Renewables, the Grid, and Blackouts

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, LANDMAN X said:

Nick, I pointed out just one blowing its top in recent times. Mt. St. Helen blew 30 years of junk (prior all worlds waste combined) in atmosphere 1980.  My family station wagon, in Fargo, ND, was covered in ash.  Blast was 1200 miles away.  Can anyone explain how a mile of ice could form above Canada during just one ice age?  Last one or two actually diverted the Missouri river flowing north into Canada to the south as it is now.  Red River flows north into Canada.  The earth has had many warming and cooling periods, we know, in recent history.  England once produced wine during a warming period.  We all like renewables but I'm not convinced we can spend are way out of fossil fuels overnight by tax and spend green policies.       

That comment is the piece de resistance classic from people who know little about climate.

The UK still produces wines and always has since the ' medieval warm period' including during the 'little ice age' 

However better transport meant it was easier to bring volume produced wines from warmer climates. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, LANDMAN X said:

Nick, I pointed out just one blowing its top in recent times. Mt. St. Helen blew 30 years of junk (prior all worlds waste combined) in atmosphere 1980.  My family station wagon, in Fargo, ND, was covered in ash.  Blast was 1200 miles away.  Can anyone explain how a mile of ice could form above Canada during just one ice age?  Last one or two actually diverted the Missouri river flowing north into Canada to the south as it is now.  Red River flows north into Canada.  The earth has had many warming and cooling periods, we know, in recent history.  England once produced wine during a warming period.  We all like renewables but I'm not convinced we can spend are way out of fossil fuels overnight by tax and spend green policies.       

Do you make this stuff up randomly or is there some method?

The entire ash blast out of Mt St Helens was about 550 million tons. Sure it had region wide implications but the idea it dwarved all previous combined global emissions is straight out the sh1t that never happened book

Anthroprogenic SO2 emissions alone in 1980 was 26 million tons (and that had been falling for a decade)

 

[NickW + 2,714]

16 hours ago, markslawson said:

I don't think much understanding is required.. build enough firm power from gas plants and hydro and the like to supply all needs and then ensure that all renewables projects have battery back up that allows the installation to maintain power output for half an hour - ie the grid managers have half an hour warning that it will go offline. That should be enough time to ramp up the firm capacity to fill the gap (won't work with coal plants, they can't ramp output up or down fast enough). Then the renewables crazies can have as many green projects as they want, and never mind poor people having to pay extra for power. That is the energy future. I dunno if this will save any emissions, especially once the life-cycle of the wind generators and PV panels are taken into account.. but it will stop the greenies shouting..   

Your quote is from the sh1t that never happens book......

On a grid network all renewables combined don't shut down unpredictably other than in a grid black out and that would equally affect fossil / nuc plant effect. The wind doesn't stop blowing over the whole of California on the spin of a dime. Nor does the sun stop shining. The grid operator will experience a gradually crank down of output. Short term weather prediction now is so accurate that outturns on predictions are within a couple of %

You basically need enough deployed short term reserve to bridge that gap to address any plant failure. That can be meant in a number of ways

• Pump storage / Hydro
• Batteries
• OCGT
• Diesel Generators. In the UK grid a lot of standby gen sets are contracted to Nat Grid to come on by  demand for upto 2 hours if they get the signal. They need to cycle the diesel anyway and they get a payment for providing this service. 

But no you don't need 30 mins back up generating capacity at each and every plant. 

Edited February 3, 2021 by NickW

[turbguy + 1,391]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

You basically need enough deployed short term reserve to bridge that gap to address any plant failure. That can be meant in a number of ways

• Pump storage / Hydro
• Batteries
• OCGT
• Diesel Generators. In the UK grid a lot of standby gen sets are contracted to Nat Grid to come on by  demand for upto 2 hours if they get the signal. They need to cycle the diesel anyway and they get a payment for providing this service. 

Don't forget CAES.  Ooops, that storage uses fuel, sorry...

That was all the rage sometimes back, until investors realized the expense of the initial air charge.

