car, fearing he might be electrocuted by the Tesla battery.
It is obvious, to me, by inspection, that our sun and other stars pass close enough to effect each other occasionally. One source said within 50,0000 AU (astronomical units) every million years or so, and within 10,000 AU every 20 million years or so. This leads to a YouTube video I found by accident: A Star Passed by Our Solar System and Altered Earth’s Orbit and Climate 56 Million Years Ago (https://youtu.be/U_MsisArQX4?t=161). This is an exposition on the scientific paper: Passing Stars as an Important Driver of Paleoclimate and the Solar System’s Orbital Evolution. The video is interesting in itself; it seems there was a high-temperature event, of possibly 8º C, about 56 million years ago that has no definitely recognized explanation.
What I want to emphasize is, near the end, the paper and video comment on the situation that everything is based upon computer models, and they are too complex to do accurately; they depend upon too many assumptions, and, in any case, no claim is made for certainty or that other causes are not also present. It is WONDERFUL to have honesty about computer models, complexity, assumptions, and uncertainty.
This study seems to have missed the possible influence of the sun’s twin star, “Nemesis” proposed by Alvarez et al as the trigger for the Dinosaur extinction, as described in Richard A. Muller’s book, “Nemesis, the Death Star”, with an orbital frequency of some 26 million years, IIRC. Presumably it would still have been “around” 56 Million years ago…
The UK is threatened with an inundation of solar farms around its major centres of population by policy for locational pricing giving advantageous prices. It’s really already been happening. Here’s the AR5 CFD awards mapped.
Phneas Sprague
March 10, 2024 9:44 pm
I am surorised that there isn’t more discussion of the VOlcano in Tonga that added 10% to the water vapor content in the atmosphere. Normally water vapor is considered an ocen heat transfer method. endothermic evaporation cools and exothermic condensation some where else transfers the heat.
In this case the lava was cooled and the water vapor sent into the atytmosphere as a massive transfer of heat energy from the lava.
Certainly there will be an un precidented oportunity to test some of the greenhouse gas theories and shouldn’t we see an atmospheric temperature spike? Or an increase in clouds SOMETHING????
There are a lot of hints about the unreliability of electric vehicles when one looks at rail travel and the fact that batteries are not relied upon when there are no cables. The engines can instead be automatically switched to diesel.
Do our wind and solar addicts ever ask themselves why?
Europe unprepared for rapidly growing climate risks, report finds
Dangers of wildfires, extreme weather and other factors outgrowing preparedness, European Environment Agency says
Europe has heated up more than any other continent since the Industrial Revolution. It has heated about twice as fast as the global average as carbon dioxide has clogged the atmosphere and trapped sunlight. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/10/europe-unprepared-for-climate-risks-eea-report
The Report (PDF 425 pages! Some of the topics covered… Coral, droughts, floods, extreme weather, food security, GHG emissions, heatwaves, IPCC RCP8.5, landslides, ocean acidification, ocean temperatures, Paris pledges, sea levels, wildfires, models)
European Climate Risk Assessment
Europe is the fastest warming continent in the world, and climate risks are threatening its energy and food security, ecosystems, infrastructure, water resources, financial stability, and people’s health. According to the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) assessment, published today, many of these risks have already reached critical levels and could become catastrophic without urgent and decisive action.
First, they’re school buses. They run about two hours in the morning before school, then head back to the garage for a charge. Maybe they’re out a bit at noon, but mostly they are recharging in a heated garage until it’s time to take the kids home after school. The batteries only have to provide about 2-3 hours and 100 miles worth of power (and heating) between charges. The batteries never get cold, because they are either powering the bus and keeping themselves warm, or in a garage.
This is nothing at all like a mass transit bus, which needs to be running continually for at least 12 hours (6 am to 6 pm), and ideally much longer. No battery vehicle can do 12 hours with no recharge even in the best weather, so you’ll have to buy two e-buses to keep one on the route.
But at least batteries in a bus are likely to never get cold. Even if you have a heated garage for your car, it will be sitting out in a parking for 8 hours or more while you work. In any climate with cold winters, either the batteries are getting so cold they’ll work poorly when you try to drive home, or they are running themselves down to run an electric heater. What are the chances that your employer will ever install charging stations for every car in the employee parking lot? That’s the only way you’ll all be able to drive electric cars to work on a cold day and get home again.
Back with some highlights 😉
BYD launches cheaper Seagull electric car with starting price under $10,000 to fuel price war
https://electrek.co/2024/03/06/byd-launches-cheaper-seagull-ev-9700-price/
A French Nuclear Fairy Tale
https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/09/14/a-french-nuclear-fairy-tale/
Quoting that Counterpunch link:
“The production costs for the electricity supplied by new nuclear power plants are currently about twice as high as those of larger wind and solar plants,”.
In other words, nuclear power is about half the cost of wind or solar power once you take the capacity factor into account. And you can put it near where the demand is. And it’s much easier to manage and doesn’t destabilise the grid. And nuclear power stations can provide back-up for each other.
and all that with so much regulatory lead in their saddlebags.
Respek!
Americans don’t want cheap cars, EV or otherwise. We already have scooters and motorcycles that the majority choose not to purchase.
Cheap Chinese BYD EV cars are not a gamechanger. They will go the way of the Yugo, as long as Americans have choices.
C’mon man. They were quite literally the hottest selling car last year.
“Americans don’t want cheap cars,” ???
A lot of Americans do want cheap cars but there are no cheap EVs. About 50% of families can not afford the least expensive Tesla EV (partly because 40% of US households don’t pay federal income taxes, so can’t use a tax credit
But many lower income people also live in apartments, so have no garage to charge an EV in
EV sales are booming, but the number of suckers has to run out. They cost more and deliver less than ICEs and hybrids.
January 2024
Global BEV + PHEV sales
up +69% from January 2023
February 2024
Ford US BEV sales
up 80% versus February 2023
Ford US sales jump 10.5% in February, beating Toyota for second straight month (yahoo.com)
Americans don’t want what cheap cars offer. SUVs and trucks are the best-sellings models.
Sure, Americans want to pay less but they aren’t willing to compromise on cheap-ass cars.
There is a difference between “inexpensive” and “cheap.” Everybody wants inexpensive, nobody wants cheap unless very-inexpensive is all they can afford
Honestly, if someone gave me an EV, even a top-of-line EV, I’d sell it and buy something I want.
Do any of the BYD cars meet American safety standards? What is the range on a charge with the heater and defrosters running? If you can’t keep the windows clear, the car is not safe!
The article cited, and Mike Jonas’s reply nearby, makes for confusing reading. Full quote:
No matter how a person dices this, there is no way to compare costs of wind/solar versus nuclear from the quotation itself. What do “about” and “larger” mean? The real thesis of this article is that the author and those quoted are incensed that ratepayers and their grandchildren are paying for “cheap” power by opaque means.
But this is exactly what people are being made to do the world over with taxpayer subsidies to wind/solar. Why the selective outrage? In addition ratepayers are slowly being squeezed by the burdens that wind/solar add to the grid; and then whacked a third time by the increases to the rate base of overbuilding nameplate ratings plus storage and needed return on that.
