Pieces in the UK Telegraph today about Net Zero generation. The new Labour government is set upon delivering this by 2030 at all costs. This seems to have been an arbitrarily chosen date. No-one has argued that its important to hit 2030 rather than 2035.
There are two stories on this ongoing subject in the Telegraph. One is that picking the date of 2030 means that there is no time to bury the transmission cables from the north to where demand is. So the plan is to use pylons. This, in addition to destroying much countryside, costs more. Do it by 2035 underground and save £600 million over doing it with pylons and 2030. Fanaticism.
The other story concerns intermittency. They have finally woken up to its being a problem, so the long term solution is to install lots of dams in the Highlands, to use for pumped storage. Including Loch Ness, would you believe it?
It is now dawning on everyone that this, even if its doable, which it probably isn’t, cannot be done by 2030. So what is the solution? Back off? Pick a later date? No way. Instead the UK is tiptoeing into power rationing. Some quotes from the story follow. There is a lot more, reasonably good piece.
You cannot get there from here. Where they are going is rationing. As with all services provided by nationalized industries, whether its phones or health care, in the end they turn themselves into rationing rather than provisioning organizations.
This is where smart meters are going. Half hourly price changes as the wind blows or calms. And load shedding.
Days after the Energy Secretary pledged low-carbon power for all at Labour’s annual conference, energy giant EDF discussed plans to close four of the UK’s five remaining nuclear power stations. Two are currently scheduled to close in 2026, followed by another two in 2028.
As Britain’s reactor fleet shrivels, the amount of nuclear capacity will fall from six gigawatts (GW) today to just 1.2 GW by 2028 or soon after. Along with rising demand from power-hungry data centres and technologies of the future, it will make it even harder to keep the lights on when wind and solar generation is low. Against this backdrop, the National Energy System Operator (Neso), the newly nationalised body overseeing the electricity grid, is turning to households and businesses to help balance the system. Last week, it announced year-round plans to manage demand by paying consumers to cut their electricity usage at times of tight supply.
As Britain’s reactor fleet shrivels, the amount of nuclear capacity will fall from six gigawatts (GW) today to just 1.2 GW by 2028 or soon after. Along with rising demand from power-hungry data centres and technologies of the future, it will make it even harder to keep the lights on when wind and solar generation is low.
Since 2000, the country’s theoretical generation capacity has increased from 75 GW to 106 GW thanks to the building of new wind and solar farms. So why has electricity generation fallen? The answer lies in the intermittent nature of renewables, which cannot produce power if the wind isn’t blowing or the sun doesn’t shine. This means the actual amount of power such projects generate is different to their theoretical capacity. Wind turbines in the UK typically have a “load factor” – the percentage of the time they actually generate – of about 30pc, according to lobby group RenewableUK. For solar panels, the load factor is around 10pc, according to the Government.
“Last week, it announced year-round plans to manage demand by paying consumers to cut their electricity usage at times of tight supply.”
That isn’t rationing. It’s sensible market allocation.
Whenever you have a market, a price mechanism balances supply and demand. That means people lower their demand when they don’t like the price. It’s the opposite of rationing – it is free market. And old as the hills.
Shedding power generation at the same time as increasing demand by pushing EV cars and electric heat pumps. Why would you do either not knowing if you could charge your car or heat the house from one day to the next.
An extremist, lunatic, suicidal cult. Time for a popular uprising. Unfortunately, I see zero sign of such an uprising here in Wokeachusetts. The citizens here have all become sheep- not counting the tens of thousands of illegals who can’t speak English, so they can’t be brainwashed, while enjoying nice hotels and many other amenities- costing the taxpayers here a billion bucks/year.
Then the governor bitches that there’s a housing shortage! But, there’s 6 million people in a tiny state- much of the land is in state forests or owned by towns or conservation groups. And, now much of the land is being paved over with solar “farms”. So if housing is built, where’s it gonna be put? And who is going to pay for it? Not the illegals! And, the greens want to lock up all the forests- stop all forestry- so where’s the wood gonna come from? Thousands of miles away! Crazy f*ckers, all of them- here in this Woke paradise.
Not all of them. We have more than our ‘fair share’ of zealots south of the border here in CT. If Trump wins, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the New England states reconvene the Hartford Convention of 1814 to consider secession.
Plus forcing people to go electric increases their costs. In the UK electricity is already FOUR times more expensive than gas and currently over 22m of the 28m households in the country are on the gas network.
Mr. Stokes since you seem to support load shedding (e.g. blackouts and rationing), you and yours need to be the first to be removed when supply is insufficient to meet demand. The stupidity of this is there is no reason to restrict our generation capacity to meet the growing demand. Your solutions will reduce the standard of living for everyone and do more harm to people. But of course you don’t care.
It also means you can’t budget your household electricity costs. If you know you’re paying x amount per kWh and you know your consumption you can predict what your electric bill is going to be. With this “sensible market allocation”, aka “surge pricing”, aka price gouging, you have no idea what your electric bill is likely to be unless you become a slave to your smart meter.
Whether you raise prices or restrict supply, the end result is the same. Rationing. And it wouldn’t be necessary if it weren’t for this watermelon philosophy driving it all.
That price mechanism works as long as supply is free to rise in response to higher prices. The problem is, the government is interfering on the supply side by favoring more expensive options. Let generation sources compete on a level playing field, and see what the result is for supply and cost.
Nick, you are missing the point. At the moment in the UK there is the kind of price variation you speak of, and it works fine. You have night storage heaters still, with a low cost of charging them overnight, and you also have two tier pricing for consumers with a lower price at night. Some people elect to heat their water in a tank overnight for this reason.
But this is happening in an environment where there is sufficient supply to cover demand. Where there is no danger of blackouts due to normal fluctuations in network supply.
What is going on here is quite different. They are attempting to keep the network going in a situation in which there is no supply, because of the move to intermittent generation. They are proposing to use the smart meters to implement not only half hour pricing, but also load shedding.
The economic implications of this are very large, and its very different. Its basically attempting to match demand to the fluctuating wind and solar supply. It is gradually emerging that this matching will be done by force. That is rationing, that is not the normal functioning of a fit for purpose market.
Its saying, the supply is intermittent, demand, or rather supply, is going to have to be moved up and down as the wind blows. Whether you like it or not, because there is not enough supply to do any different.
In the end this means come home, find you either cannot get power to charge your car and heat your heat pump or cook dinner, or you cannot afford it.
We have been used as a country to reliable power. Society and the economy depends on it. The country is no longer going to have that. The implications of the rationing proposals are that the country is going to be running without reliable electricity. That is huge. Dieter Helm, a real energy expert, has rightly argued that the next election will be fought largely on the issue of energy. It is all going to bite in 2027-2028.
I do not believe the country can run on an electricity supply which will fluctuate as the present plans will make it. I think the result of trying will be blackouts and economic collapse.
Don’t argue whether to call it rationing. Argue about whether it will work at all, and if so how, when wind production falls to 10% of faceplate for days on end, and there is no solar because its January, and there is minimal backup.
“Its basically attempting to match demand to the fluctuating wind and solar supply.”
As we have always done. In the past, it was matching fluctuating demand to inflexible supply. Now there is volatility in supply, but the difference does not matter to the consumer. The wholesale price varies and so there is risk. The risk has been absorbed by retailers (and there suppliers) who remunerate themselves handsomely for doing so. Now some will be passed on to consumers. This has two pluses:
Reduces middleman costs
Allows you, if you wish, to respond to the price signals. But you don’t have to. Monthly or quarterly billing will smooth out the volatility about as well as the middleman did. But if you do respond, you can save money.
People spoke of surge pricing. This is become a talking point of with Uber. People don’t like surge pricing, but they do like Uber. The reason is that
In times of surge pricing, you usually can’t get a taxi at any price. You can get an Uber.
By not padding their costs to cover risk (of idle drivers), they can offer cheaper service overall.
We could have a system where electricity is free and simply increase tax’s with rationing as per the NHS that way the concept of subsidies also disappears because none of us know what each service costs in the NHS we just assume that it’s rationally organized, but it’s not and nor is this.
The test for Nick’s comment, is the average cost to us in total including tax transfers via subsidies rising or falling the answer is obvious.
The difference is, right now in Britain you have reliable power which works. There is differential charging, but the difference between peak and off-peak is known and stable, and its moderate. Its an option for a customer. Its easy to use because it has known, stable start and stop times. So you can put your hot water on a timer and heat it up a 3am.
This seems to work, its a rational and user manageable way of offering incentives to smooth out the peaks.
What is being proposed is not this at all. Its that pricing will vary (on smart meters) as often as every half hour with the unpredictable output of the wind. In addition, your smart meter will also have the ability to turn off your heat pump and EV charging.