"Properly managed" grids require at least the capability to very rapidly add generation from reserve to accommodate the trip of the largest on-line generator to supply non-interruptable loads.  During hot summer days, it can be a real nail-biter for some control areas.  Even then, VAR imbalances can occur post trip, which then overloads transmission lines, overheats them, they expand, sag, and then reveal how well, or how poorly, "vegetation management" has been performed. At least that is a relatively slowly emerging event, ending in a transmission line trip.  And then comes the cascade...

Edited February 3, 2021 by turbguy

[JoMack + 547]

As Kerry tells oil and gas workers to transition into solar and wind since they've been fed a fraudulent narrative, Kamala Harris winds up in West Virginia telling coal mining workers to transfer their skills to recovering land mines in West Virginia.  So, you have to wonder how we will survive the stupidity of the people currently in power.

Biden and his merry band of climate warriors are seriously on the warpath to force the U.S. into a zero emissions country and they are working with China to make promises to curtail their fossil fuel use.  Yup, promises made, and China promises, and as we all know, China never lies.

With that:

China’s new coal power plant capacity in 2020 more than three times rest of world’s: study

Reuters | February 3, 2021 | 8:30 am Intelligence China Coal  

 

 

 

[turbguy + 1,391]

1 hour ago, JoMack said:

As Kerry tells oil and gas workers to transition into solar and wind since they've been fed a fraudulent narrative, Kamala Harris winds up in West Virginia telling coal mining workers to transfer their skills to recovering land mines in West Virginia.  So, you have to wonder how we will survive the stupidity of the people currently in power.

Biden and his merry band of climate warriors are seriously on the warpath to force the U.S. into a zero emissions country and they are working with China to make promises to curtail their fossil fuel use.  Yup, promises made, and China promises, and as we all know, China never lies.

With that:

China’s new coal power plant capacity in 2020 more than three times rest of world’s: study

Reuters | February 3, 2021 | 8:30 am Intelligence China Coal  

 

 

 

The USA can influence China, but how do you expect the USA to dictate and enforce policy in China?

"Wall Street" actions?  Good luck with that!

Their own citizenry must do that.

I'm open for alternatives.

 

[JoMack + 547]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

The USA can influence China, but how do you expect the USA to dictate and enforce policy in China?

"Wall Street" actions?  Good luck with that!

Their own citizenry must do that.

I'm open for alternatives.

 

Decouple.  Wishful thinking since Big Tech, Big Gov't, Big Business is totally in the tank for China.  Don't hold out much hope for the Biden Administration since they are weak and will open the door to Xi with a wink and a nod.   Biden is moving to increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil, which opens up the country to instability.

[turbguy + 1,391]

6 minutes ago, JoMack said:

Decouple.  Wishful thinking since Big Tech, Big Gov't, Big Business is totally in the tank for China.  Don't hold out much hope for the Biden Administration since they are weak and will open the door to Xi with a wink and a nod.   Biden is moving to increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil, which opens up the country to instability.

Can you expand on "decouple"?

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,177]

13 minutes ago, turbguy said:

Can you expand on "decouple"?

I think "seperate" is a close word maybe?

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 2/3/2021 at 10:51 AM, turbguy said:

Please remember to consider the life-cycle of traditional generators (and their fuel supply) as well.  That is not small either.

"Excuse me while I consume several thousand gallons of fuel oil to move these empties back to be refilled with black dirt to add to a pile in the east.  OH!  Thanks for building this great road, too!!"

Oh sure, but there is no real question that the wind generators and the like lose out in the comparison, or perhaps to put it a better way, the supposed advantages of those generators are greatly reduced by a strict, full life cycle assessment, especially when the mining for rare earths is taken into account.. there may still be advantages, just not the massive advantages the activists insist are there.. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

10 hours ago, NickW said:

Your quote is from the sh1t that never happens book......

On a grid network all renewables combined don't shut down unpredictably other than in a grid black out and that would equally affect fossil / nuc plant effect.