Not to mention the other subsidy of wind/solar vs nuclear. Nuclear generating stations in the US have to pay into a trust fund for providing permanent storage for the spent fuel as well as setting aside money for decommissioning the plant. AFAIK, wind plants are not required to set aside money for decommissioning the site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
I see one of BYD’s new EVs does 0 – 62 mph in 2.36 seconds. How many accidents will follow?
I always need to get to 62mph in 2.36 seconds when heading to my local liquor store for the 6-packs specials just announced.
Doesn’t everyone?
Less horsepower = more range?
“Less horsepower = more range?”
I’m not sure that’s true with regard to EV’s Tom. Unlike an ICE car, I think you will find an EV only uses the energy you ask it to, even when there is extra horsepower available. Bit like dimming a lightbulb.
Batteries lose charge even when not in use due to internal reactions. This is undesirable, so I doubt that people ask them to do this. It is not at all like dimming a lightbulb.
That is true, but EV’s are also far more efficient than ICE cars
Gas-Powered Vehicle Energy Loss from 100% of Original Fuel75-84% of original energy is lost
Electric Vehicle Energy Loss from 100% of Original Fuel31-35% of original energy is lost, but 22% is returned through regenerative braking
What about the losses from the wind turbine / solar panel to the plug in the car
Transmission costs, and DC / AC and AC / DC conversion costs are not inconsiderable
True, up to a point, but how many lightbulbs weigh almost twice as much as an ICE car? Getting that weight of car up to 62 mph in 2.36 seconds must drain the battery pack by a whopping amount. Lightbulbs draw power from mains electricity, these cars draw power only from what they can carry onboard and you will hit a limit on how fast or far they can go. Several EV’s have successfully accomplished the Pikes Peak challenge, setting very fast times but only having enough power to complete the 12.4 mile course with very little left over.
“True, up to a point, but how many lightbulbs weigh almost twice as much as an ICE car? Getting that weight of car up to 62 mph in 2.36 seconds must drain the battery pack by a whopping amount.”
From my experience driving both quick ICE and EV cars, EV ‘s have a far less drain on the fuel/battery when you drive them hard than an ICE car. But that is only my observation so….. it would be interesting to see some tests done on this
Rolling resistance varies with the square of the velocity, and wind resistance with the cube of the velocity. If one takes advantage of the greater acceleration to spend more time driving at the maximum (+), then the battery will be drained more quickly and the range will be reduced proportionately.
Back during the Arab Oil Embargo in the ’70s, there was considerable discussion about the optimal speed for cars to get the best gas mileage. The consensus was used as a rationalization for the nationwide speed limit of 55 MPH. However, I suspect that the primary contribution to saving gasoline was through discouraging people from taking long trips because of the extra time and cost of overnight lodging.
What I haven’t seen is any claims for is the optimal speed for maximizing the range or duration of a battery charge. Perhaps it should be expressed as dollars per mile traveled.
True but a smaller electric motor does not save that much money. And fast acceleration is one of the few EV selling points
And just how important is faster acceleration to the average driver?
“And just how important is faster acceleration to the average driver?”
Not important at all to “them,” just to the more discerning ones.
It’s not important until I need to reach freeway speed in the length of a merge lane, and then it’s critical. I want to be able to give myself whiplash even though I never plan to use full power.
“ And fast acceleration is one of the few EV selling points”
And reliability. Oh and running costs. And smoothness. Oh and quietness. And don’t forget the tech in these new machines. Other than that they are useless.
Recent news articles indicate that EVs are less reliable than ICEVs, and PHEVs are even less reliable than ICEVs.
I was referring to a smaller electric motor in the context of using less electricity.
My thinking is: One has a battery in an EV that has a fixed amount of output. A smaller electric motor would draw less power from that battery than a larger electric motor, so therefore, the battery would have charge for a longer period of time using the smaller electric motor which would give it greater range.
If that is the case, then I don’t understand why EV manufacturers are not promoting smaller electric motors with greater range, since range anxiety seems to be a sticking point for buyers.
I agree that the fast acceleration is a selling point for the EV’s.
I personally, don’t have a need to go from zero to 60mph in less than three seconds. Six seconds would do me just fine. 🙂
Well six seconds is still admirable so I now have more respect for you Tom.
How much warming is natural, and how much are humans causing?
How, exactly, would the non-natural be isolated from the natural?
And for that matter, “warming” of what, exactly?
The claim is that it is the global average surface temperature that is responding to non-natural “forcing.”
But wait. There is about 3.8C of warming and 3.8C of cooling every year, for the planet as a whole, estimated using our best numerical methods of data assimilation and representation.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world
Let’s take 0.15C per decade, or 0.015C per year, as the recent trend, per UAH TLT.
3.8/0.015=253.
Not many seem to appreciate this attribution problem, to reliably determine the cause for 1 part in 253 of impeded cooling or 1 part in 253 of excess warming.
253 parts are obviously natural, but the 1 part must somehow be non-natural? No.
David the new Methane satellite is up and operating. It uses IR detection to locate and tell a quantity of methane in an area.
Here is NIST link for absorption by methane. What is anything does this tell us as you seem to have a handle on this?
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C74828&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC
Your NIST link doesn’t tell is anything we don’t already know.
Methane absorption bands overlap water, CO2 and NOx bands, and are quite narrow, so the total heat they absorb can be claimed to be significant, but if you removed all the methane, it wouldn’t make much difference. So the new methane sat will be easily able to detect these bands, but the amount of warming they cause will still be a cause of dispute.
“Methane absorption bands …blah…blah…blah…”
___________________________________________________
The warming caused by methane is not spelled out anywhere. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) numbers for greenhouse gases are inversely proportional to the their concentration in the atmosphere, and have nothing to do with with their absorption spectrums.
Methane is increasing in the atmosphere at ~7 ppb annually so by 2100 it will cause less than 0.1°C of warming probably less less than 0.05°C. If anyone says it’s anymore than that, they should pipe up and show their work or source.
“… not spelled out anywhere…”
geez Steve, the heat involved is just width of band times average height of band times number of photons times the energy per photon at that wavelength. A physics or heat transfer engineering grad student, maybe even 3rd year undergrad can work it out. CliSci’s apparently not.
Yes, it is very close to irrelevant to the atmosphere for CH4….so in the “publish or perish” worlds of academia and media, nobody likes to publish anything that has the conclusion “it’s really a nothing-burger, sorry I wasted your time.”
And you can plug a doubling of CH4 or take it out entirely in UChicago Modtran too…
You didn’t say how much warming methane will cause by 2100 or in 100 years or if it doubles either. Willis E. some time ago went to Modtran and came up with an answer in W/m² which means nothing to the average person much less a less an ivory tower politician. Policy makers need to understand that the Global Warming Potential numbers are total bullshit. Ordinary people need to understand what a crock the methane scare is.
Here’s an interesting applet that shows what I’m saying.
https://applets.kcvs.ca/IRWindows/IRWindows.html
Select Earth Scaled emissions, H2O, CO2, CH4
Then unselect CH4….hmmm, nearly no effect on intensity…
And you can select lab spectra and scaled spectra and see how the climate crazies are interpreting the basic data without using some basic integral math over the Earth’s actual spectrum.…
Then unselect CH4….hmmm, nearly no effect on intensity…
________________________________________________
I have no idea how you can see no effect when you remove CH4. Methane absorption spectrum blinks on and off and nothing else moves.