Timers will not work unless the variation in price is time-based. Which it will not be.
You need to address the fact that electricity is not like Uber or off-peak rail tickets or any other current example of surge pricing. The real problem is that wind production in the UK can vary from over 20% of faceplate to under 10%. And the low output can happen for a week or ten days, often a lot lower than 10% for a day or two.
If Miliband’s plan is implemented there are going to be occasions in January and February when there is almost no solar, and when production from 90 GW of of wind is under 10GW. Sometimes under 5 GW for hours on end. This is observable at http://www.gridwatch.co.uk/wind, its just the historical record, its what wind does in this location.
This is not a fit for purpose national electricity supply. And trying to deal with it by pricing is crazy. You have to get specific. You arrive home at 5pm in January. It is calm, cold and pitch black. One of you has picked up the kids from school. There is a sign on your smart meter display that tells you current price for power is some astronomical level per kilowatt. The plan seems to be to pass on the wholesale fluctuations to the consumer. Its usually about 30p per kWh. Right now its £3.00, and its been as high as £10.00. It changes every half hour. You can run a bath and half way through the price can move up by a factor of 5 or 10.
What you want is a cup of tea, and to give the children supper. You have no idea how much this is going to cost. You also need the heat on. But power to the heat pump has been turned off. This is not something you can fool around with. Perhaps you have an older relative and you think about filling a hot water bottle? Then you reflect that the electric kettle is rated at 1 kW. As for charging the car, that circuit has been switched off too.
You reflect that tomorrow morning you will want to take a shower. How much is that going to cost? You have no idea.
The reason why current off-peak pricing works is that its predictable and because there are some uses which can be put on timers and moved. Water heating, washing machines, even drying racks. Heating and cooking, demand is not elastic Nor is most industry. Streetlights? Hospitals? Telecoms?
So lets imagine further. Your name is Ed, you are a minister, and are now invited on national TV to explain what is happening. Its day four of the calm, Demand would normally be well north of 50 GW, but supply is now down around 2 GW for the last few hours. Power is basically off, emergency generators are running out of fuel, and the presenter is wearing an expensive down jacket. You have your thermals on under your suit. You reflect ironically that its unlikely anyone much can watch TV, but they have battery radios still.
The presenter covers what is happening, you explain that its vital to tackle the climate crisis and global heating for the sake of future generations, and then comes the question which had never occurred to you: OK, she says, we have to sacrifice for the common good, understand that. Tell our viewers (or listeners!) how much difference this is making to global temperatures?
With an inward shudder you remember that the next election is only one year away…
Its basically attempting to match demand to the fluctuating wind and solar supply.”
As we have always done. In the past, it was matching fluctuating demand to inflexible supply.
You know nothing about public electrical generation. Do the terms baseload, intermittent, and peaker generating plants exist in your world? Explain their use and design.
The traditional supply of power IS NOT inflexible. It is based on minimum costs to meet demand. Far, far away from what renewables can do and certainly not at minimum costs.
Yes!
Its called “Demand Management”.
And this concept is buried in all the NetZero by 2050/;Green New Deal assessments by McKinsey and BloombergNEF. They understand we will never decrease CO2 emissions without DM [or CO2 capture and storage]. Even spending > $200 trillion …
So expect your Smart Meter to stop responding to your input – it will be run by by those who know what is best for you!
Kinda like: “Own nothing, be happy!” [IIRC uttered by some WEF sychophant] .
You’re right Michel. I’ve long speculated that supply-following was in the cards. And on a windless night the only way to follow the supply is to shut everybody off.
Fifteen minutes after that happens for the first time, count on the Grauniad to demand equity in load shedding.
So people will be checking the price all day long to decide whether or not to turn on their TV, or when to cook dinner or do anything else requiring power? Contrary to this absurd theory, energy needs are inelastic.
Long ago and far away in college macroeconomics class, we learned about what “price inelasticity of demand” means. It is especially relevant for electricity, food, and fuel.
So, instead of full-time, on-demand (as called for) electricity, the customer chooses and acts to have some, less, or no electricity? Or switches off heat or cooling or water heating or oven or medical devices or chargers or….
Supply side: Solar and wind do that automatically. Some, less, none.
At much higher real cost.
Nick. The rationality of what you say depends upon WHO is managing, or imposing both the supply, AND the demand.
If it is the Free Market, then ‘great’.
If it is ‘Big Brother’ then it is coercion, verging on tyranny.
This will not end well.
If it really was a free market Nick, people would be free to set up their own community diesel generators, and volunteer as permanent “demand management” participants with utilitiy supplied power.
I forgot to mention that under the government’s “demand management” plan, such volunteers would get paid by the government for their unselfish permanent participation in the scheme.
(there’s always more than one way to rort a government system 🙂
Great idea. Paying consumers not to consume when supply is tight. In addition to what they are already doing – paying producers not to produce when there’s a surplus of wind, paying generous subsidies to developers to build wind farms on- or off-shore and paying gas turbine operators to keep them idling till they’re needed. That’s going to take a lot of additional money; I wonder where it will come from?
Only two options come to mind: (1) increase taxes; (2) borrow the money and let future generations of taxpayers worry about repaying it. Hmm, not very attractive options, are they?
Or they could abandon the whole sorry mess and concentrate on policies that favour reliable energy. Not much hope of that in this madhouse we’re trapped in. Sigh…
But that’s not what it says, Nick. The proposal is not to raise prices at peak demand (you know, supply and demand), it is to pay people to not use electricity. It may look the same to you, but it isn’t. And where will the utility company get the money?
As ever, ignoring the herd of elephants in the room. So effing what?? How many degrees colder will the world be thanks to this government ministry of silly walking elitist twits.
Don’t bother I’m familiar with Lindzen et al., 2024.
Sensible market conditions would call for generation from combined cycle gas turbine, which would be less expensive than most renewable generation. This would also give a much more predictable schedule for when demand would approach capacity limits.
Yeah right. Of course the idiot government will never realise they don’t have to charge more or less to regulate demand via smart meters and simply cut the power instead. Anyway, No market that can be changed with the stroke of a pen is free.
That means people lower their demand when they don’t like the price.
You have it all backwards. Socialism, fascism and communism use government power to centrally plan the availability of supply. That is RATIONING goods and services regardless of how you look at it. Of course when supply is limited, prices will also rise.
Who profits? It sure isn’t the poor. Why not use smart meters to first shut off the rich who can afford standby generators. Second should be academic institutions. Then should come businesses based on their net profit, the largest being first. And so on down the line with the poorest being last. Any thoughts why that won’t happen?
Just in case you were somehow unaware here’s some fun events coming up to increase your, er, awareness of the crisis/catastrophe etc.
International E-Waste Day – 14th October Reptile Awareness Day – 21st October November — World Vegan Month Buy Nothing Day – 24th November National Tree Week World Soil Day– 5th December International Animal Rights Day – 10th December
Sadly you missed…
International Mother Earth Day – 22nd April International Compost Awareness Week (ICAW) – 5th to 11th May World Turtle Day – 23rd May World Ocean Day – 8th June Clean Air Day – 15th June Don’t step on a bee day – 10th July
etc etc https://greenecofriend.co.uk/environmental-awareness-calendar/
Any day in the msm is a 12 change of underwear day.
Yea. It’s so warm that here in NE Wales we’ve had to put the central heating on in the evening for two weeks now as well as sometimes in the morning. Normally mid November at the earliest, often later.
IEA ‘Renewables 2024 Analysis and Forecast to 2030’ (October 2024)
“Solar PV manufacturers are scaling back investment plans due to a glut in supply and record low prices. Global solar manufacturing capacity is expected to reach over 1100GW by the end of 2024 more than double expected demand”
““In contrast, the wind turbine manufacturing sector needs more investment to avoid supply chain bottlenecks by 2030. For offshore wind the situation is even more severe. Without new manufacturing projects supply chain bottlenecks could delay the rollout of offshore wind in the EU”
“share of renewables in final energy consumption”….. “nearly 20% by 2030, however almost 80% of global energy demand will still be met by fossil fuels”
Meanwhile Equinor announced in August 2024 that it was pulling out of it’s offshore wind projects in Spain and Portugal having already closed it’s Vietnam office. Their head of renewables told Reuters
“It’s getting more and more expensive and we think things are going to take more time in quite a few markets around the world
He also said the company may consider exiting additional markets
I’m pretty amazed that Elon managed to bring that booster back and place it, not just on the ground, where there is a lot of room for error, but attaching it to its launching platform, where there is very little room for error.
Just wondering if you noticed what happened to a Duke Energy solar farm in Lake Placid, Florida, after Hurricane Milton went through the region. Looks as though the damage was done by a tornado spawned by Milton.
