.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

A 5KW Diesel generator running on 1.2 litres of diesel an hour? 

Where can I buy one of these perpetual motion machines? 

Nick, the nameplate rating is 5 KW.  But you would not be using it at full capacity to run a house on light load. What you are doing is running the lights, the internet modem, your propane electronics, and (every so many hours) the stovetop.  OK, if you need all the power all the time, it is going to use more fuel.  But you are not running full-load, especially not in the midst of a crisis, where being conservative in power use is the rule of the day, now are you? 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 minutes ago, turbguy said:

You just keep your fingers crossed (really hard) when you initiate the fuel transfer during operation.  A flame out and restart was not uncommon (in my experience).

Use a little hand pump with a hand crank; stick the outlet hose into the tank on the little generator engine, and crank away.  Works just fine, running or not.   There are lots of ways to get creative!

[turbguy + 1,544]

6 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Use a little hand pump with a hand crank; stick the outlet hose into the tank on the little generator engine, and crank away.  Works just fine, running or not.   There are lots of ways to get creative!

You do know the machines I'm referring to require about 15-25 HP to pump fuel, no?

I meant on-line transfer from nat gas to distillate.

Edited February 21, 2021 by turbguy

[NickW + 2,714]

8 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Nick, the nameplate rating is 5 KW.  But you would not be using it at full capacity to run a house on light load. What you are doing is running the lights, the internet modem, your propane electronics, and (every so many hours) the stovetop.  OK, if you need all the power all the time, it is going to use more fuel.  But you are not running full-load, especially not in the midst of a crisis, where being conservative in power use is the rule of the day, now are you? 

Fair point. You would get 2-2.3KW in return for your 1.2 litre (quart) of fuel. 

much better if its a CHP unit - use the waste heat as well. You could run 1-2 radiators on that. 

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

I would not be that convinced about the cause of South Texas #1's trip yet, but that's possible, say, due to low system voltage conditions if the Rx feed pump that tripped wasn't being fed by the unit's aux transformer.    I'd wait a bit.

I don't know what the power station voltage is but 60 hertz is the ubiquitous frequency in US systems. At what frequency below 60 is the CCGT likely to trip?

 

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 hours ago, Tom Nolan said:

The IPCC is compromised to the extreme.  Anyone who researches this well understands this fact.  But it is a personal discovery...either a person researches it well or not.  Many don't, and thus they believe the deceptions.  I first started investigating this "Global Warming" bunk in 2005, and have over a 1,000 hours of personal research behind me delving into the sham..and this is my degree line of "Environmental Sciences".     IPCC is a sham.    The IPCC is part of the "The Great Reset", a plan by Elitists to bring about a Technocratic New World Order.  They control information sources and spew deceptive lies.  If anyone thinks that they will discover the facts from mainstream type news outlets or controlled platforms, they already are in the deep dark.  Even Scientific Journals have been compromised.  Elsevier and others are part of the cabal.

Here is the Wikipedis statement of who the IPCC is (and they are not doing this for the benefit of mankind)...

"The (IPCC) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations that is dedicated to providing the world with objective, scientific information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced climate change, its natural, political, and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Exposing a Decade of Climategate Lies – December 2019

https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1500-marc-morano-debunks-a-decade-of-climategate-lies/

EXCERPTS FROM...

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/11/18/dont-let-media-whitewash-climategate-read-chapter-excerpt-revealing-the-truth-behind-scandal-10-years-later/

...The UN IPCC reports are often used to claim the science is “settled.” New Scientist magazine once dubbed the IPCC “the gold standard of consensus on climate change science.” Well, if there was any doubt before, Climategate exposed the IPCC to be fool’s gold.