You misunderstood what I wrote.. but actually all renewables can shut down together. That's always been the problem. What they've found when building lots of wind power is that when the wind goes down it does so over a very wide area.. in Europe it can also stay down for days.. but in any case my post was about side stepping the problem all together and about a fail safe network.. so you require wind/solar generators to maintain output for half an hour. Usually this can only be done by on-site battery but if grid wide back up such as pumped hydro can be made reliable enough (not sure it can) then use that.. but make sure there is enough time for the gas power to ramp up and basically everyone's happy.. As you simply have to have the conventional power back up - sorry, no getting around it - then I don't see what the complaint is.. you can add in as many green power units as you like and it might even save emissions - might..  

[JoMack + 547]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

Can you expand on "decouple"?

Synonyms 

• break up, 
• disassociate, 
• Merrium Webster:
• Definition of decouple:
•  
•  
• disconnect, 
• disjoin, 
• disjoint, 
• dissever, 
• dissociate, 
• disunite, 
• divide, 
• divorce, 
• part, 
• ramify, 
• resolve, 
• separate, 
• sever, 
• split, 
• sunder, 
• uncouple, 
• unlink, 
• unyoke

 

[turbguy + 1,391]

7 minutes ago, JoMack said:

Synonyms 

• break up, 
• disassociate, 
• Merrium Webster:
• Definition of decouple:
•  
•  
• disconnect, 
• disjoin, 
• disjoint, 
• dissever, 
• dissociate, 
• disunite, 
• divide, 
• divorce, 
• part, 
• ramify, 
• resolve, 
• separate, 
• sever, 
• split, 
• sunder, 
• uncouple, 
• unlink, 
• unyoke

 

Touche'!  Does China even "need" the USA anymore?

Edited February 4, 2021 by turbguy

[LANDMAN X + 181]

11 hours ago, NickW said:

20 hours ago, LANDMAN X said:

Nick, I pointed out just one blowing its top in recent times. Mt. St. Helen blew 30 years of junk (prior all worlds waste combined) in atmosphere 1980.  My family station wagon, in Fargo, ND, was covered in ash.  Blast was 1200 miles away.  Can anyone explain how a mile of ice could form above Canada during just one ice age?  Last one or two actually diverted the Missouri river flowing north into Canada to the south as it is now.  Red River flows north into Canada.  The earth has had many warming and cooling periods, we know, in recent history.  England once produced wine during a warming period.  We all like renewables but I'm not convinced we can spend are way out of fossil fuels overnight by tax and spend green policies.       

That comment is the piece de resistance classic from people who know little about climate.

The UK still produces wines and always has since the ' medieval warm period' including during the 'little ice age' 

However better transport meant it was easier to bring volume produced wines from warmer climates.

Nick, please stick to electricity!  Appear to know a lot?   Pull back on history?  

When did grapes come to England?

11th century

Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age. It isn't yet warm enough for wine grapes in today's Britain. Nov 10, 2006

English vineyards again…. « RealClimate

www.realclimate.org › index.php › archives › 2006/11

http://www.english-wine.com/history.html

[LANDMAN X + 181]

11 hours ago, NickW said:

Do you make this stuff up randomly or is there some method?

The entire ash blast out of Mt St Helens was about 550 million tons. Sure it had region wide implications but the idea it dwarved all previous combined global emissions is straight out the sh1t that never happened book

Here's some stuff on volcanoes...

Volcanoes Can Affect Climate

Volcanic gases react with the atmosphere in various ways; the conversion of sulfur dioxide (SO2) to sulfuric acid (H2SO4has the most significant impact on climate.

(Public domain.)

Volcanoes can impact climate change. During major explosive eruptions huge amounts of volcanic gas, aerosol droplets, and ash are injected into the stratosphere. Injected ash falls rapidly from the stratosphere -- most of it is removed within several days to weeks -- and has little impact on climate change. But volcanic gases like sulfur dioxide can cause global cooling, while volcanic carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, has the potential to promote global warming.