And this is on the heels of a solar farm in Nebraska that suffered considerable damage earlier this year from hail spawned by a severe storm. Don’t you just love how solar farms are subject to the ravages of Mother Nature? Cool, isn’t it?
Thanks for posting that link. All baloney, of course, but it certainly lays out the messaging they want us to believe. Sounds scary! What should I do, BBC? “Eat less red meat.” LOL
Recent hurricanes have brought out the talking point, “warmer air can hold more water vapor” about heavy rainfall. Sure, the “7% more water vapor per degree C” is valid about saturation vapor pressure, but so what?
A one-inch-per hour rate of rainfall represents a 17,600 W/m^2 conversion of latent heat to internal energy in the atmosphere. And a value of one inch of precipitable water (same as 25.4 kg/m^2) represents 17,600 W-hours/m^2 for energy transport.
It gets lost on those pushing the climate crisis narrative about non-condensing GHGs that variable water vapor is what enables the powerful dynamic self-regulation that moves energy from the surface to space and from the equator to the poles. The incremental static radiative effect of rising concentrations of CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. is not capable of making energy accumulate down here on land and in the oceans as sensible heat – most certainly not to any harmful effect.
How much does variable water vapor matter to the climate system? Take a look. It’s not that hard to see how it works.
From your link:”And taking 1 inch = 25.4 mm = same as 25.4 kg/m^2 precipitable water
(because 1000 liters in a m^3, 1 kg per liter)
And noting that 1 Joule = 1 Watt – second
Then 25.4 kg/m^2 * 2.507 x 10^6 J/kg * 1 W-s/J * 1 hour/3600 s = 17,688 W-h/m^2.
Or if 25.4 kg/m^2 is condensed into rain per hour, the rate is 17,688 W/m^2”
I still am not clear. I know of no object that has mass (kg) but zero volume. You acknowledge that 1 liter has a mass of 1 kg and is 1/1000 of a m^3 but all that seems to disappear.
If you wish to use 1 watt = 1 kg * m^2 * s^(-3) instead you lose m^2 have a kg left over and a s remaining.
A W(watt) is a joule per second. W = J/s. I have no idea what 1 J = 1 W – s is other than 1 joule = 1 joule.
I admit to getting up in age but your calculation is lost on me.
Here is how the Grok 2 AI on X did the same calculation. I was just trying out this AI feature a few weeks ago to see what it would do. Maybe this will help by closely following the steps it used.
**************
My prompt: In units of Watts per square meter, and using the heat of vaporization at 0 deg C, what is the intensity of energy conversion from latent energy to internal energy for a rainfall rate of one inch per hour?
Grok’s answer, which I have lightly edited to provide the symbols lost in the cut-and-paste:
To calculate the intensity of energy conversion from latent heat to internal energy due to rainfall, we need to follow these steps: Determine the Rainfall Rate in SI Units:
1 inch per hour is approximately 25.4 mm per hour.
Volume of Water per Square Meter:
1 mm of rain over 1 square meter is equivalent to 1 liter of water. Thus, 25.4 mm/hour means 25.4 liters per hour per square meter.
Mass of Water:
The density of water is approximately 1000 kg/m³ or 1 kg/L. Therefore, 25.4 liters of water is 25.4 kg.
Heat of Vaporization:
The heat of vaporization of water at 0°C is approximately 2.501 × 10^6 J/kg.
Energy Released per Hour:
The energy released when this water condenses from vapor to liquid is: Energy= Mass × Heat of Vaporization = 25.4kg×2.501×10^6 J/kg=63.5254×10^6 J
Energy Conversion Rate:
This energy is released over an hour. To find the power (energy per unit time), we divide by 3600 seconds (since 1 hour = 3600 seconds):Power=63.5254×10^6 J / 3600s≈17645.94W
Intensity per Square Meter:
This power is over 1 square meter, so the intensity in Watts per square meter is: Intensity=17645.94 W/m2
Therefore, the intensity of energy conversion from latent energy to internal energy for a rainfall rate of one inch per hour is approximately 17,646 Watts per square meter.
**********************
“But isn’t this the same amount of energy required to turn water to vapor so it can later fall as rain? So the rain cycle is a zero sum game?”
Averaged over time and location, yes, and yes, if one is performing an energy balance exercise at the surface. But that was not the point of my post. It’s not about averages when considering the concept of energy conversion in the atmosphere, which drives its circulation.
The maximum rate of evaporation from the surface is at least an order of magnitude less (i.e. at least 10 times less) than the dynamically produced rainfall rate of one inch per hour which I posed as an example. The atmosphere performs as a dynamic amplifier in respect to energy conversion. In comparison, the very weak incremental static radiative effect of a 2XCO2 exercise, say 4 W/m^2, is over a thousand times less intense. This is one reason why the static concept of GHG “forcing” cannot be assumed to result in “warming” of the land and oceans.
One more point. Evaporation and condensation deliver energy from the surface and low altitude to high altitude, where longwave energy is radiated more easily to space. In that respect, it is not a zero-sum process.
I hope this helps. In other words, it’s a solar-powered steam engine.
A couple of simple observations, that will resonate with well-travelled folk who have the ability to observe the world around them, provide unequivocal proof of the role of water vapour in the global weather system:
Stand outside in a tropical desert after the sun has gone down, and then stand outside in an area of tropical jungle after the sun has gone down. One cools down a lot (and can become downright chilly) and the other cools down a bit, still allowing you to sit at an outdoor patio and enjoy the night in comfort. The difference is solely due to the difference in atmospheric water vapour. It can’t be due to CO2, which is “well mixed”.
The importance of water vapour in LWIR absorption, and the relative insignificance of CO2, was pointed out by Ångström 120 years ago. A lesson that the world seems to have forgotten. To speak of it now is heresy, with the consequences faced by heretics throughout history.
Could it possibly be that recent increases in global mean temperature are related to recent increases in water vapour content of the whole atmosphere and/or the stratosphere? And could it possibly be that recent increases in levels of water vapour are related to exhaust from jet/turbo aircraft? Annual global consumption of jet fuel in 2019 was ~300 million tonnes, which would generate ~400 MT of H2O (it went down during the covid, but has bounced right back). It would also generate ~900 MT of CO2 (≈0.25 GT C). Assume half of those emissions go into the stratosphere and that equals the much-touted 150 MT of water delivered to the stratosphere by the Hunga Tonga eruption – EVERY YEAR. You can do the calculations if you think I got it wrong (which has been known to happen a lot since I had long covid).
Your point about desert vs jungle is observed from space. Compare the Atacama Desert (northern Chile) to interior Brazil in this time-lapse video. The “brightness temperature” color scale used in those images is pasted below also.
HT is a case study of the impact of a pulse of WV into the stratosphere.
A second study could be to ban all turbofan jets from latitudes outside of the region 45 north and 45 south.
The atmosphere is thinner there and the Davos brigade and Western Europe would willingly stop flying any jet for say a five year period to save the planet.
Westfieldmike
October 13, 2024 6:28 am
We have mental patients in charge of the country. How did that happen?
Apparently, they couldn’t find a straight male that supports Harris. The big guy looks like he eats all the pastries as well as the pastry chef for breakfast, in addition to carburetors.
I’ve been in the military (back when they knew what men were) and I’m a firefighter. I’d say I know “real” men. I don’t know any of them who would go around saying all that stuff and saying that makes them a man – they let their actions speak for themselves. Real men don’t have to tell others that they’re “real men”.
I’m a retired P-3 pilot. I think the bravest men were my crew that had to endure my landings. I’ve had the entire crew in the cockpit complaining about my last landing. I made one landing into Cubi Point in the Philippines with a 90 degree crosswind that was so hard it dumped the inertials. And I made the smoothest landing of my career in Elmendorf, Alaska. My best landing was in winter, in Misawa, Japan, on an icy runway–and I was a no-P at the time.
Yeah. No flap landings weren’t my favorite. I liked three engine landings, because you seem to have more control. Two engine landings–not so much. And there’s the prop touch-and-go that one of our instructors did in 69. He was my PPC and was a superb pilot. They pulled his PPC papers and made him go through the training again. It was silly, because he knew more than the instructors re-training him.
I watch the Five on Fox. I can’t stand Jessica Tarlov. Her voice is grating, and I can feel brain cells dying as she speaks. She makes up nonsense, but she can string words together that actually have some meaning–subject-predicate–even though I disagree with that meaning. Harris can’t even do that.
Her word salads are atrocious. “We need to define this and this is because this is an important this, and we shouldn’t be burdened by this.” She didn’t actually say that, but it sounds like her.
As Trump said, “She talks in rhyme: the school bus goes here and the school bus goes there.”