But even before Climategate, there was good reason to realize that the UN IPCC was more political than scientific. On July 23, 2008, more than a year before the Climategate emails were leaked, John Brignell, an engineering professor emeritus at the University of Southampton who had held the chair in Industrial Instrumentation, accused the UN of censorship. “The creation of the UN IPCC was a cataclysmic event in the history of science. Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. ‘Peer review’ soon rapidly evolved from the old style
refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship,” wrote

Brignell. “As [the] Wegman [report] demonstrated, new circles of like minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list.”

In 2007, Australian climate data analyst John McLean did research into the IPCC’s peer-review process. McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process, which he called “an illusion.”

“More than two-thirds of all authors of chapter 9 (‘Understanding and Attributing Climate Change’) of the IPCC’s 2007 climate-science assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each other,” McLean found. “Of the 44 contributing authors, more than half have co-authored papers with the lead authors or coordinating lead authors of chapter 9.”

According to McLean, “Governments have naively and unwisely accepted the claims of a human influence on global temperatures made by a close-knit clique of a few dozen scientists, many of them climate modellers, as if such claims were representative of the opinion of the wider scientific community.”
As McLean explained, “To sum up, the IPCC is a single-interest organisation, whose charter assumes a widespread human influence on climate,
rather than consideration of whether such influence may be negligible or missing altogether.

For example, the IPCC Summary had asserted that “it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed
global warming over the last 50 years.” But as McLean discovered, “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented
on this chapter at all.”

Many UN scientists have publicly rejected the IPCC’s methods. (The following material on UN scientists who have turned on the UN has been adapted and updated from a speech I wrote for Senator Jim Inhofe in 2007, while working at the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.)

• “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” noted South African nuclear physicist and chemical engineer Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications. “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil…. I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”
• Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher, has claimed, “A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995
  U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
• UN IPCC expert reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lamented that many “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” In fact, “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed…. Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change.”
• Hurricane scientist Christopher W. Landsea, formerly of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was an author for the IPCC’s Second Assessment Report in 1995 and the Third Assessment Report in 2001, but he resigned from the Fourth Assessment Report, accusing the IPCC of distorting hurricane science. “I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns,” Landsea wrote in a January 17, 2005, public letter. “I personally
  cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.” Landsea is currently with the Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center.

The process in which UN IPCC documents are produced is simply not compatible with good science. The UN IPCC’s guidelines stipulate that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the media-hyped Summary for Policymakers....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1500-marc-morano-debunks-a-decade-of-climategate-lies/

SHOW NOTES
Climategate coverage on The Corbett Report

ClimateDepot.com

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change

Don’t Let Media Whitewash Climategate! Read Chapter excerpt revealing the truth behind scandal 10 years later

Information Commissioner: Climategate Scientists Broke The Law

YAD06 – the Most Influential Tree in the World

Climategate is Still the Issue

The HARRY_READ_ME.txt file

Polar bear numbers not declining despite media headlines suggesting otherwise

UN Military Action to Enforce Climate Agenda? It May Happen, Says Academic

 

There are many astrophysicists and climate scientists who have rejected the CO2 models. This is no longer a science issue, but a political issue.

[turbguy + 1,544]

9 minutes ago, NickW said:

I don't know what the power station voltage is but 60 hertz is the ubiquitous frequency in US systems. At what frequency below 60 is the CCGT likely to trip?

 

South Texas #1 is a nuc.

Most (if not all) generation would be tripped with a 5% underfrequency condition.  Some with even less.  Turbine blades are "tuned" to avoid damaging resonances at rated speed. 

To be honest, I don't know for certain.  There's significant transformer and generator considerations a well.

Edited February 21, 2021 by turbguy

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Find me an example of a bonefide climate scientist who made great announcements that winter is cancelled? By that I don't mean Greta or Al Bore placards.

Most of the stuff I have seen predicted a greater frequency of extreme events which to me means hotter events and  colder events, more extreme rain events and  more droughts etc. 

That is a cheap out, when the weather does not comply with the GW scenario, claim that it is a blip in the trend.

You can't do that for long.

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, turbguy said:

South Texas #1 is a nuc.