Sulfate aerosols can cool the climate and deplete Earth's ozone layer

The most significant climate impacts from volcanic injections into the stratosphere come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid, which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space, cooling the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere.

Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years. The climactic eruption of Mount Pinatubo on June 15, 1991, was one of the largest eruptions of the twentieth century and injected a 20-million ton (metric scale) sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere at an altitude of more than 20 miles. The Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere in the twentieth century, though probably smaller than the disturbances from eruptions of Krakatau in 1883 and Tambora in 1815. Consequently, it was a standout in its climate impact and cooled the Earth's surface for three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees F at the height of the impact.

The June 12, 1991 eruption column from Mount Pinatubo taken from the east side of Clark Air Base.

The large 1783-1784 Laki fissure eruption in Iceland released a staggering amount more sulfur dioxide than Pinatubo (approximately 120-million ton vs. 20). Although the two eruptions were significantly different in length and style, the added atmospheric SO₂ caused regional cooling of Europe and North America by similar amounts for similar periods of time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_volcanic_eruptions

https://www.livescience.com/8142-history-destructive-volcanoes.html#:~:text=Tambora – Indonesia - 1815,highest rating in the index.

https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/volcano-hazards/volcanoes-can-affect-climate#:~:text=There is no question that,atmosphere in only 9 hours.

[nsdp + 449]

On 2/2/2021 at 10:34 PM, turbguy said:

Huh? You don't get 60 HZ without 2-pole synchronous machines running at 3600 RPM, or 4 pole machines running at1800 RPM, PERIOD!! 

If they run slower, you get less HZ, if they run faster, you get more HZ. There is no substitute for synchronous machine RPM.

If real load (real watts, real power) on the grid increases without any prime mover "real power" input (more torque), the frequency falls, and vice-versa.  The prime mover(s) only provides torque (real power).

You bring up VARS, (Imaginary power) which is a very valid consideration. That portion of current that is out of phase with voltage, and does no useful work, but still heats conductors due to I square R losses.  That portion of the current that "sloshes" back and forth between the "loads" and the generator windings.  More current equates to higher voltage drops in transmission lines and other equipment between the generator and load (s). To correct this, you over (or under) excite the generators, while keeping within the capability of the machine(s), or other grid components. Or you add capacitors to the system.  Or other VAR correcting devices, such as synchronous condensers, or power electronics.

Synchronous condensers (say from retired, converted coal plants) really can be quite useful in supporting system voltage, while adding inertia to the system, until frequency falls (or rises) too far, and protective relaying trips.  You can only extract that inertia from these machines so far.  And they don't provide ANY torque. Wind turbines can provide more on the downside.  Yes, you gotta wait for recovery.  And as you note, wind turbine manufactures are working on that.

A nuc that is already running "pedal to the metal" cannot provide more torque to the system.  It CAN potentially provide more (or absorb) VARS if within the generator's capability curves, just like a synchronous condenser can.

The trick is to avoid transformer failures, or other "within grid equipment" disturbances to start with.

Remember to keep your phase currents balanced, too!  You don't want to "french fry" generator rotors...

 

 

 

You have really demonstrated your arrogance and ignorance.   50HZ generators use multiples of 50 poles on the generator  not multiples of 60.   The same applies to transformers to avoid hysterisis.  Torque does not compute in electromagnetic fields.   Check Maxwell's equations.  You have to convert electromagnetic energy to mechanical energy. 

As to VAR's I think the DOE/IEEE definition should disabuse you of your ignorance.  No vars and you have no line charge an no voltage in the line. DOE/NERC Standard R10-12-00 says reactive power is "The portion of electricity that establishes and sustains the electric and magnetic fields of alternating-current equipment. Reactive power must be supplied to most types of magnetic equipment, such as motors and transformers. It also must supply the reactive losses on transmission facilities. Reactive power is provided by generators, synchronous condensers, or electrostatic equipment such as capacitors and directly influences electric system voltage. It is usually expressed in kilovars (kvar) or megavars (Mvar)." https://quizlet.com/356276979/nerc-terms-flash-cards/

No reactive power  no flow of kilowatts to your load,  You must be a engineer that is euphemistically called a civil engineer for their work with waste water.