I like Venn Diagrams, but she’s ruined them. I will still use them when appropriate, but now I have to include a disclaimer.
“I watch the Five on Fox. I can’t stand Jessica Tarlov.”
I have some sympathy for Jessica. She has the impossible job of trying to defend the Democrats.
What bothers me about Jessica is she seems to really believe all the leftwing propaganda she hears. She thinks Trump will be a dictator if he is elected. He wasn’t a dictator last time, but she thinks he will be this time. Not because of any evidence to support the claim but merely because that is one of the current Democrat narratives being used to scare voters into not voting for Trump.
Jessica is not alone: A LOT of Democrats believe their own propaganda. I guess those lies are what makes them Democrats.
The vote is basically split between public factions that want “more government legislated behaviour” in their lives and those that want “generally less government meddling” in their lives. There is a swing vote of rainbow, alphabet, religious fundamentalist, eco-activists, political activists….that politicians think are large enough to swing an election their way. It is actually NOT what democracy is supposed to be.
That is the question of the ages. The answer is ‘you did it and you can fix it’. Simply stop voting for parties and vote for individuals who represent you.
Coeur de Lion
October 13, 2024 7:45 am
What effect on global temperature from UK’s Net Zero campaign?
MSN has a page on climate science from the MIT OpenCoarseWare at Climate Science, Risk and Solutions: The MIT Climate Primer | Watch (msn.com)
It raises an interesting question: Why does the graph at about 4:52 show excellent correlation between the CO2 estimates and temperatures from an Antarctic ice core — until recently? Is it an artifact resulting from splicing modern instrumental CO2 measurements to the ice core estimates, or is something else going on that produced spurious correlations that have recently broken down? It should be well known to the good professor that mixing data from different sources is problematic. Yet, he did it. What has happened to the ideal of a scientist being a “disinterested observer” and just objectively presenting the facts in an acceptable manner?
“Your insults don’t really contribute to the discussion of science and strongly suggest that you are as biased as you are implying those you disagree with are.”
I took advantage of the suggested re-write by Copilot, and it came back with the following mistranslation:
“I apologize if my responses seemed inappropriate. That was not my intention. Thank you for the conversation.”
This is an even more alarming corruption of Large Language Models than the misstatement of facts that they admit are wrong when challenged.
It has been my experience that they first disgorge the consensus position. When challenged that what they said is wrong, they readily acknowledge that they ‘misspoke.’ They can’t logically deny what I have pointed out is wrong or not present in the literature. It is insidious because it is only the naive who will be convinced that there is a crisis.
Here is how the leftists / woke are taking over the AI narrative.
My question to ChatGPT:
“So, increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere (up to 1200 ppmv) and a slightly warming about 1-2 celsius degrees would indeed benefit the growth of the plant life on the planet as a whole.”
ChatGPT answer:
Yes, increased CO2 levels (up to around 1,200 ppm) combined with a slight temperature rise (1-2°C) could theoretically benefit plant growth in many regions under certain conditions. However, while the added CO2 does boost photosynthesis and can enhance plant growth, it’s important to consider how this interplay actually works across diverse natural ecosystems and climates, not just controlled environments.
Here’s a deeper look at the nuances of this scenario:
1. Boost in Photosynthesis:
Elevated CO2 improves photosynthesis for many plants, especially C3 plants (like wheat, rice, and soybeans) that thrive under higher CO2, as they are more responsive to CO2 than C4 plants (such as corn and sugarcane).
Water Use Efficiency (WUE): Higher CO2 often improves water use efficiency in plants, as they can keep their leaf pores (stomata) closed for longer to conserve water. This can be particularly beneficial in arid or semi-arid regions, allowing plants to grow better with less water.
2. Temperature Sensitivity:
A modest warming (1-2°C) may extend growing seasons in colder regions, such as parts of Canada, Russia, and northern Europe, allowing for a longer period of photosynthesis and potentially increasing crop yields.
Limits to Tolerance: Different plants have different heat tolerance levels. While mild warming could benefit some regions, excessive heat stress would still challenge plant growth in hotter climates, particularly in tropical regions already near optimal temperature thresholds.
3. Limits in Real-World Conditions:
Nutrient Constraints: In the real world, plants need more than just CO2 and favorable temperatures. Nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are essential, and without adequate fertilization or naturally nutrient-rich soils, plants may not fully benefit from elevated CO2.
Pests and Weeds: Higher CO2 and warmer temperatures can also accelerate the growth of certain pests and invasive weeds that outcompete native plants and crops, potentially disrupting ecosystems and agriculture. Some pests and pathogens thrive in warmer conditions, presenting new challenges.
4. Ecosystem-Level Impacts:
In natural ecosystems, interactions between plants, herbivores, and microbial life create a balanced nutrient and energy flow. While higher CO2 can stimulate plant growth, it can also affect species composition, favoring some plants over others and altering habitats for wildlife.
Biodiversity Risks: In some ecosystems, such as coral reefs, even small temperature increases and increased CO2 levels pose severe risks. Warming oceans and acidification directly threaten these ecosystems, which play vital roles in global biodiversity and food chains.
Conclusion
In a controlled scenario with sufficient nutrients, higher CO2 and a moderate temperature increase could promote plant growth and extend growing seasons, particularly in cooler regions. But outside of controlled settings, the benefits vary greatly based on local climate, soil health, water availability, and ecological balance. The broader ecosystem effects—including nutrient limitations, pest dynamics, and biodiversity impacts—are crucial to consider, as they can mitigate or even reverse some of the benefits of elevated CO2.
In short, while there’s potential for increased plant growth with more CO2 and mild warming, the natural environment’s complexity means that we can’t assume a universally positive outcome without carefully weighing all factors.
Pieces in the UK Telegraph today about Net Zero generation. The new Labour government is set upon delivering this by 2030 at all costs. This seems to have been an arbitrarily chosen date. No-one has argued that its important to hit 2030 rather than 2035.
There are two stories on this ongoing subject in the Telegraph. One is that picking the date of 2030 means that there is no time to bury the transmission cables from the north to where demand is. So the plan is to use pylons. This, in addition to destroying much countryside, costs more. Do it by 2035 underground and save £600 million over doing it with pylons and 2030. Fanaticism.
The other story concerns intermittency. They have finally woken up to its being a problem, so the long term solution is to install lots of dams in the Highlands, to use for pumped storage. Including Loch Ness, would you believe it?
It is now dawning on everyone that this, even if its doable, which it probably isn’t, cannot be done by 2030. So what is the solution? Back off? Pick a later date? No way. Instead the UK is tiptoeing into power rationing. Some quotes from the story follow. There is a lot more, reasonably good piece.
You cannot get there from here. Where they are going is rationing. As with all services provided by nationalized industries, whether its phones or health care, in the end they turn themselves into rationing rather than provisioning organizations.
This is where smart meters are going. Half hourly price changes as the wind blows or calms. And load shedding.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/13/why-age-of-energy-rationing-is-looming-for-britain/
_____________________________
Days after the Energy Secretary pledged low-carbon power for all at Labour’s annual conference, energy giant EDF discussed plans to close four of the UK’s five remaining nuclear power stations. Two are currently scheduled to close in 2026, followed by another two in 2028.
As Britain’s reactor fleet shrivels, the amount of nuclear capacity will fall from six gigawatts (GW) today to just 1.2 GW by 2028 or soon after. Along with rising demand from power-hungry data centres and technologies of the future, it will make it even harder to keep the lights on when wind and solar generation is low.
Against this backdrop, the National Energy System Operator (Neso), the newly nationalised body overseeing the electricity grid, is turning to households and businesses to help balance the system.
Last week, it announced year-round plans to manage demand by paying consumers to cut their electricity usage at times of tight supply.
As Britain’s reactor fleet shrivels, the amount of nuclear capacity will fall from six gigawatts (GW) today to just 1.2 GW by 2028 or soon after. Along with rising demand from power-hungry data centres and technologies of the future, it will make it even harder to keep the lights on when wind and solar generation is low.
Since 2000, the country’s theoretical generation capacity has increased from 75 GW to 106 GW thanks to the building of new wind and solar farms.
So why has electricity generation fallen?
The answer lies in the intermittent nature of renewables, which cannot produce power if the wind isn’t blowing or the sun doesn’t shine. This means the actual amount of power such projects generate is different to their theoretical capacity.
Wind turbines in the UK typically have a “load factor” – the percentage of the time they actually generate – of about 30pc, according to lobby group RenewableUK. For solar panels, the load factor is around 10pc, according to the Government.
“Last week, it announced year-round plans to manage demand by paying consumers to cut their electricity usage at times of tight supply.”
That isn’t rationing. It’s sensible market allocation.