Most (if not all) generation would be tripped with a 5% underfrequency condition.  Some with even less.  Turbine blades are "tuned" to avoid damaging resonances at rated speed. 

To be honest, I don't know for certain.  There's significant transformer and generator considerations a well.

That would suggest a 3 Hertz drop? 

This power cut in the UK was initially caused by a trip at the UK's biggest gas fired unit. The attached article suggests it occurred at 48.9 (UK runs on 50 hertz) which is a 2.2% fall. 

UK power cut: Why it caused so much disruption - BBC News

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

That is a cheap out, when the weather does not comply with the GW scenario, claim that it is a blip in the trend.

You can't do that for long.

C'mon. lets see the quote. from the Climatologist (not Greta or Al Bore) 

Ive always said they changed the terminology from GW to climate change due to the hard of thinking. This kind of backs that point up. 

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

Just now, NickW said:

C'mon. lets see the quote. from the Climatologist (not Greta or Al Bore) 

Ive always said they changed the terminology from GW to climate change due to the hard of thinking. This kind of backs that point up. 

They are giving the old dodge, claiming that the global warming trend is not derailed, just delayed. Come on, that's like the old snake oil dodge, the last gasp before they skip town.

[turbguy + 1,544]

Here's another way of looking at this situation:

The "grid" is man-made.

It has failed in the past.

It WILL fail again.

Be prepared.

A story: The marine architect  was aboard the Titanic on it's maiden voyage. 

The Captain called for him and asked, "How could this be happening? The Titanic is unsinkable"!

The architect (in a heavy Scotch accent) responded,

"Captain, I can guarantee you she'll sink. She's made of iron"!

Edited February 21, 2021 by turbguy

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

They are giving the old dodge, claiming that the global warming trend is not derailed, just delayed. Come on, that's like the old snake oil dodge, the last gasp before they skip town.

Don't you see the irony of this. 

Texans (GW Bush) etc have been some of the most viciforous opponents of AGW theory claiming it to be a hoax etc etc etc. 

But we are now to believe they interpreted AGW as meaning Winter was cancelled?

[NickW + 2,714]

8 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

They are giving the old dodge, claiming that the global warming trend is not derailed, just delayed. Come on, that's like the old snake oil dodge, the last gasp before they skip town.

You carry on clinging to Veras Editorial, thrust in the air like Neville Chamberlain did on leaving the Munich conference😀

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

Bottom line, there is so much wind energy being produced in Texas that it is getting accounted for as baseload instead of intermittent. Texas is big enough and disperse enough that wind is less intermittent there than other places, until it isn't. ERCOT reports clearly showed that wind was delivering 40% of the baseload power to the state, until it couldn't and then the "backup generators" ultimately failed. Had this been a transitory event, lasting a day or two we wouldn't have even known about it. It was the sustained catastrophe that made it news and underscored the danger of counting on intermittent power, period. 

You keep referring to a "40%" number for wind. Where exactly did you get this number? Clearly, not in early February 2021. Look at that graph. Wind stays around 6000 MW, as does nuclear. coal is at about 10,000. NG varies mostly between 30,000 and 40,000 MW.  There is not time at which wind is more than about 10% of the total.

I think your "40%" was in October or November, when wind is strong and total demand low, allowing wind to produce maybe 17,000 MW and NG plants to go idle. If I am wrong, then please provide a reference. It has nothing whatsoever to do with typical February supply (low wind) or demand (high).   ERCOT knows that and assumes wind will not be able to dependably supply more than 6000 MW in February.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

13 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Then the obvious solution to that is to set up the structure of each house to be able to run independent for a week.  And that is really not that expensive to do  (as long as you are prepared to cut a few corners, of course) 🙄

A smallish 6 KW diesel generator will set you back about $1,600 new.  I bought one, built in China of course, it is single-cylinder with electric start.  You attach the unit to your house electrics with a length of 8-gauge cord and a power plug on both ends.  One end you put into the 220-v outlet on the generator, the other end you plug into the dryer feed in the basement.  If you want to get fancy, you can install a permanent line and separate 50-amp breaker in the panel and run the line to a special plug box outside, then run a short flexible length to wherever you roll that little generator outside to.  I put mine out in the driveway, makes it easy enough. 