Have you got the “Display Options” set on “Earth’s scaled emission Spectra” ? Otherwise you’ll just get the individual bands.
Or just put “Earth’s scaled emission Spectra” as your display option and click CH4 on and off to see how little difference it makes.
What DMacKenzie says. Use Modtran (U of Chicago portal) here. It is just absurd for there to be any concern about methane in respect to a “warming” result.
https://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Well I was more interested in whether they can tell quantity of methane, kg per yr, from frequency than anything else. But thanks for feed back.
Sorry for misunderstanding. Here is one description of satellite sensing for methane. Wavelength 1.61 to 1.68 microns (wavenumber about 6060.)
https://www.eoportal.org/satellite-missions/methane-sat#mission-capabilities
This part of the spectrum is off the plot to the left at the NIST link you shared.
They mention a capability to detect differences of 3 ppb, which is pretty impressive considering that the bulk atmospheric concentration is about 1700 ppb. For fluxes, I suppose some kind of dispersion modeling would have to be applied.
I don’t know about other satellite methane detection sensors, as to what part of the spectrum they use.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/06/the-misguided-crusade-to-reduce-anthropogenic-methane-emissions/
Two slices of bread plus your comment adds up to a baloney sandwich
Back radiation is increasing
Air pollution is being reduced
Antarctica is not melting or getting warmer
Most temperature records are TMIN rather than TMAX
The stratosphere has cooled rather than warmed
Top of the atmosphere solar energy has declined since the 1970s.
Cloudiness has declined but the percentage of cloudiness may not be an accurate proxy for the amount of solar energy that clouds block. That depends on types of clouds and the timing of the clouds. There are no accurate data for global annual average solar energy blocked by clouds.
Evidence of manmade warming since 1975 is stronger than evidence if natural warming, but the percentage split is unknown
Your 1 of 253 theory is either the theory of a genius or the theory of a fool. I think you know what side i am on.
Mr. Greene: He knows, as the consensus of nearly 100% of posters here know, that you are on the side of the fools. You’re so eager to prove it, over and over again. Here’s another display in the Greene Hall of Shame- “Evidence of manmade warming since 1975 ……. unknown.” It’s unknown, yet he knows one is stronger. Fool.
I wrote that the evidence of manmade warming is stronger than the evidence of natural warming since 1975 but the manmade to natural warming ratio is unknown.
One of the great mysteries is how changes in cloudiness are affecting the amount of solar energy reaching the surface.
Less air pollution is one cause.
The exact effects of cloudiness changes are not known.
A smaller percentage of cloudiness suggests an important natural cause of warming. But exactly what percentage of warming can be attributed to clouds is a mystery.
It’s no mystery that your science free insult post made no attempt to refute anything I had written. Better luck next time, Mr. Corduroy. You should be sedated.
The evidence…. blah..blah…
We are all still waiting !
You are batting zero so far, dickie. !
“science free insult post”
Started with your first rant at 8:01am
Mr. Greene: I read what you wrote, another great mystery is your notion that you are qualified to say the things you say. You apparently read somewhere that air pollution decreasing is causing warming ( I may agree, but I’m the “no-science” commenter), and now you’re an expert on the matter and all here are nutters. You haven’t the tools to assess natural warming, or manmade warming, never mind compare/contrast the two. I daresay nobody has such tools, which is why you deserve the derision you get here. I don’t need to say something that sounds scientific to you to show you are a great fool. You can call me a fabric (??!!) as you like, it won’t warp my woof.
“Evidence of manmade warming since 1975 is stronger than evidence of natural warming, but the percentage split is unknown”
What evidence? Saying it is so, doesn’t necessarily make it so.
This is an unsubstantiated assertion. The mainstay of alarmist climate science, which is made up solely of unsubstantiated assumptions/assertions about CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere. This claim is another one of those.
I briefly listed the evidence in my post that you obviously do not understand.
Are you claiming that nearly 100% of the scientists who have studied the climate since 1896 were all wrong when they claimd humans can affect the climate?
Who made you a Smarty Pants?
You haven’t listed anything except your own anti-science opinion.
Present evidence…. or don’t. 😉
Silly consensus statements are not evidence.
Greene….. ”I think she’s a witch”
A bunch of other people… ”we do too!”
Greene…. ”Let’s burn her, she’s definitely a witch!!”
..Science.
Tell us the 100%natural causes of the warming since 1975 smarty pants
The climate is a non-linear, chaotic system. It does what it damn well pleases. Linear systems respond to their inputs in linear ways. Non-linear systems do not. You and your ilk need to show how CO2 is causing the current warming and all warmings of the past. That is something that no climate scientist (oxymoron) has done.
Mr. Greene: So briefly, it ain’t there. That’s pretty brief.
“Who made you a Smarty Pants?”
Time made me a smarty pants. I’ve been watching this human-caused climate change narrative since the human-caused global cooling narrative of the 1970’s, and to date, have not seen any evidence that CO2 is measurably affecting the Earth’s atmosphere.
I don’t deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I just don’t see any evidence that anyone can demonstrate that this is heating up the Earth’s atmosphere, or is making extreme weather more extreme.
Some scientists think the CO2 actually cools the Earth after all feedbacks are figured in. Wouldn’t that be a kick in the head for climate alarmists!
The Earth’s atmosphere is a complicated place. CO2, so far, is just a bit player at best, going by current knowledge.
Yes, I was skeptical of Human-caused Global Cooling. Not at first. At first, I thought these guys may be on to something. But as time went along, I realized they had no evidence that SO2 was sending the Earth into another Ice Age. All they really had was speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions about SO2 and global cooling. This cause me a lot of pain at seeing how science was being bastardized, and I became skeptical of their claims.
It turns out I was correct to be skeptical. The Human-caused Global Cooling crowd didn’t have the evidence they claimed to have.
So, in the late 1970’s, the temperature started warming up and all the climate alarmists switched from declaring SO2 to be an emergency to declaring that CO2 is an emergency.
Naturally, because of history, I’m skeptical of these claims, and am even more so now, because I have spent decades looking for one shred of evidence that CO2 is detrimental to the Earth’s atmosphere or to human beings.
No evidence, man! I’ve been looking a *long* time.
If anyone has any evidence, please present it now. I think I can say with confidence that no evidence will be presented.
Fool me once (Human-caused Global Cooling), shame on you. Fool me twice (Human-caused Global Warming), shame on me.
I won’t be fooled twice. I’m wise to these dishonest climate alarmist “scientists” now.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the response, confirming that you remain undead. Hey, even as we disagree, I am concerned about your well-being.
“Your 1 of 253 theory…”
It’s just arithmetic, pointing out the tiny portion of extra warming or inhibited cooling one would have to isolate for reliable attribution to non-natural causes. You have not responded with any substance on that point.
Be well.
“You have not responded with any substance on that point.”
Nor will he… evah !!
Evidence minus a detectable signal = no evidence Mr Twonk.