Whenever you have a market, a price mechanism balances supply and demand. That means people lower their demand when they don’t like the price. It’s the opposite of rationing – it is free market. And old as the hills.
Utter nonsense, Nick. As per usual.
It’s rationing no matter how you might try to spin it.
So what is your ration?
We are shedding reliable generating capacity. Bigtime.
That’s why it’s getting tight. Self-inflicted, an own goal.
National suicide is a terrible thing.
As seen in Germany
Apologists like Stokes are accessories to the suicide.
Dr. Kavorkian Stokes
Shedding power generation at the same time as increasing demand by pushing EV cars and electric heat pumps. Why would you do either not knowing if you could charge your car or heat the house from one day to the next.
It’s a cult
An extremist, lunatic, suicidal cult. Time for a popular uprising. Unfortunately, I see zero sign of such an uprising here in Wokeachusetts. The citizens here have all become sheep- not counting the tens of thousands of illegals who can’t speak English, so they can’t be brainwashed, while enjoying nice hotels and many other amenities- costing the taxpayers here a billion bucks/year.
Then the governor bitches that there’s a housing shortage! But, there’s 6 million people in a tiny state- much of the land is in state forests or owned by towns or conservation groups. And, now much of the land is being paved over with solar “farms”. So if housing is built, where’s it gonna be put? And who is going to pay for it? Not the illegals! And, the greens want to lock up all the forests- stop all forestry- so where’s the wood gonna come from? Thousands of miles away! Crazy f*ckers, all of them- here in this Woke paradise.
At first glance I thought you were talking about Healy, Hochul, Whitmer, and Mills. But then I realized that it was a verb not a plural noun.
‘…all of them- here in this Woke paradise.’
Not all of them. We have more than our ‘fair share’ of zealots south of the border here in CT. If Trump wins, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the New England states reconvene the Hartford Convention of 1814 to consider secession.
Where I live in north central MA- is Trump country. We’ll secede from MA if they try that. 🙂 (Shay’s Rebellion redux)
Plus forcing people to go electric increases their costs. In the UK electricity is already FOUR times more expensive than gas and currently over 22m of the 28m households in the country are on the gas network.
You might as well start planning your move into a thatched roof, mud hut with candles- and lots of potatoes to eat raw. Painting by Van Gough.
Mr. Stokes since you seem to support load shedding (e.g. blackouts and rationing), you and yours need to be the first to be removed when supply is insufficient to meet demand. The stupidity of this is there is no reason to restrict our generation capacity to meet the growing demand. Your solutions will reduce the standard of living for everyone and do more harm to people. But of course you don’t care.
It also means you can’t budget your household electricity costs. If you know you’re paying x amount per kWh and you know your consumption you can predict what your electric bill is going to be. With this “sensible market allocation”, aka “surge pricing”, aka price gouging, you have no idea what your electric bill is likely to be unless you become a slave to your smart meter.
Whether you raise prices or restrict supply, the end result is the same. Rationing. And it wouldn’t be necessary if it weren’t for this watermelon philosophy driving it all.
That price mechanism works as long as supply is free to rise in response to higher prices. The problem is, the government is interfering on the supply side by favoring more expensive options. Let generation sources compete on a level playing field, and see what the result is for supply and cost.
Nick, you are missing the point. At the moment in the UK there is the kind of price variation you speak of, and it works fine. You have night storage heaters still, with a low cost of charging them overnight, and you also have two tier pricing for consumers with a lower price at night. Some people elect to heat their water in a tank overnight for this reason.
But this is happening in an environment where there is sufficient supply to cover demand. Where there is no danger of blackouts due to normal fluctuations in network supply.
What is going on here is quite different. They are attempting to keep the network going in a situation in which there is no supply, because of the move to intermittent generation. They are proposing to use the smart meters to implement not only half hour pricing, but also load shedding.
The economic implications of this are very large, and its very different. Its basically attempting to match demand to the fluctuating wind and solar supply. It is gradually emerging that this matching will be done by force. That is rationing, that is not the normal functioning of a fit for purpose market.
Its saying, the supply is intermittent, demand, or rather supply, is going to have to be moved up and down as the wind blows. Whether you like it or not, because there is not enough supply to do any different.
In the end this means come home, find you either cannot get power to charge your car and heat your heat pump or cook dinner, or you cannot afford it.
That is a huge difference from now.
We have been used as a country to reliable power. Society and the economy depends on it. The country is no longer going to have that. The implications of the rationing proposals are that the country is going to be running without reliable electricity. That is huge. Dieter Helm, a real energy expert, has rightly argued that the next election will be fought largely on the issue of energy. It is all going to bite in 2027-2028.
I do not believe the country can run on an electricity supply which will fluctuate as the present plans will make it. I think the result of trying will be blackouts and economic collapse.
Don’t argue whether to call it rationing. Argue about whether it will work at all, and if so how, when wind production falls to 10% of faceplate for days on end, and there is no solar because its January, and there is minimal backup.
“Its basically attempting to match demand to the fluctuating wind and solar supply.”
As we have always done. In the past, it was matching fluctuating demand to inflexible supply. Now there is volatility in supply, but the difference does not matter to the consumer. The wholesale price varies and so there is risk. The risk has been absorbed by retailers (and there suppliers) who remunerate themselves handsomely for doing so. Now some will be passed on to consumers. This has two pluses:
People spoke of surge pricing. This is become a talking point of with Uber. People don’t like surge pricing, but they do like Uber. The reason is that
Is this insanity anything like the NHS?
We could have a system where electricity is free and simply increase tax’s with rationing as per the NHS that way the concept of subsidies also disappears because none of us know what each service costs in the NHS we just assume that it’s rationally organized, but it’s not and nor is this.
The test for Nick’s comment, is the average cost to us in total including tax transfers via subsidies rising or falling the answer is obvious.
Roflmao, Nick trying to associate reliability and cost of electricity supply…
.. with Uber.
Slap-stick comedy at its worst.
You’re in denial.
The difference is, right now in Britain you have reliable power which works. There is differential charging, but the difference between peak and off-peak is known and stable, and its moderate. Its an option for a customer. Its easy to use because it has known, stable start and stop times. So you can put your hot water on a timer and heat it up a 3am.
This seems to work, its a rational and user manageable way of offering incentives to smooth out the peaks.
What is being proposed is not this at all. Its that pricing will vary (on smart meters) as often as every half hour with the unpredictable output of the wind. In addition, your smart meter will also have the ability to turn off your heat pump and EV charging.
Timers will not work unless the variation in price is time-based. Which it will not be.
You need to address the fact that electricity is not like Uber or off-peak rail tickets or any other current example of surge pricing. The real problem is that wind production in the UK can vary from over 20% of faceplate to under 10%. And the low output can happen for a week or ten days, often a lot lower than 10% for a day or two.
If Miliband’s plan is implemented there are going to be occasions in January and February when there is almost no solar, and when production from 90 GW of of wind is under 10GW. Sometimes under 5 GW for hours on end. This is observable at http://www.gridwatch.co.uk/wind, its just the historical record, its what wind does in this location.
This is not a fit for purpose national electricity supply. And trying to deal with it by pricing is crazy. You have to get specific. You arrive home at 5pm in January. It is calm, cold and pitch black. One of you has picked up the kids from school. There is a sign on your smart meter display that tells you current price for power is some astronomical level per kilowatt. The plan seems to be to pass on the wholesale fluctuations to the consumer. Its usually about 30p per kWh. Right now its £3.00, and its been as high as £10.00. It changes every half hour. You can run a bath and half way through the price can move up by a factor of 5 or 10.
What you want is a cup of tea, and to give the children supper. You have no idea how much this is going to cost. You also need the heat on. But power to the heat pump has been turned off. This is not something you can fool around with. Perhaps you have an older relative and you think about filling a hot water bottle? Then you reflect that the electric kettle is rated at 1 kW. As for charging the car, that circuit has been switched off too.
You reflect that tomorrow morning you will want to take a shower. How much is that going to cost? You have no idea.
The reason why current off-peak pricing works is that its predictable and because there are some uses which can be put on timers and moved. Water heating, washing machines, even drying racks. Heating and cooking, demand is not elastic Nor is most industry. Streetlights? Hospitals? Telecoms?
So lets imagine further. Your name is Ed, you are a minister, and are now invited on national TV to explain what is happening. Its day four of the calm, Demand would normally be well north of 50 GW, but supply is now down around 2 GW for the last few hours. Power is basically off, emergency generators are running out of fuel, and the presenter is wearing an expensive down jacket. You have your thermals on under your suit. You reflect ironically that its unlikely anyone much can watch TV, but they have battery radios still.