Now you pull OFF the main breaker from the outside service to the panel and leave it off, so that you cannot back-feed into the grid.   Fire up that generator and you have enough juice to run your house, except for the oven and the clothes dryer (😁).  As long as you keep enough diesel around, say 50 gallons, you should be just fine. 

The real problem is in heating.  My guess is that those Texas houses use electric resistance baseboard heating systems because you don't anticipate needing much heat down there, and electric resistance units are cheap to buy and cheap to install, you eliminate the boiler and the control valves and the plumbing, plus the low-pressure cut-off will stop the boiler from running if the water pressure fails (as it did across Texas).  So the solution there is either a pellet stove  (but pricey to install) or a propane furnace.  Those need little power, a deep-draw battery and inverter will run the control panel, and hooked up to your own propane tank (my 120-gal unit cost me $600) and you are independent for a month.   The more money you throw at your own independent systems, the more comfortable you will be when "outside" falls apart.  People in northern New England have figured that one out a long time ago!

Jan, a fairly large number of Texans live in cities. there is not enough room in most apartments to have a generator or an oil tank.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

18 minutes ago, NickW said:

You carry on clinging to Veras Editorial, thrust in the air like Neville Chamberlain did on leaving the Munich conference😀

The proof of the pudding....I have yet to see any global warming model predict anything that actually happened. That is how you identify a defective model.

Edited February 21, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

14 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

At the beginning of this fiasco, they were talking about the incredibly high moisture content of the storm front that came thru. This in a place that gets less than 8 inches of precipitation per year. It's not just the cold it's the ice that messed everything up. Furthermore a lot of utility workers were unable to drive to work because of bad road conditions, no snow plows etc. Bottom line, they didn't worry about extremely cold weather because everyone has been lying to them about global warming! Pretending otherwise at this late stage is pretense not reality. 

Ward, you are basically accusing Texans of being ignorant incompetent selfish cowards. That does not match the Texans I know. Real Texans help each other in a crisis and figure out ways around problems. In Virginia during record-breaking ice/snow storms in the 1990s the snowplows were overwhelmed The call went out on the radio for volunteers with 4x4s  to bring critical workers to work. So many volunteers showed up that only about half were needed, and everybody got to their jobs. Texans are smart enough and resourceful enough to do that.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

42 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Jan, a fairly large number of Texans live in cities. there is not enough room in most apartments to have a generator or an oil tank.

Ugh.  To which I say: any apartment building owner who does not provide for independent back-up heat and minimal power for his tenants is a total schmuck. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

1 minute ago, Jan van Eck said:

Ugh.  To which I say: any apartment building owner who does not provide for independent back-up heat and minimal power for his tenants is a total schmuck. 

Where do you live? What percentage of apartment complexes have backup generators there?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

Just now, Dan Clemmensen said:

Where do you live? What percentage of apartment complexes have backup generators there?

Vermont.  And the landlords here are exploitative, and most do NOT provide any back-up heat!  Personally, I find that loathsome.  On the flip side, the power crews are quite skilled at line restoration, plus lots of guys here have chain saws, so when the trees go over and take out the lines, the locals get out there and start sawing away, because they all know that until the wood is removed, the crew trucks cannot get through to fix the power!   Even in really bad cases where half the State is knocked out, they get it back up and running in less than a day in urban areas.  In the "hill country," it takes longer, but those folks live in single-unit homes on several acres, and they all have either generators or wood stoves. Or both.  

I guess if you live where ice storms are a constant, your power companies and neighbors have adapted to that reality.  Texas, not so much...