Key_Definitions_Storage_Proceeding.odt

Edited February 4, 2021 by nsdp
Tupos(lol)

[nsdp + 449]

9 hours ago, JoMack said:

As Kerry tells oil and gas workers to transition into solar and wind since they've been fed a fraudulent narrative, Kamala Harris winds up in West Virginia telling coal mining workers to transfer their skills to recovering land mines in West Virginia.  So, you have to wonder how we will survive the stupidity of the people currently in power.

Biden and his merry band of climate warriors are seriously on the warpath to force the U.S. into a zero emissions country and they are working with China to make promises to curtail their fossil fuel use.  Yup, promises made, and China promises, and as we all know, China never lies.

With that:

China’s new coal power plant capacity in 2020 more than three times rest of world’s: study

Reuters | February 3, 2021 | 8:30 am Intelligence China Coal  

 

 

 

No China never "lies" but reporters misrepresent facts or omit them all together.   I'm no friend of China but I have less use for ignorant or mendacious reporters who  misrepresent facts or omit them all together.  Most of China's new coal capacity is ultrasupercritical designs as a replacement for retiring steam drum designs from the 1970's and 80's.   These units reduce the amount of foreign currency that China needs  to import coal. Steam drums typically use 11,000 btu's to generate 1 kwh. Ultrasupercritical units are between 8200 and 8900 btus/kwh or 75-80% of prior generation.   Net gain of total coal capacity is not 100% of the new construction.  In several prior years the new construction resulted in a net reduction in greenhouse gases from the coal sector just like the US.   Since NG and LNG, almost as bad as coal per mmbtu, are also added, the net greenhouse gases added for the electric sector is a net positive.

[turbguy + 1,391]

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

You have really demonstrated your arrogance and ignorance.   50HZ generators use multiples of 50 poles on the generator  not multiples of 60.   The same applies to transformers to avoid hysterisis.  Torque does not compute in electromagnetic fields.   Check Maxwell's equations.  You have to convert electromagnetic energy to mechanical energy. 

As to VAR's I think the DOE/IEEE definition should disabuse you of your ignorance.  No vars and you have no line charge an no voltage in the line. DOE/NERC Standard R10-12-00 says reactive power is "The portion of electricity that establishes and sustains the electric and magnetic fields of alternating-current equipment. Reactive power must be supplied to most types of magnetic equipment, such as motors and transformers. It also must supply the reactive losses on transmission facilities. Reactive power is provided by generators, synchronous condensers, or electrostatic equipment such as capacitors and directly influences electric system voltage. It is usually expressed in kilovars (kvar) or megavars (Mvar)." https://quizlet.com/356276979/nerc-terms-flash-cards/

No reactive power  no flow of kilowatts to your load,  You must be a engineer that is euphemistically called a civil engineer for their work with waste water.

Key_Definitions_Storage_Proceeding.odt 22.97 kB · 0 downloads

Huh?  I'll give you that Hydrogenerator fields have lots of poles and operate at much lower speed.  Fossil generators have either (typically) two or four field poles.  You can (ignoring thermal and mechanical conditions and limitations) produce 50 HZ power from a 60 HZ designed machine by operating it slower (and vice-versa).  If "torque does not compute", then how do you achieve power transfer. Torque x RPM = horsepower. It's going SOMEWHERE!

There's lots of ways to look at VARS.  I prefer the simple explanation of "sloshing" between load and supply, others prefer to that current to maintains an oscillating/rotating magnetic field.  Yes, there are hysteresis losses in core iron.  Both views are reasonably equivalent in the simple analysis.

A simple example that you don't need VARS transmission at all.  Supply a load that is purely resistive.  Yes, those loads are rare.  Even the cabling between supply and load will exhibit some capacitance.  Hysteresis with the Generator windings and core iron themselves may require a small amount (internally).

The issue of impedance in transmission does complicate the entire story.  Perhaps Edison was right, and we should have stayed with DC.  It certainly has some strong advantages.