Let’s look a little closer at your list:
Back radiation from CO2 induces increases in evaporative cooling. It can’t cause warming due to the 2LOT.
CERES measures absorbed solar energy. Since 2000 the amount appears to have increased by close to 2%. That is a large warming influence.
The stratosphere cooled as a result of two major eruptions. Other than that, there’s been almost no change. In addition, it doesn’t tell us anything about surface warming.
We generally only see temperature effects from volcanic eruptions when they involved major equatorial events. Why do you think human production of aerosols has any effect?
It appears to me that most of your views are baloney.
Whether it’s more warming, or less cooling is an important distinction. If it’s more warming, you could make the argument that it’s related to solar heating. Since several recent warming events have coincided with el Nino events, the heat could be coming from the oceans.
Here comes an El Nino Nutter
Always forgetting the La Nina cooling events
The ENSO cycle is temperature Neutral in the long run
Just how did the oceans get warmer?
Underseas volcanoes and vents?
How would you know that?
The heat from these vents is so small it can not be measured at the oceans surface.
And the annual average global heat releases from underseas volcanoes and vents is unknown.
So whether the underseas heat releases trend is up, down or steady over time, is unknown
Please explain exactly what is making the oceans warmer
Denying the effect of El Ninos, as being the only atmospheric warming in 45 years
Not understanding El Nino and La Nina and the difference operations of each.
“Just how did the oceans get warmer?”
I don’t care who you are.. that is funny !
You seem to have forgotten about the Sun. !
Absorbed soar radiation, still increasing.. CO2 is not the cause.
Do you still boil your water by hanging dry-ice above it ??
I saw the recent paper by the Russian team running the least inaccurate global warming model describes ENSO as ‘asymmetric’ – that certainly does not sound like it averages out or is ‘temperature neutral in the long run’ does it? Interesting – I was hoping that WUWT might do a post on their paper.
“Erratically asymmetric”. would be a better description.
Also, ENSO value doesn’t necessarily indicate the amount of energy released at any particular El Nino event.
“In the long run” is a totally non-scientific description, only used by desperate individuals with limited comprehension.
I would like to see something on that myself.
The girls and boys that calculate sea surface temperature at the Hadley Centre of course!
Cheers,
Bill
Define ”the long run”
He is clueless what he even means. It is just a phrase he dragged out of his nether regions.
Do not expect a rational science-based explanation, because you will never get one.
The entire trend can be placed squarely on changing sunlight.
If you look at UAH from inception in 1980 to most recent, the high latitudes in the NH are warming and the high latitudes of the SH are cooling. These changes are entirely related to shifting sunlight due to the precession cycle. Land has a a response coefficient to sunlight compared with oceans. The land mass responds 10 times more to solar forcing than the oceans in the SH.
So combine the sunlight shifting northward with the distribution of land and the higher thermal response of land to sunlight and you get “global” warming.
All climate models warm the high latitudes in SH and cool the high latitudes in the NH relative to measured because their CO2 induced warming acts everywhere much the same.
You might be right, and it might also be true that other factors are involved. But in any case, you picked up on the well-demonstrated natural reason for the annual cycle of globally averaged surface temperature to begin with – the land v ocean asymmetry of NH and SH.
How much water will fall on the US west coast by March 13.
Moonbat Watch
“”On a planet getting hotter and drier by the year, governments are wilfully ignoring a looming crisis
…
Above all, we need to change our diets. Those of us with dietary choice (in other words, the richer half of the world’s population) should seek to minimise the water footprint of our food. With apologies for harping on about it, this is yet another reason to switch to an animal-free diet, which reduces both total crop demand and, in most cases, water use.
…
I hate to pile yet more on to you, but some of us have to try to counter the endless bias…””
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/04/water-world-run-out-planet-hotter-looming-crisis
Poor George. Faith blinds him to the well known fact that increases in his bete noir – Carbon dioxide – increases the water efficiency of plants. But what about actual rainfall in this allegedly hotter, drier world George inhabits?
“”“We have had the wettest October, November and December since we started keeping records 27 years ago,” says Andrew Ward, a Lincolnshire-based arable farmer.””
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/23/farms-flooding-rainfall-winter-nfu-conference
“”The observed increase in forest water-use efficiency is larger than that predicted by existing theory and 13 terrestrial biosphere models.””
Increase in forest water-use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12291
Ho hum.
That is laugh-out-loud funny.
Apart from making “green hydrogen” there aren’t many processes that actually destroy water.
Farming in desserts using fossil water won’t work if the wells run dry, but that is nothing to do with climate change.
Also I don’t know which part of the UK is the natural habitat of the moobat, but the farmers round here are walking the fields roped together in case one of them goes under in the mud.
“Now I lay me down to sleepIn mud that’s many fathoms deep. If I’m not here when you awake Just hunt me up with an oyster rake.” —Shelby Foote
George is funny. Or should I say peculiar.
He lives in Wales
Nuff said.
Quite right about dessert farming. Many desserts start out moist, but after a few days they dry out. Even a moist chocolate cake with cherries and whipped cream on top will eventually end up too dry to grow anything.
He is in Wales somewhere and so am I and I can tell you that wet weather is very common.
Why do I get the impression that Moonbat, and the other alarmist morons, begin writing their inane rants with the alarmist-scream-of-the-week and work backwards until they find a culprit, no matter how ridiculous.
I’ll support Moonbat’s right to say whatever the hell he likes, no matter how unhinged, but I just wish he’d stop using “we” or “us” – no, George, it’s really just you and a very small minority that believe those things.
Oh yes, much drier, moonbat. In the past five days we’ve gotten 4 inches (10cm) of rain and have barely seen the sun. Any drier and we’ll need an ark.
EXCERPT from
El Niños, Hunga Tonga Volcanic Eruption, and the Tropics
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
Refer to this URL to see additional images
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
Urban Heat Archipelagos, such as on the US East Coast, from Portland, Maine, to Norfolk, Virginia, significantly contribute to local warming. That area used to be covered with forests.
Many large solar systems in the US Southwest add up to a heat archipelago.
Adaptation, such as increasing the width and height of dikes, and capacities of culvert and storm sewer systems, etc., planting billions of trees each year, rebuilding the rain forests, etc., will be required.
Because, huge quantities of solar energy are collected in the Tropics to warm the planet each day, preservation of the world’s equatorial rain forest belt is vital for the future well-being of the earth.
That should have priority over wind, solar, EV, heat pump, etc., measures, implemented mostly in temperate zones.
.
https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12390020087?profile=RESIZE_710x
.
Important Role of CO2 for Flora Growth
.
Many plants require greater CO2 than 400 ppm to survive and thrive, so they became extinct, along with the fauna they supported. As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts. The current CO2 needs to at least double or triple to reinvigorate the world’s flora and fauna.
CO2 has increased from about 280 ppm in 1900 to 423 ppm at end 2023. It increased:
.
1) Greening of the world by at least 10 to 15%, as measured by satellites since 1979.
2) Crop yields per acre.
3) Partially due to burning fossil fuels
.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-and
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-not-pollution-it-s-the-currency-of-life
Just a note, Wil..
HT actually started erupting significantly a month or so earlier than the main eruption.
Also, we here how much WV was sent into the Stratosphere..