The presenter covers what is happening, you explain that its vital to tackle the climate crisis and global heating for the sake of future generations, and then comes the question which had never occurred to you: OK, she says, we have to sacrifice for the common good, understand that. Tell our viewers (or listeners!) how much difference this is making to global temperatures?
With an inward shudder you remember that the next election is only one year away…
You know nothing about public electrical generation. Do the terms baseload, intermittent, and peaker generating plants exist in your world? Explain their use and design.
The traditional supply of power IS NOT inflexible. It is based on minimum costs to meet demand. Far, far away from what renewables can do and certainly not at minimum costs.
Yes!
Its called “Demand Management”.
And this concept is buried in all the NetZero by 2050/;Green New Deal assessments by McKinsey and BloombergNEF. They understand we will never decrease CO2 emissions without DM [or CO2 capture and storage]. Even spending > $200 trillion …
So expect your Smart Meter to stop responding to your input – it will be run by by those who know what is best for you!
Kinda like: “Own nothing, be happy!” [IIRC uttered by some WEF sychophant] .
You’re right Michel. I’ve long speculated that supply-following was in the cards. And on a windless night the only way to follow the supply is to shut everybody off.
Fifteen minutes after that happens for the first time, count on the Grauniad to demand equity in load shedding.
So people will be checking the price all day long to decide whether or not to turn on their TV, or when to cook dinner or do anything else requiring power? Contrary to this absurd theory, energy needs are inelastic.
Long ago and far away in college macroeconomics class, we learned about what “price inelasticity of demand” means. It is especially relevant for electricity, food, and fuel.
So, instead of full-time, on-demand (as called for) electricity, the customer chooses and acts to have some, less, or no electricity? Or switches off heat or cooling or water heating or oven or medical devices or chargers or….
Supply side: Solar and wind do that automatically. Some, less, none.
At much higher real cost.
That’s the planning in Germany, produce while sun is shining or/and wind is blowing, else stop producing, what could go wrong?
Bingo!
Say goodbye to any heavy industry, its work force and its supply chains.
And ultimately its tax base.
[Paraphrase an econ joke]:
One (S. Korean, Chinese) manufacturer to another: “What ever happened to that country who used to buy our stuff?”
Germany has utterly doomed any possibility of competitive industrial manufacturing in that nation.
It’s rationing because you choose not to provide reliable power. Nut zero indeed.
“Market Allocation” you should copyright that before Miliband and Starmer steal it!!
Nick. The rationality of what you say depends upon WHO is managing, or imposing both the supply, AND the demand.
If it is the Free Market, then ‘great’.
If it is ‘Big Brother’ then it is coercion, verging on tyranny.
This will not end well.
If it really was a free market Nick, people would be free to set up their own community diesel generators, and volunteer as permanent “demand management” participants with utilitiy supplied power.
I forgot to mention that under the government’s “demand management” plan, such volunteers would get paid by the government for their unselfish permanent participation in the scheme.
(there’s always more than one way to rort a government system 🙂
Great idea. Paying consumers not to consume when supply is tight. In addition to what they are already doing – paying producers not to produce when there’s a surplus of wind, paying generous subsidies to developers to build wind farms on- or off-shore and paying gas turbine operators to keep them idling till they’re needed. That’s going to take a lot of additional money; I wonder where it will come from?
Only two options come to mind: (1) increase taxes; (2) borrow the money and let future generations of taxpayers worry about repaying it. Hmm, not very attractive options, are they?
Or they could abandon the whole sorry mess and concentrate on policies that favour reliable energy. Not much hope of that in this madhouse we’re trapped in. Sigh…
But that’s not what it says, Nick. The proposal is not to raise prices at peak demand (you know, supply and demand), it is to pay people to not use electricity. It may look the same to you, but it isn’t. And where will the utility company get the money?
As ever, ignoring the herd of elephants in the room. So effing what?? How many degrees colder will the world be thanks to this government ministry of silly walking elitist twits.
Don’t bother I’m familiar with Lindzen et al., 2024.
Don’t know about the world but it will be colder in most homes.
Sensible market conditions would call for generation from combined cycle gas turbine, which would be less expensive than most renewable generation. This would also give a much more predictable schedule for when demand would approach capacity limits.
And if I want to pay more, will I be able to to keep the lights on?
Yeah right. Of course the idiot government will never realise they don’t have to charge more or less to regulate demand via smart meters and simply cut the power instead. Anyway, No market that can be changed with the stroke of a pen is free.
You have it all backwards. Socialism, fascism and communism use government power to centrally plan the availability of supply. That is RATIONING goods and services regardless of how you look at it. Of course when supply is limited, prices will also rise.
Who profits? It sure isn’t the poor. Why not use smart meters to first shut off the rich who can afford standby generators. Second should be academic institutions. Then should come businesses based on their net profit, the largest being first. And so on down the line with the poorest being last. Any thoughts why that won’t happen?
Will the Labour Government still be in office in 2030?
Parliament will still be in control
Don’t you mean dogmatic, populist political parties will still be in control?
Bombarded non stop by the alarmist hyperbole…
“”World breaks hottest day record twice in a week””
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crg7pen1xj7o
“”The Observer view on climate change: Hurricane Milton is a portent – but it’s not too late
The havoc unleashed by Hurricane Milton provided unambiguous evidence that we are entering a critical and alarming new phase in the planet’s climate crisis. “”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/13/the-observer-view-on-climate-change-hurricane-milton-is-a-portent-but-its-not-too-late
Just in case you were somehow unaware here’s some fun events coming up to increase your, er, awareness of the crisis/catastrophe etc.
International E-Waste Day – 14th October
Reptile Awareness Day – 21st October
November — World Vegan Month
Buy Nothing Day – 24th November
National Tree Week
World Soil Day– 5th December
International Animal Rights Day – 10th December
Sadly you missed…
International Mother Earth Day – 22nd April
International Compost Awareness Week (ICAW) – 5th to 11th May
World Turtle Day – 23rd May
World Ocean Day – 8th June
Clean Air Day – 15th June
Don’t step on a bee day – 10th July
etc etc
https://greenecofriend.co.uk/environmental-awareness-calendar/
Any day in the msm is a 12 change of underwear day.
Thanks for the link. I’ve seen more and more people do Veganuary – so some of these catch on. Guess people like to challenge themselves.
There’s no charge. – and no accounting for a lack of taste.
Years ago, my daughter gave me a vegan January challenge and, after a rush of blood to the head, I also decided on no alcohol for the month.
The booze was an absolute breeze but, by about the 20th I was hurting on the vegan diet. I made it though.
Just thinking about it – I’m going to have a ribeye tonight – to hell with the climate.
“I’ve seen more and more people do Veganuar”
You, being trapped as you are, in a woke, leftist ghetto… that is no surprise.
Does you granny make soy decaf lattes for you ?
Renewables. Renewables everywhere 😀
IEA forecasts over 4,000GW of global photovoltaic (PV) capacity by 2030
https://www.evwind.es/2024/10/12/iea-forecasts-over-4000gw-of-global-photovoltaic-pv-capacity-by-2030/101707
Global Emissions Will Peak In 2024, Claims DNV In Latest Report
https://cleantechnica.com/2024/10/10/global-emissions-will-peak-in-2024-claims-dnv-in-latest-report/
China Rolls Off World’s Largest Floating Offshore Wind Turbine
https://www.evwind.es/2024/10/12/china-rolls-off-worlds-largest-floating-offshore-wind-turbine/101703
UAW chief slams Trump over threat to repeal EV investments
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/uaw-chief-slams-trump-over-threat-revoke-ev-investments-2024-10-10/
There’s no wind here and it’s sullen grey.
Thank gawd for gas and nukes.
Don’t worry Strat, England forecast is at least a week of 17-19C and double digit minimums.
Of course, you believe the forecasts.
They do get it right some of the time
Yea. It’s so warm that here in NE Wales we’ve had to put the central heating on in the evening for two weeks now as well as sometimes in the morning. Normally mid November at the earliest, often later.
Yup, 3.00pm and wind plus solar are contributing 15%, which equals our imports. Gas is 47%.
We really are up a creek without a paddle!