Edited February 4, 2021 by turbguy

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 2/1/2021 at 11:29 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Please provide a reference to a published source (such as a local newspaper in Eastvale) that mentions a blackout caused by a shortfall in supply. We had them in 2001 (Enron playing games in the power market). After that, I am aware of no documented scheduled outages due to supply shortfall until August 2020. If such an event happened, it would have been reported. I was not there and you were, so you are in better position to find such a published report.

Here is a report on scheduled power outage for a required infrastructure upgrade in Eastvale. This was not caused by a supply shortfall, and no amount of excess generating capacity would have prevented the need for this aoutage:

https://www.eastvaleca.gov/Home/Components/News/News/244/

You have a lot of nerve asking me for a reference. I am the reference!

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, LANDMAN X said:

Nick, please stick to electricity!  Appear to know a lot?   Pull back on history?  

When did grapes come to England?

11th century

Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age. It isn't yet warm enough for wine grapes in today's Britain. Nov 10, 2006

English vineyards again…. « RealClimate

www.realclimate.org › index.php › archives › 2006/11

http://www.english-wine.com/history.html

😂 Complete weapons grade nonsense from start to finish

the Romans were growing grapes in the UK 1900 years ago. There are numerous archaelogical sites in Britain with roman vineyards in them.

There are various records of vineyards since then: 

A number are reported in the Domesday book

There are over 150 Vineyards reported in the 16th Century (Early little ice age) 

Samuel Pepys refers to a vineyard iin Walthamstow (now in East London) in the 17th Century (bang in the middle of the Little Ice Age)

Much of the relative decline in UK vineyards occurred in the 19th Century due to: 

• Diseases bought back from America (powdery mildew)
• Foreign competition enhanced by better transport. The Uk was the manufacturer of the World. Ships returning to the UK brought back wine and other goods as backfill. 

 

As for today there are wine vineyards all over Kent, Surrey, Hampshire and Sussex. Due to the cool climate they focus on white grapes but reds are produced too. . There are also vineyards in Wales, the South West and midlands. 

A fairly comprehensive list of wines made in the UK from UK grapes

Buy English & Welsh Wines by the bottle (thebritishwinecellar.co.uk)

Heres one in Cambridge near where I grew up

Chilford Hall Vineyard | Cambridgeshire Vineyard with Award-Winning English Wines

The Abbots have been making this since the 19th Century

Buckfast Tonic Wine - Wikipedia

 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

You have a lot of nerve asking me for a reference. I am the reference!

Be fair to Dan. Much of the stuff quoted on here without reference is from the Sh1t that never happened book😁

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, LANDMAN X said:

Here's some stuff on volcanoes...

Volcanoes Can Affect Climate

 

Volcanic gases react with the atmosphere in various ways; the conversion of sulfur dioxide (SO2) to sulfuric acid (H2SO4has the most significant impact on climate.

(Public domain.)

Volcanoes can impact climate change. During major explosive eruptions huge amounts of volcanic gas, aerosol droplets, and ash are injected into the stratosphere. Injected ash falls rapidly from the stratosphere -- most of it is removed within several days to weeks -- and has little impact on climate change. But volcanic gases like sulfur dioxide can cause global cooling, while volcanic carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, has the potential to promote global warming.

Sulfate aerosols can cool the climate and deplete Earth's ozone layer

The most significant climate impacts from volcanic injections into the stratosphere come from the conversion of sulfur dioxide to sulfuric acid, which condenses rapidly in the stratosphere to form fine sulfate aerosols. The aerosols increase the reflection of radiation from the Sun back into space, cooling the Earth's lower atmosphere or troposphere.