Any idea how much went into the troposphere ?
I calculated a 17% WV increase in the stratosphere, which likely disappeared in a few months, to get back to normal
Any WV added by the eruption to the troposphere would likely not be noticed, because the WV ppm is about 4000 ppm, on average.
The increase in particulate matter would circle the earth for some months, partially blocking sunlight
Sobering Up? EU May Scrap Its Plans To Ban Internal Combustion Engines By 2035
After vote in Brussels last Monday evening, a majority of the European Parliament favored a Commission proposal that would no longer automatically classify electric cars as climate-neutral vehicles.
“”a majority of the European Parliament favored a Commission proposal “”
In other words, the Commission exercised its right of initiative and Europarl rubber stamped it.
As usual, that’s what European Democracy is, a non elected group of people, in general not so successful politicians from EU countries that decides over our lives. And the elected parliament says “yes”.
More dead whales with no questions asked.
https://www.baconsrebellion.com/wp/see-hear-speak-no-evil-on-four-whale-deaths/
What could be causing this epidemic of whale suicide? Some scientists say it’s due to anxiety about boiling oceans. A pod of adolescent whales protested the lack of concrete action by beaching themselves this past week. According to the group’s spokesman, Capt. Ahab Ceeley (he/him), the group demands more offshore wind and a return to pre-kerosene lighting standards of the nineteenth century.
“That is four dead whales on Virginia or North Carolina beaches in one week.”
****************
I pray that Trump will put a stop to offshore wind turbines if he wins in November, but we won’t know for sure until he actually does.
KILL WIND TURBINES, NOT AVIAN AND MARINE WILDLIFE
malicious neglect?
Seagulls, huh? Sh1t on everybody…
So many clocks… 😉
Worth a read
How Canada became a cauldron of authoritarianismNow the woke Trudeau regime wants to punish people for ‘precrime’.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/03/10/how-canada-became-a-cauldron-of-authoritarianism/
House arrest, huh? Because if you’ve logged on at home and said something that another feels is offensive then what they really need to do is give you more time to do it again in the comfort of your own home.
It seems like Trudeau’s father really was Castro, perhaps with a bit of Pol Pot.
Yes, there’s a dictator hiding behind that Trudeau mask.
Canadians should stop voting for radical leftists like Trudeau.
Radical leftists are the cause of Canada’s problems.
The same here in the United States.
Trudeau must be a fan of Tom Cruise’s Minority Report movie.
Has anyone heard of…
“”The new science of wellbeing””
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/10/its-not-the-economy-stupid-wellbeing-is-the-real-vote-winner
How rich do you have to be that you can ignore the tanking economy, most of us getting poorer, and just prioritise being happy? These people do not live in the real world.
A lot richer than I
That is 100% postmodern woke philosophy. An addiction to “wellbeing” & the therapeutic state. Utterly wrong on so many levels. That collectivist philosophy weakens societies, it does not strengthen the individual at all, it does the very opposite.
“Well meaning” wellbeing, is altruistic at its core to its core, and devoid of rationale or objectivity. It has infested societies at all levels, particularly education. It assumes that every human needs help in some way, and the State is here to provide you with the only means of attaining “happiness”.
You get “wellness” when you “detox” your body.
Anyone ever seen reports about what the toxins are, the ones that modern quackery remove from the body?
MaYbe they are trendy items liKe “anti-oxidants” or “heavy metals”.
Any other candidates?
The whole concept of “wellness” is yet another scam from uneducated money-takers.
Geoff S
Mr. S: /s/- Yes, the first report on these toxins, identified as “free radicals”, was in a James Bond movie, “Never Say Never Again”. Appropos.
There will never be a reasonable Nut Zero plan for battery capacity since such a plan could be costed and found to be far beyond affordable.
Not that you can run an electric grid on batteries.
A real engineering project has a detailed plan for feasibility studies, cost estimates and critical path timing estimates.
Funding is arranged before any work starts.
Nut Zero has no detailed plan.
Therefore, it is a fake engineering project.
There is also no hope of stopping the rise of atmospheric CO2, and no reason to do so.
Almost seven billion people live in nations that could not care less about CO2 emissions.
Those nations include every nation with a high birth rate.
Is the US pressuring China, India, Russia, etc. in any way to join Nut Zero?
If climate was the rel goal, that problem would be VERY important. But there is no pressure or financial penalties for nations ignoring Nut Zero.
When you combine the lack of a detailed Nut Zero plan, including reasonable battery capacity requirements, and the many nations ignoring Nut Zero, the conclusion is NUT ZERO is not about the climate.
NUT ZERO is a political strategy to gain power, not a real engineering project.
Nut Zero is a fake engineering project to fight a fake climate crisis.
Leftist engineers know a grid will get more less reliable as unreliable sources of power are added.
But they remain silent to keep their jobs.
People who remain silent, when they see evil, are evil themselves.
——————————————–
Why are some January 6 prisoners still in prison with no trial after over three years?
Because an election is coming this year and those political prisoners are the fascist style warming message for conservatives and Republicans to avoid protesting the huge election fraud I expect in November 2024.
If 2024 election fraud is as large as I expect, the result will be another American civil war. And not just a war of words.
——————————————–
Meanwhile, fascism is growing even faster in Cubanada than in the US, thanks to PM Fidel TrueDope (He looks like Fidel, without the cigar)
Fidel TrueDope’s Canada Will Imprison Anyone It Think ‘Might’ Commit a Hate Crime, Could Punish Them With Life Sentences
TYRANNY: Trudeau’s Canada Will Imprison Anyone It Thinks ‘Might’ Commit a Hate Crime, Could Punish Them With Life Sentences | The Gateway Pundit | by Ben Kew
I agree, battery systems are totally unaffordable, even at high 40% throughputs.
They would add a huge cost to already =high electricity cost of wind and solar
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
EXCERPT:
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% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh
At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) 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.
Excluded costs would add at least 10 – 15 c/kWh
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 excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, 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
COMMENTS ON CALCULATION:
Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.
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 the 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 MWh from the HV grid to deliver about 40 MWh 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, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.
A comment at Manhattan Contrarian by an electrical engineer named “Denis” about The MC article discussing needed battery capacity:
The article is here:
New York And California Getting Totally Lost With Energy Storage — Manhattan Contrarian
“The operation of the electricity grid requires a significant amount of inertia to start it from a system black as well as to ensure the correct operation of the protection systems.
Battery storage does not provide inertia and neither does a solar power generator or a wind generator.
The other challenge is that “renewable” energy generators mostly provide dc power which has to be converted to ac for the grid.
Generally, these systems require the grid to be functioning so that the grid voltage and frequency can be used to allow the inverters to synchronise and deliver power into the grid.
Whilst there are some grid forming inverters available that in principle do not need the grid to first establish voltage and frequency, they are not many.
And the proposition that many could be used to establish the grid directly from batteries is just not feasible considering the different operating characteristics of these devices.
Interestingly, while certainly it’s easy to calculate how much storage would be required to provide say a month’s backup for any electricity system, would that be enough?
The calculation should include the associated system losses as well as allow for the appropriate depth of discharge for the batteries.
However, the greater challenge would be the operating strategy for the batteries – when to charge and when to discharge!