IEA ‘Renewables 2024 Analysis and Forecast to 2030’ (October 2024)
“Solar PV manufacturers are scaling back investment plans due to a glut in supply and record low prices. Global solar manufacturing capacity is expected to reach over 1100GW by the end of 2024 more than double expected demand”
““In contrast, the wind turbine manufacturing sector needs more investment to avoid supply chain bottlenecks by 2030. For offshore wind the situation is even more severe. Without new manufacturing projects supply chain bottlenecks could delay the rollout of offshore wind in the EU”
“share of renewables in final energy consumption”….. “nearly 20% by 2030, however almost 80% of global energy demand will still be met by fossil fuels”
Meanwhile Equinor announced in August 2024 that it was pulling out of it’s offshore wind projects in Spain and Portugal having already closed it’s Vietnam office. Their head of renewables told Reuters
“It’s getting more and more expensive and we think things are going to take more time in quite a few markets around the world
He also said the company may consider exiting additional markets
https://www.offshore.wind.biz/2024/08/29/equinor-axes-wind-plans-in-spain-and-portugal-weighs-further-market-exits/
Don’t forget the IEA weighs things through rose tinted glasses whilst Equinor gets it’s hands dirty at the business end.
Fossil fuel, not solar powered.
I’m pretty amazed that Elon managed to bring that booster back and place it, not just on the ground, where there is a lot of room for error, but attaching it to its launching platform, where there is very little room for error.
Fantastic job! Human ingenuity is amazing!
Hi MUN,
Just wondering if you noticed what happened to a Duke Energy solar farm in Lake Placid, Florida, after Hurricane Milton went through the region. Looks as though the damage was done by a tornado spawned by Milton.
Video | Lake Placid Solar | Milton damage | Duke Energy | News Center (duke-energy.com)
And this is on the heels of a solar farm in Nebraska that suffered considerable damage earlier this year from hail spawned by a severe storm. Don’t you just love how solar farms are subject to the ravages of Mother Nature? Cool, isn’t it?
What’s with the plastic sunflowers in the pic?
Aren’t they made with a derivative of oil?
Oh, the horror!!
(about the hypocrisy, I mean)
Meanwhile, back in the real world…
China’s top miner to spend $24 billion on coal-to-oil project – MINING.COM
New coal plants in China soar despite President Xi’s pledge to ‘strictly control’ dirtiest fuel | Climate News | Sky News
India to increase coal-fired capacity in 2024 by the most in at least 6 years | Reuters
and there’s more…..
Coal use reaches record in Indonesia and Philippines, endangering climate goals: Study | The Straits Times
Vietnam’s coal use and emissions set new records | Reuters
Philippines’ dependency on coal-fired power surpasses China, Indonesia | Reuters
and….
Indonesian thermal coal exports scale new highs in early 2024 | Reuters
Coal keeps powering India as booming economy crushes green hopes | The Straits Times
Asia’s coal sector sees long, prosperous life despite energy transition: Russell | Reuters
I don’t think Asia and Africa are listenening to the Climate Change Doomsters.
Great God will come from the sky and-a-make everybody feel high. MORON!
What is climate change? A really simple guide
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24021772?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Byahoo.north.america%5D-%5Blink%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D
And it’s all true because it’s from the BBC and you can trust them! 🙂
An old story from last winter- a friend just sent it to me.
Thanks for posting that link. All baloney, of course, but it certainly lays out the messaging they want us to believe. Sounds scary! What should I do, BBC? “Eat less red meat.” LOL
Recent hurricanes have brought out the talking point, “warmer air can hold more water vapor” about heavy rainfall. Sure, the “7% more water vapor per degree C” is valid about saturation vapor pressure, but so what?
A one-inch-per hour rate of rainfall represents a 17,600 W/m^2 conversion of latent heat to internal energy in the atmosphere. And a value of one inch of precipitable water (same as 25.4 kg/m^2) represents 17,600 W-hours/m^2 for energy transport.
It gets lost on those pushing the climate crisis narrative about non-condensing GHGs that variable water vapor is what enables the powerful dynamic self-regulation that moves energy from the surface to space and from the equator to the poles. The incremental static radiative effect of rising concentrations of CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. is not capable of making energy accumulate down here on land and in the oceans as sensible heat – most certainly not to any harmful effect.
How much does variable water vapor matter to the climate system? Take a look. It’s not that hard to see how it works.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/todays-weather/?var_id=pwtr&ortho=1&wt=1
I am unclear why this would be W (watts) and not joules. And why m^2 and not m^3 since you are saying the depth is one inch (2.54 cm).
Explained here. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/12/stunning-imagery-a-huge-cyclone-and-an-atmospheric-river/#comment-3665003
Thanks for this, I look forward to reading this properly, and – Note to self:
Scroll quickly through the troll-feeding time at the zoo this time.
From your link:”And taking 1 inch = 25.4 mm = same as 25.4 kg/m^2 precipitable water
(because 1000 liters in a m^3, 1 kg per liter)
And noting that 1 Joule = 1 Watt – second
Then 25.4 kg/m^2 * 2.507 x 10^6 J/kg * 1 W-s/J * 1 hour/3600 s = 17,688 W-h/m^2.
Or if 25.4 kg/m^2 is condensed into rain per hour, the rate is 17,688 W/m^2”
I still am not clear. I know of no object that has mass (kg) but zero volume. You acknowledge that 1 liter has a mass of 1 kg and is 1/1000 of a m^3 but all that seems to disappear.
If you wish to use 1 watt = 1 kg * m^2 * s^(-3) instead you lose m^2 have a kg left over and a s remaining.
A W(watt) is a joule per second. W = J/s. I have no idea what 1 J = 1 W – s is other than 1 joule = 1 joule.
I admit to getting up in age but your calculation is lost on me.
Here is how the Grok 2 AI on X did the same calculation. I was just trying out this AI feature a few weeks ago to see what it would do. Maybe this will help by closely following the steps it used.
**************
My prompt:
In units of Watts per square meter, and using the heat of vaporization at 0 deg C, what is the intensity of energy conversion from latent energy to internal energy for a rainfall rate of one inch per hour?
Grok’s answer, which I have lightly edited to provide the symbols lost in the cut-and-paste:
To calculate the intensity of energy conversion from latent heat to internal energy due to rainfall, we need to follow these steps:
Determine the Rainfall Rate in SI Units:
Volume of Water per Square Meter:
Mass of Water:
Heat of Vaporization:
Energy Released per Hour:
Energy Conversion Rate:
Intensity per Square Meter:
Therefore, the intensity of energy conversion from latent energy to internal energy for a rainfall rate of one inch per hour is approximately 17,646 Watts per square meter.
**********************
But isn’t this the same amount of energy required to turn water to vapor so it can later fall as rain? So the rain cycle is a zero sum game?
Thank you for the answer.
“But isn’t this the same amount of energy required to turn water to vapor so it can later fall as rain? So the rain cycle is a zero sum game?”
Averaged over time and location, yes, and yes, if one is performing an energy balance exercise at the surface. But that was not the point of my post. It’s not about averages when considering the concept of energy conversion in the atmosphere, which drives its circulation.
The maximum rate of evaporation from the surface is at least an order of magnitude less (i.e. at least 10 times less) than the dynamically produced rainfall rate of one inch per hour which I posed as an example. The atmosphere performs as a dynamic amplifier in respect to energy conversion. In comparison, the very weak incremental static radiative effect of a 2XCO2 exercise, say 4 W/m^2, is over a thousand times less intense. This is one reason why the static concept of GHG “forcing” cannot be assumed to result in “warming” of the land and oceans.
One more point. Evaporation and condensation deliver energy from the surface and low altitude to high altitude, where longwave energy is radiated more easily to space. In that respect, it is not a zero-sum process.
I hope this helps. In other words, it’s a solar-powered steam engine.
A couple of simple observations, that will resonate with well-travelled folk who have the ability to observe the world around them, provide unequivocal proof of the role of water vapour in the global weather system:
Stand outside in a tropical desert after the sun has gone down, and then stand outside in an area of tropical jungle after the sun has gone down. One cools down a lot (and can become downright chilly) and the other cools down a bit, still allowing you to sit at an outdoor patio and enjoy the night in comfort. The difference is solely due to the difference in atmospheric water vapour. It can’t be due to CO2, which is “well mixed”.
The importance of water vapour in LWIR absorption, and the relative insignificance of CO2, was pointed out by Ångström 120 years ago. A lesson that the world seems to have forgotten. To speak of it now is heresy, with the consequences faced by heretics throughout history.
Could it possibly be that recent increases in global mean temperature are related to recent increases in water vapour content of the whole atmosphere and/or the stratosphere? And could it possibly be that recent increases in levels of water vapour are related to exhaust from jet/turbo aircraft? Annual global consumption of jet fuel in 2019 was ~300 million tonnes, which would generate ~400 MT of H2O (it went down during the covid, but has bounced right back). It would also generate ~900 MT of CO2 (≈0.25 GT C). Assume half of those emissions go into the stratosphere and that equals the much-touted 150 MT of water delivered to the stratosphere by the Hunga Tonga eruption – EVERY YEAR. You can do the calculations if you think I got it wrong (which has been known to happen a lot since I had long covid).