Several eruptions during the past century have caused a decline in the average temperature at the Earth's surface of up to half a degree (Fahrenheit scale) for periods of one to three years. The climactic eruption of Mount Pinatubo on June 15, 1991, was one of the largest eruptions of the twentieth century and injected a 20-million ton (metric scale) sulfur dioxide cloud into the stratosphere at an altitude of more than 20 miles. The Pinatubo cloud was the largest sulfur dioxide cloud ever observed in the stratosphere since the beginning of such observations by satellites in 1978. It caused what is believed to be the largest aerosol disturbance of the stratosphere in the twentieth century, though probably smaller than the disturbances from eruptions of Krakatau in 1883 and Tambora in 1815. Consequently, it was a standout in its climate impact and cooled the Earth's surface for three years following the eruption, by as much as 1.3 degrees F at the height of the impact.

 

The June 12, 1991 eruption column from Mount Pinatubo taken from the east side of Clark Air Base.

The large 1783-1784 Laki fissure eruption in Iceland released a staggering amount more sulfur dioxide than Pinatubo (approximately 120-million ton vs. 20). Although the two eruptions were significantly different in length and style, the added atmospheric SO₂ caused regional cooling of Europe and North America by similar amounts for similar periods of time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_volcanic_eruptions

https://www.livescience.com/8142-history-destructive-volcanoes.html#:~:text=Tambora – Indonesia - 1815,highest rating in the index.

https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/volcano-hazards/volcanoes-can-affect-climate#:~:text=There is no question that,atmosphere in only 9 hours.

Those Volcanic eruptions (Laki, Tambora) are  orders of magnitude higher than anything that has happened in the last 200 years. The climate effect is a short term cooling caused by ash and sulphur aerosols

We know Pinatubo had a short term cooling effect in 91/92. 

As far as CO2 emissions from volcanoes go the emissions are minimal (<300 mt per year) 

Here is some data from Mt St Helens

Volcanic Pollution | (cuny.edu)

At peak its SO2 emissions were about 3500 tons a day. Even if that continued for a year it would be less than 5% of anthropogenic emissions in that same period. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

You misunderstood what I wrote.. but actually all renewables can shut down together. That's always been the problem. What they've found when building lots of wind power is that when the wind goes down it does so over a very wide area.. in Europe it can also stay down for days.. but in any case my post was about side stepping the problem all together and about a fail safe network.. so you require wind/solar generators to maintain output for half an hour. Usually this can only be done by on-site battery but if grid wide back up such as pumped hydro can be made reliable enough (not sure it can) then use that.. but make sure there is enough time for the gas power to ramp up and basically everyone's happy.. As you simply have to have the conventional power back up - sorry, no getting around it - then I don't see what the complaint is.. you can add in as many green power units as you like and it might even save emissions - might..  

But that is predictable within the time scales needed to get back up plant going. It doesn't go down like that over a 30 minute period. 

This is chart from today for the wind energy outturn against initial and latest forecast (12 hours ahead) Look how closely the out turn tracks the latest forecast record. 

 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

10 hours ago, ronwagn said:

You have a lot of nerve asking me for a reference. I am the reference!

Ron, your personal observations are contradicted by multiple published references that state that there were no scheduled service cutoffs due to capacity shortage between 2001 and 2020. I am perfectly willing to believe you experienced a scheduled shutoff. I am even willing to believe that someone told you the reason was capacity shortage. I am unwilling to believe that the reason for the shutoff was actually due to a capacity shortage unless I see a published source.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Dan, it was a scheduled shutoff according to my daughter who we were staying with. She knows what goes on. The shutoffs were occuring at various times when workers were away from their homes. There were fires but none nearby as it is a large built up area. 

Congratulations on finding the date of the outage! My grandson was born on September 28th. 

An outage is an outage, I don't recall any outages during the half of my life I lived in several areas of California. That includes many forest fires, one within a few miles in PGE territory. People are very inconvenienced by outages regardless of the cause. We have experienced many outages in Central Illinois. One was for about five days during an ice storm. It motivated us to move closer to our former workplace in Decatur. We live on the cusp. Several squirrels have caused momentary outages but far more outages have been momentary or a few hours. I would say about a hundred outages over 33 years here. We have also lost two TVs that might have died because of lightning related issues. 

Edited February 4, 2021 by ronwagn
add