Also remember that the batteries would be required for a grid stabilising function (frequency control) and need to be able to absorb excess power in the event of the loss of a transmission line or provide additional power in the event of the loss of a major load.
For amusement I’ve asked a number of my electrical engineering colleagues what the control algorithm would be to operate such a system and none can come up with a workable answer.
And the reason is simply it can’t be done. Don Quixote’s “Tilting at Windmills” comes to mind.”
Don’t worry. Riding to the rescue apparently is a new start up in the UK which claims to have £10 bn to invest in a portfolio of battery storage projects. NatPower says it will submit proposals for two gigaparks in the North of England and one in the West. This will be followed by a further 10 next year.
They obviously haven’t read the Royal Society’s September 2023 Report ‘Large scale electricity storage policy briefing’ which said
“some tens of TWhs of very long duration storage will be needed. For comparison the TWhs are 1000 times more than is currently provided by pumped hydro and far more than could be provided cost effectively by batteries”
The Grauniad says NatPower is part of a specialist European energy group that “is backed by its management team and a private equity firm”
My question is are they for real?
“Why are some January 6 prisoners still in prison with no trial after over three years?
Because an election is coming this year and those political prisoners are the fascist style warning message for conservatives and Republicans to avoid protesting the huge election fraud I expect in November 2024.”
That’s probably true. Trump will pardon most of the prisoners and people yet to stand trial, with the exception of any who actually committed violent acts.
“If 2024 election fraud is as large as I expect, the result will be another American civil war. And not just a war of words.”
That’s probably true, too. I don’t know if actual fighting will break out, but conservative States are not going to follow a Democrat Dictator down the road to hell. Separation from the Union may be necessary, in that case, and conservative States will go their own way. Let the Radical Democrats destroy themselves, not us.
Trump is putting a lot of effort into seeing that Democrat election cheating is not successful this time.
“That’s probably true. Trump will pardon most of the prisoners and people yet to stand trial, with the exception of any who actually committed violent acts.”
So are some in prison who have not been accused of violent acts?
“Trump is putting a lot of effort into seeing that Democrat election cheating is not successful this time.”
I’d be curious to know exactly what he is doing to stop cheating, Tom that is not already being done?
And I see many on both sides are delighted with the success of mail in voting for the last lot of primaries. So much easier for all to not have to stand in queues. And after all, surely in a healthy democracy, the easier it is for all to vote the higher chance everyone who wants to vote can. and that can only be good. don’t want to suppress votes.
“So are some in prison who have not been accused of violent acts?”
They may be accused of violent acts, but, for example, the guy wearing Viking horns is in jail and he didn’t commit any violent acts. His tour of the Capitol Building was recorded. He had Capitol Police opening doors for him. He looked more like a Stoner than an Insurrectionist. He did nothing violent yet he is still in jail.
There are a lot of people like that. The radical Democrats don’t really care if the charges are correct, they just want bodies to put in jail in order to sell their Insurrection Lie. They have corrupt judges and prosecutors and that’s exactly what they are doing..
It’s all a setup by the weaponized Biden Department of “Justice”. They’ve been going after Trump for years and now they are going after his supporters, too.
As for Trump’s efforts to stop vote cheating, he is asking for volunteer poll watchers to keep an eye on the Democrats. You can sign up on his website. And Trump has numerous lawyers working every angle. Republicans in every State are working to keep the vote honest.
As for a healthy Democracy, come back in November. We’ll see how healthy it really is. Another stolen election may be the end of the U.S. as a Democracy. Those stolen from are not going to cooperate with the thieves.
So I read about jacob Chansley. He was charged with “knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and with violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds”
It seems he entered through a smashed glass window….”On March 16, 2021, the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. released previously unseen video footage of Chansley entering the Capitol building after windows were smashed.[42]”
And the concept that the guards provided a tour is just not true. They were overwhelmed and terrified so many decided to not resist with the invasion. Many accounts by guards were offered during the trials, but none supported Tucker Carlson’s silly idea they somehow acted as guides.
And, I’m not sure what Trumps poll watchers will do that the ones they have now don’t?
For the record, “Viking Guy” was released from custody last May:
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4020891-qanon-shaman-released-from-halfway-house/
Simin,
You know all this because you were there in person?
Be grateful that you were not arrested.
Geoff S
That reminds me, whatever happened to that BLM guy caught inside that claimed he was just an “observer” despite the fact that there is (maybe “was” now) video of him inciting the crowd to enter the building?
Well let see the evidence?
I know it because I read and watch, you should try it.
“And the concept that the guards provided a tour is just not true.”
No, it is true. I saw it with my own eyes. The Capitol Police escorted the Viking into various rooms and even unlocked doors for him.
And if you get a chance to see the video, there’s no way you would call the guy a threat to anyone.
It’s all trumped up by dishonest, dangerous radical Democrats.
And btw, just to show how corrupt the Democrats are, and how much they want to get Trump, the Democrat New York State legislature modified a law to allow E Jean Carroll to file sex assault charges against Trump because the statutes of limitation had run out. After she filed her complaint, the New York Legislature retuned the law to its original form.
Trump says he didn’t even know who E Jean Carroll was. Her lawyer claims that is further defamation of his client and is threatening, and probably will sue Trump over it, and will probably win in the corrupt jurisdiction of New York State.
Getting Trump is a huge radical Democrat operation. All hands on deck! All coordinated from the Biden White House.
The Radical Democrats are trying to steal our nation away from the People. They are just as dangerous to our personal freedoms as are the Communist Chinese to the personal freedoms of Chinese people.
The very last thing ultra-leftists like the simpleton want, is free and fair elections, proper voter ID and enrolment etc.
They know the Democrats would not stand a chance.
I am frankly ambivalent on that point. Certainly not in support of actively suppressing legal voting, but as to the value of making sure that everyone votes, regardless of whether they have bothered to inform themselves on the issues.
Having said that, I would be happy to see a process whereby every eligible voter is assured of a convenient means of voting, but where the process is so nearly impervious to fraud that we all could be fully confident that meaningful fraud is impossible. I’d happily see uninformed voters voting if it came with an assurance of the practical elimination of fraud.
Mail-in ballots, unguarded drop boxes, same-day registration, voting without proof of identity, ballot harvesting, failure to maintain voting rolls so that deceased persons and those who have moved out of the voting district remain on the list for years, are some of the reasons why conservative voters have lost all confidence in the integrity of our elections.
Badly vetted voter rolls combined with ballot harvesting is an obvious opportunity for massive fraud.
Eliminating voter ID requirements is likewise an invitation to fraud including voting as persons known to the perpetrator to be deceased or no longer residing in the jurisdiction as well as voting by non-citizens if the registration process is not rigorous enough.
It would be possible in many jurisdictions for public records to be scrutinized to identify inappropriate names on voting rolls and then pay a criminal to travel from polling place to polling place impersonating voters who can be confidently assumed will never appear to vote. Each such fraudster could easily cast 20 or more fraudulent ballots on election day in an urban area—without the need for corrupt election officials in the polling places. In jurisdictions where there is extended voting, the opportunities multiply.