[NickW + 2,714]

57 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

You keep referring to a "40%" number for wind. Where exactly did you get this number? Clearly, not in early February 2021. Look at that graph. Wind stays around 6000 MW, as does nuclear. coal is at about 10,000. NG varies mostly between 30,000 and 40,000 MW.  There is not time at which wind is more than about 10% of the total.

I think your "40%" was in October or November, when wind is strong and total demand low, allowing wind to produce maybe 17,000 MW and NG plants to go idle. If I am wrong, then please provide a reference. It has nothing whatsoever to do with typical February supply (low wind) or demand (high).   ERCOT knows that and assumes wind will not be able to dependably supply more than 6000 MW in February.

I have repeatedly explained the concept of outturn forecasting - to no avail. 🙂

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Nick

I am both very surprised and disappointed in your link and comment one hour ago.

That BBC story - posted immediately after the August 2019 blackout - falsely shaped the 'narrative' that pointed the responsibility for the outage on the gas power plant.

This is EXACTLY the same playbook that followed the January 2019 load shedding in Victoria when the old coal burner was called upon to fire up after the abrupt, unexpected drop of almost 2,000 Megawatts of wind power that hot, late January afternoon.

When emotions run high immediately following disruptive events, the 'seed planting' of info has outsized impact on an observing audience.

 

Why, Nick, why would you not link to the January 3, 2020 stories that told of Hornsea being fined £4.5 million for their role in STARTING the blackout?

 

It is exactly this long running display of slanted information presentation - 100% skewed towards sympathetic Renewable generation - that has sparked such widespread distrust (not mistrust) in the world's wider population towards the Legacy Media.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

23 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

Vermont.  And the landlords here are exploitative, and most do NOT provide any back-up heat!  Personally, I find that loathsome.  On the flip side, the power crews are quite skilled at line restoration, plus lots of guys here have chain saws, so when the trees go over and take out the lines, the locals get out there and start sawing away, because they all know that until the wood is removed, the crew trucks cannot get through to fix the power!   Even in really bad cases where half the State is knocked out, they get it back up and running in less than a day in urban areas.  In the "hill country," it takes longer, but those folks live in single-unit homes on several acres, and they all have either generators or wood stoves. Or both.  

I guess if you live where ice storms are a constant, your power companies and neighbors have adapted to that reality.  Texas, not so much...

Basically, you are saying that in Vermont, you (and landlords) can depend on the power system to work, so apartment complexes do not need backup power.

Texans cannot do this during really exceptional weather events. The events happen so rarely that they forget how expensive it is to fail to recover quickly, so they are unwilling to the extra money to maintain a sufficiently robust system.

[NickW + 2,714]

32 minutes ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

Nick

I am both very surprised and disappointed in your link and comment one hour ago.

That BBC story - posted immediately after the August 2019 blackout - falsely shaped the 'narrative' that pointed the responsibility for the outage on the gas power plant.

This is EXACTLY the same playbook that followed the January 2019 load shedding in Victoria when the old coal burner was called upon to fire up after the abrupt, unexpected drop of almost 2,000 Megawatts of wind power that hot, late January afternoon.

When emotions run high immediately following disruptive events, the 'seed planting' of info has outsized impact on an observing audience.

 

Why, Nick, why would you not link to the January 3, 2020 stories that told of Hornsea being fined £4.5 million for their role in STARTING the blackout?

 

It is exactly this long running display of slanted information presentation - 100% skewed towards sympathetic Renewable generation - that has sparked such widespread distrust (not mistrust) in the world's wider population towards the Legacy Media.

Fair point - I hadn't seen the follow up but I understand the issue was a transformer fault so not particular to wind and could have just as easily been a CCGT or Nuke. 

 

The regulator concluded:

Ofgem found the combined loss of power from the under-construction 1.2GW wind farm off the east coast of England and a 740MWe gas plant, as well as a loss of 150MW of smaller generation at local level had caused a power outage on 9 August last year.

Edited February 21, 2021 by NickW