Your point about desert vs jungle is observed from space. Compare the Atacama Desert (northern Chile) to interior Brazil in this time-lapse video. The “brightness temperature” color scale used in those images is pasted below also.
https://youtu.be/Yarzo13_TSE
HT is a case study of the impact of a pulse of WV into the stratosphere.
A second study could be to ban all turbofan jets from latitudes outside of the region 45 north and 45 south.
The atmosphere is thinner there and the Davos brigade and Western Europe would willingly stop flying any jet for say a five year period to save the planet.
We have mental patients in charge of the country. How did that happen?
They were elected by people that often are mental patients, it seems 😀
Apparently, they couldn’t find a straight male that supports Harris. The big guy looks like he eats all the pastries as well as the pastry chef for breakfast, in addition to carburetors.
They are all paid-for two-bit actors, not “real men”.
Looks like on of those parody ads the BB might put out. 🙂
There is no way a real man would ever vote for the giggling, vacuous, word-salad that is the Kamal.
One listen, and they would say..
“Shut the **** up… you are embarrassing yourself by making yourself look like an idiot”
I’ve been in the military (back when they knew what men were) and I’m a firefighter. I’d say I know “real” men. I don’t know any of them who would go around saying all that stuff and saying that makes them a man – they let their actions speak for themselves. Real men don’t have to tell others that they’re “real men”.
I’m a retired P-3 pilot. I think the bravest men were my crew that had to endure my landings. I’ve had the entire crew in the cockpit complaining about my last landing. I made one landing into Cubi Point in the Philippines with a 90 degree crosswind that was so hard it dumped the inertials. And I made the smoothest landing of my career in Elmendorf, Alaska. My best landing was in winter, in Misawa, Japan, on an icy runway–and I was a no-P at the time.
I always found practicing no flap landings interesting.
Yeah. No flap landings weren’t my favorite. I liked three engine landings, because you seem to have more control. Two engine landings–not so much. And there’s the prop touch-and-go that one of our instructors did in 69. He was my PPC and was a superb pilot. They pulled his PPC papers and made him go through the training again. It was silly, because he knew more than the instructors re-training him.
I watch the Five on Fox. I can’t stand Jessica Tarlov. Her voice is grating, and I can feel brain cells dying as she speaks. She makes up nonsense, but she can string words together that actually have some meaning–subject-predicate–even though I disagree with that meaning. Harris can’t even do that.
Her word salads are atrocious. “We need to define this and this is because this is an important this, and we shouldn’t be burdened by this.” She didn’t actually say that, but it sounds like her.
As Trump said, “She talks in rhyme: the school bus goes here and the school bus goes there.”
I like Venn Diagrams, but she’s ruined them. I will still use them when appropriate, but now I have to include a disclaimer.
“I watch the Five on Fox. I can’t stand Jessica Tarlov.”
I have some sympathy for Jessica. She has the impossible job of trying to defend the Democrats.
What bothers me about Jessica is she seems to really believe all the leftwing propaganda she hears. She thinks Trump will be a dictator if he is elected. He wasn’t a dictator last time, but she thinks he will be this time. Not because of any evidence to support the claim but merely because that is one of the current Democrat narratives being used to scare voters into not voting for Trump.
Jessica is not alone: A LOT of Democrats believe their own propaganda. I guess those lies are what makes them Democrats.
Tarlov has no brain cells to kill. She’s just another mental patient, talking puppet.
The vote is basically split between public factions that want “more government legislated behaviour” in their lives and those that want “generally less government meddling” in their lives. There is a swing vote of rainbow, alphabet, religious fundamentalist, eco-activists, political activists….that politicians think are large enough to swing an election their way. It is actually NOT what democracy is supposed to be.
That is the question of the ages. The answer is ‘you did it and you can fix it’. Simply stop voting for parties and vote for individuals who represent you.
What effect on global temperature from UK’s Net Zero campaign?
Nil.
OK then, what effects on, and to which individuals’ bank accounts.
You have to pay for other people’s battery cars.
What measurand will you use?
MSN has a page on climate science from the MIT OpenCoarseWare at Climate Science, Risk and Solutions: The MIT Climate Primer | Watch (msn.com)
It raises an interesting question: Why does the graph at about 4:52 show excellent correlation between the CO2 estimates and temperatures from an Antarctic ice core — until recently? Is it an artifact resulting from splicing modern instrumental CO2 measurements to the ice core estimates, or is something else going on that produced spurious correlations that have recently broken down? It should be well known to the good professor that mixing data from different sources is problematic. Yet, he did it. What has happened to the ideal of a scientist being a “disinterested observer” and just objectively presenting the facts in an acceptable manner?
In responding to a commenter on MSN who was criticizing Roy Spencer in an article posted from the Tribune News Service [ https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/commentary-climate-change-the-science-doesn-t-support-the-heated-rhetoric/ar-AA1s0QQc#comments ], my following comment was rejected:
“Your insults don’t really contribute to the discussion of science and strongly suggest that you are as biased as you are implying those you disagree with are.”
I took advantage of the suggested re-write by Copilot, and it came back with the following mistranslation:
“I apologize if my responses seemed inappropriate. That was not my intention. Thank you for the conversation.”
This is an even more alarming corruption of Large Language Models than the misstatement of facts that they admit are wrong when challenged.
I’d be interested in how these programs “know” they are wrong. How do they get it wrong in the first place?
It has been my experience that they first disgorge the consensus position. When challenged that what they said is wrong, they readily acknowledge that they ‘misspoke.’ They can’t logically deny what I have pointed out is wrong or not present in the literature. It is insidious because it is only the naive who will be convinced that there is a crisis.
Here is how the leftists / woke are taking over the AI narrative.
My question to ChatGPT:
“So, increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere (up to 1200 ppmv) and a slightly warming about 1-2 celsius degrees would indeed benefit the growth of the plant life on the planet as a whole.”
ChatGPT answer:
Yes, increased CO2 levels (up to around 1,200 ppm) combined with a slight temperature rise (1-2°C) could theoretically benefit plant growth in many regions under certain conditions. However, while the added CO2 does boost photosynthesis and can enhance plant growth, it’s important to consider how this interplay actually works across diverse natural ecosystems and climates, not just controlled environments.
Here’s a deeper look at the nuances of this scenario:
1. Boost in Photosynthesis:
Elevated CO2 improves photosynthesis for many plants, especially C3 plants (like wheat, rice, and soybeans) that thrive under higher CO2, as they are more responsive to CO2 than C4 plants (such as corn and sugarcane).
Water Use Efficiency (WUE): Higher CO2 often improves water use efficiency in plants, as they can keep their leaf pores (stomata) closed for longer to conserve water. This can be particularly beneficial in arid or semi-arid regions, allowing plants to grow better with less water.
2. Temperature Sensitivity:
A modest warming (1-2°C) may extend growing seasons in colder regions, such as parts of Canada, Russia, and northern Europe, allowing for a longer period of photosynthesis and potentially increasing crop yields.
Limits to Tolerance: Different plants have different heat tolerance levels. While mild warming could benefit some regions, excessive heat stress would still challenge plant growth in hotter climates, particularly in tropical regions already near optimal temperature thresholds.
3. Limits in Real-World Conditions:
Nutrient Constraints: In the real world, plants need more than just CO2 and favorable temperatures. Nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are essential, and without adequate fertilization or naturally nutrient-rich soils, plants may not fully benefit from elevated CO2.
Pests and Weeds: Higher CO2 and warmer temperatures can also accelerate the growth of certain pests and invasive weeds that outcompete native plants and crops, potentially disrupting ecosystems and agriculture. Some pests and pathogens thrive in warmer conditions, presenting new challenges.
4. Ecosystem-Level Impacts:
In natural ecosystems, interactions between plants, herbivores, and microbial life create a balanced nutrient and energy flow. While higher CO2 can stimulate plant growth, it can also affect species composition, favoring some plants over others and altering habitats for wildlife.
Biodiversity Risks: In some ecosystems, such as coral reefs, even small temperature increases and increased CO2 levels pose severe risks. Warming oceans and acidification directly threaten these ecosystems, which play vital roles in global biodiversity and food chains.
Conclusion
In a controlled scenario with sufficient nutrients, higher CO2 and a moderate temperature increase could promote plant growth and extend growing seasons, particularly in cooler regions. But outside of controlled settings, the benefits vary greatly based on local climate, soil health, water availability, and ecological balance. The broader ecosystem effects—including nutrient limitations, pest dynamics, and biodiversity impacts—are crucial to consider, as they can mitigate or even reverse some of the benefits of elevated CO2.
In short, while there’s potential for increased plant growth with more CO2 and mild warming, the natural environment’s complexity means that we can’t assume a universally positive outcome without carefully weighing all factors.