In corrupted situations where the opposition oversight has been paid to look the other way or intimidated into silence, or tricked into believing that they could trust the corrupt party, hundreds and thousands of fraudulent votes might be introduced voting as people who did not actually vote.
Mail-in ballots are insecure, period. Ballot harvesting is subject to intimidation and loss of confidentiality.
Let there be early in-person voting over several weeks of voting opportunities and for those physically unable to go to a polling center, have those limited special cases handled by some highly secure process.
Require that every second of polling, ballot handling, and counting be securely recorded on video. Every vote should be marked on paper by the voter, or should generate a paper record which the voter reviews and then personally places into a locked ballot box. The electronic count must be auditable.
There must be very rigorous processes for proof of identity and eligibility. Voting rolls should be purged very frequently and automatically when death certificates are issued or when a voter registers, immediately removing them from the voting rolls in their prior place of residence.
Anyone who opposes these common sense approaches is in favor of fraud.
“Mail-in ballots, unguarded drop boxes, same-day registration, voting without proof of identity, ballot harvesting, failure to maintain voting rolls so that deceased persons and those who have moved out of the voting district remain on the list for years, are some of the reasons why conservative voters have lost all confidence in the integrity of our elections.”
I would suggest that the reason conservative voters have lost confidence is they have been repeatedly told the election was stolen by a man who can’t take defeat. To their shame they are prepared to believe this man despite:
No, Simon. There is a world of difference between it being proven secure and the actual case of there just being no proof.
The fact is that there is no proof possible because the process is designed to be untraceable. We must have a secret ballot. If mail-in ballots are separated as they were from the authenticating outer envelope without properly evaluating whether the ballot is authentic, and then the outer envelopes are destroyed, any fraudulent ballots are necessarily indistinguishable from legitimate ballots. Even if the outer envelopes had not been destroyed, once they are separated, it would be impossible to remove an invalid ballot from the count if the information on the outer envelope were subsequently determined to be invalid. There is no evidence because it was designed to avoid evidence.
In-person voting with proper voter id against properly maintained voter rolls, and chain of custody over the ballots, is necessary to assure that every ballot counted is a legitimate ballot.
Quite apart from whether Trump is right or wrong, confidence comes from a secure process. Intentionally insecure process undermines confidence. Lack of confidence doesn’t require proof of fraud, just the reasonable possibility of fraud. Those who oppose measures to assure a secure election can only be doing so because they hope to benefit from fraud.
“No, Simon. There is a world of difference between it being proven secure and the actual case of there just being no proof.”
He said it was secure. He was the man in charge. Good enough for me.
Your whole argument seems to be it’s possible there was fraud, so therte must have been.
“Those who oppose measures to assure a secure election can only be doing so because they hope to benefit from fraud.”
Orrrrr…. they want to find a sweet spot where it is easy for everyone to vote, even those working three jobs who struggle to find the time…. and at the same time be secure…..
”
and at the same time be secure…..”
The VERY LAST thing the Democrats want. !
Fair and secure elections, Biden and the Democrats would LOSE big time,
Simon,
I do not know the extent of fraud and I cannot know the extent of fraud any more than any ‘man in charge’ can know that under the circumstances. Furthermore, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that there are fifty women and men in charge in our federal system.
Many think that when an election is decided in a state by a few thousand votes out of millions, it is possible but unlikely that there was no fraud at all. It is possible at the same time that there was sufficient fraud that the outcome was reversed. If there was some fraud in Massachusetts or in Alabama, where the outcome was never in doubt, that is reprehensible, but also irrelevant.
It is absurd to say that inherently insecure mail-in ballots placed into unsecured drop boxes is the ‘sweet spot’ vs. extended in-person voting with robust voter ID. The longest I ever waited to vote in person was maybe 15 minutes. A person who is ‘working three jobs’ is not so inconvenienced by filling out their ballot at a polling center vs. filling it out at home and bringing it to a post office or dropbox.
We are talking about a difference of a few minutes every two years. And that massive sacrifice enables the losing side to say I don’t like the outcome but I acknowledge that it was the legitimate outcome. If you think that Trump is disingenuously claiming fraud and bemoaning the fact that people have doubts, you should want to support my position on this.
What you mean to say is that the outcome went the way you preferred so the process must have been good enough.
But the 2020 election was the safest and most secure election in history! One wonders what the second most secure and safest election was–that they can’t tell you, because it’s all propaganda nonsense.
Yes Simon, mail-in voting was certainly a success, and so easy; why – some people did it 3 or 4 times it was that easy. There has to be a compromise point where ease of voting and increased turnout is balanced by voter security. Let us all know when the US states reach that point, won’t you?
Simon only ‘knows’ what The Grauniad tells him to know. He’s not a US citizen, he’s in New Zealand or something.
Chances are, when he votes for his socialist MP, he has to vote in person showing his secure ID.
I remember a poll worker in Cincinnati was convicted of voter fraud during one of the Obama elections.
She sent in an absentee ballot AND voted in person. She also sent in her daughter’s absentee ballot plus, I think it was, 3 other absentee ballots from her address for people that she claimed “used to live there”.
(In Ohio you have to request an absentee ballot.)
Simple
They have not yet found suitable charges, or people who will lie under oath.
Trump will pardon every one of them
He needs to win by a landslide to hamstring/kneecap the Pelosi’s, Schumer’s, etc.
“Trump will pardon every one of them”
Of course he will. He like them is a crook. And they did what he asked them to do which was try to subvert the democratic process. But like him they failed.
“And they did what he asked them to do which was try to subvert the democratic process.”
Of course, there’s no evidence that ever happened. That’s a figment of your imagination, Simon.
Two days before the incident at the Capitol Building, Trump offered 10,000 National Guard troops to go guard the Capitol Bulding. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, rejected this offer of troops. And the day before the Capitol Building incident, Trump again offered to put National Guard troops around the Capitol Building and again Nancy Pelosi refused the offer.
Does that sound like the activity of a man who wants to take over the Capitol Building?
If Trump really wanted to take over the Capitol Building, he wouldn’t have offered any troops in the first place.
There is no evidence Trump had anything to do with anything that took place at the Capitol Building that day. Some of the people there got carried away and did some unlawful things, but there was no direction from Trump for them to do so. Trump told everyone in his speech that people should demonstrate “peacefully”.
The radical Democrats are trying to gin up an Insurrection to use as a political weapon against Trump and Republicans.
And it seems that the Jan 6 committee has destroyed a large portion of the evidence they used in their Insurrection investigation. Thousands of hours of video and other documents have been destroyed. Why would the Demcorats destroy the evidence? We know why. Because they are no-good, low-life’s, trying to lie themselves into political power.
The evidence had to be destroyed to save Democracy ™ duh
Snowfall in the mountains of Oregon and northern California.
The UAH now spans 1.5C temperature variation , it is proof that 1.5C temperature increase causes absolutely nothing.
The catastrophe touting climate shysterz are spewing nothing but lies
City of Chicago v. BP PLC, et al. — my dissection of this one here.
Contrary to what enviro-activists want you to believe, this lawsuit is not one more in the flood of climate damages lawsuits, it is little more than the same basic lawsuit template offered in a traveling circus act designed to dazzle state / county / city leaders into jumping onto the “ExxonKnew” lawfare bandwagon. But in this latest effort, the citation source substitution for their blatantly false accusation against Dr Willie Soon is a pretty good indication that the handlers of these lawsuits knew for quite some time now that there’s something fatally wrong with it.
Please don’t mention Dr. Soon’s name here Mr. Greene will go bonkers.
That is because Willie Soon is actually a real scientist ! 🙂
A surprisingly candid story in The Grauniad AU about how the academic research papers publishers scam the whole system.
Story tip.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/10/australias-chief-scientist-is-taking-on-the-journal-publishing-monopoly-gatekeeping-knowledge
Some admissions that we already know, for example that academics will do just about anything, even pay out of their own pockets, to get their scribblings published in “The Literature”.
Apparently, they need to resort to these measures to keep their jobs and get research grants.
Seems that “The Literature” is a closed-shop business just like New York state’s justice system is.
Latitia James, the New York State Attorney General who is persecuting Trump gave a speech yesterday for some New York City employees, and New York City Firefighters in the crowd started booing her and chanting “Trump!, Trump! Trump!. Latitia wants to find out who these protesters are so she can punish them for speaking their minds. If Latitia can persecute Trump, she can certainly persecute disrespectful New York City Firefighters.
All these radical Democrats like James are crooked as a dog’s hind leg. And they just love turning the justice system into a weapon to use against their political opponents. That’s their only avenue to political power.
James and these other corrupt Democrats better hope Biden wins and Republicans don’t get a majority in the House or Senate because if that doesn’t happen, then the Republicans are going to unearth all the sordid details of this political hit job on Trump and the Republican Party. And let the chips fall where they may.
She is now turning the NY Stasi on the fire fighters, demanding they turn themselves in and threatening them with “reeducation”.
Amerika 2024.
I saw that.
Yeah, Latitia will teach them to disrespect her!
It may backfire on her, though.
Here’s a horrible human trajedy. You need to spend every moment as though it is your last, because it just may be your last. Everything to live for and dies like this. Terrible.
https://www.businessinsider.com/angela-chao-foremost-group-death-tesla-gearshift-reverse-drowning-accident-2024-3
Angela Chao may have died after accidentally putting her Tesla in reverse, a mistake she made before, WSJ reports
Lloyd Lee and Jack Newsham
“After a Friday evening celebrating Lunar New Year with close friends,”
Maybe a hint in there somewhere !!
I noted that they seemed to have trouble breaking the Tesla’s windows to get the woman out, and the tow truck driver said he was leery of attaching a tow cable to the car, fearing he might be electrocuted by the Tesla battery.
32 Climate shysters Predictions Proven False
https://youtu.be/E1e5HAZo4iw
It is obvious, to me, by inspection, that our sun and other stars pass close enough to effect each other occasionally. One source said within 50,0000 AU (astronomical units) every million years or so, and within 10,000 AU every 20 million years or so. This leads to a YouTube video I found by accident: A Star Passed by Our Solar System and Altered Earth’s Orbit and Climate 56 Million Years Ago (https://youtu.be/U_MsisArQX4?t=161). This is an exposition on the scientific paper: Passing Stars as an Important Driver of Paleoclimate and the Solar System’s Orbital Evolution. The video is interesting in itself; it seems there was a high-temperature event, of possibly 8º C, about 56 million years ago that has no definitely recognized explanation.
What I want to emphasize is, near the end, the paper and video comment on the situation that everything is based upon computer models, and they are too complex to do accurately; they depend upon too many assumptions, and, in any case, no claim is made for certainty or that other causes are not also present. It is WONDERFUL to have honesty about computer models, complexity, assumptions, and uncertainty.
This study seems to have missed the possible influence of the sun’s twin star, “Nemesis” proposed by Alvarez et al as the trigger for the Dinosaur extinction, as described in Richard A. Muller’s book, “Nemesis, the Death Star”, with an orbital frequency of some 26 million years, IIRC. Presumably it would still have been “around” 56 Million years ago…
The UK is threatened with an inundation of solar farms around its major centres of population by policy for locational pricing giving advantageous prices. It’s really already been happening. Here’s the AR5 CFD awards mapped.
I am surorised that there isn’t more discussion of the VOlcano in Tonga that added 10% to the water vapor content in the atmosphere. Normally water vapor is considered an ocen heat transfer method. endothermic evaporation cools and exothermic condensation some where else transfers the heat.
In this case the lava was cooled and the water vapor sent into the atytmosphere as a massive transfer of heat energy from the lava.
Certainly there will be an un precidented oportunity to test some of the greenhouse gas theories and shouldn’t we see an atmospheric temperature spike? Or an increase in clouds SOMETHING????
https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/
There are a lot of hints about the unreliability of electric vehicles when one looks at rail travel and the fact that batteries are not relied upon when there are no cables. The engines can instead be automatically switched to diesel.
Do our wind and solar addicts ever ask themselves why?
Story tip
Europe unprepared for rapidly growing climate risks, report finds
Dangers of wildfires, extreme weather and other factors outgrowing preparedness, European Environment Agency says
Europe has heated up more than any other continent since the Industrial Revolution. It has heated about twice as fast as the global average as carbon dioxide has clogged the atmosphere and trapped sunlight.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/10/europe-unprepared-for-climate-risks-eea-report
The Report
(PDF 425 pages! Some of the topics covered… Coral, droughts, floods, extreme weather, food security, GHG emissions, heatwaves, IPCC RCP8.5, landslides, ocean acidification, ocean temperatures, Paris pledges, sea levels, wildfires, models)
European Climate Risk Assessment
Europe is the fastest warming continent in the world, and climate risks are threatening its energy and food security, ecosystems, infrastructure, water resources, financial stability, and people’s health. According to the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) assessment, published today, many of these risks have already reached critical levels and could become catastrophic without urgent and decisive action.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-climate-risk-assessment/resolveuid/a81df2f222524f79a54b2c421a1c9525
I would love to know the context of how/when electric school busses are cheaper and more reliable than diesel in the cold:
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/colorado-town-is-case-study-for-electric-school-buses-in-wintertime-they-outperformed-diesel/
First, they’re school buses. They run about two hours in the morning before school, then head back to the garage for a charge. Maybe they’re out a bit at noon, but mostly they are recharging in a heated garage until it’s time to take the kids home after school. The batteries only have to provide about 2-3 hours and 100 miles worth of power (and heating) between charges. The batteries never get cold, because they are either powering the bus and keeping themselves warm, or in a garage.
This is nothing at all like a mass transit bus, which needs to be running continually for at least 12 hours (6 am to 6 pm), and ideally much longer. No battery vehicle can do 12 hours with no recharge even in the best weather, so you’ll have to buy two e-buses to keep one on the route.
But at least batteries in a bus are likely to never get cold. Even if you have a heated garage for your car, it will be sitting out in a parking for 8 hours or more while you work. In any climate with cold winters, either the batteries are getting so cold they’ll work poorly when you try to drive home, or they are running themselves down to run an electric heater. What are the chances that your employer will ever install charging stations for every car in the employee parking lot? That’s the only way you’ll all be able to drive electric cars to work on a cold day and get home again.