Percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar is 1.1%

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Just now, DA? said:

Seems to upset some here.

Some people.  What can you do.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Just now, DA? said:

Try being a politician that should help.

No, thanks.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

How's your foot today?  Seems to be bothering you more than usual.  Hope you get well soon.

[DA? + 301]

1 minute ago, Dan Warnick said:

How's your foot today?  Seems to be bothering you more than usual.  Hope you get well soon.

Not to bad thank you, I know I should be working.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Just now, DA? said:

Not to bad thank you, I know I should be working.

Well, we sure as heck should be doing something more constructive than this!  LOL!

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Has anyone seen my meds?

[Rodent + 1,424]

banter is fine but when there are more comments that have nothing to do with the thread I start putting my finger on the lock thread for comments button.

if you don't have anything to add to the thread please carry on your banter in private over personal messages. 

[Auson + 123]

2 hours ago, DA? said:

Thank you for your kind advice. Elon Musk is a person that is trying hard to make this planet a better place for my son and in my book that deserves respect. Those that try and stop that change deserves pity. By the comments made here it sometime seems to be the opinion of Musk that he has done very little and just talks spin.

As it is today yep the fossil fuel industry is going to go down hill considerably nearer in to the future than most here expect.

No one is trying to stop Elon ( in fact the government support him ) but they should be. Producing high performance 2 ton virtue signaling vehicles is not green. 

This is important 

'For all the comparisons in this map the vehicle manufacturing of a gasoline car is just 40g CO2e/km compared to 70g CO2e/km for the electric vehicle.  This is because we have accounted for both a greater manufacturing footprint and lower lifetime mileage in an electric car.'
Read more at http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green#uYjIyWUj7FRyjGM2.99

[Red + 252]

On 11/29/2018 at 1:15 AM, mthebold said:

 Personally, I would be more concerned about the negative health effects of living near turbines.  If you can site they away from people, they're fine.  Otherwise, we're toying with something we don't understand.  

 "Personal" concerns which are not supported by any meaningful data (see https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/health-effect-of-wind-turbines/) are not particularly reliable.  Rational people use a reasonable evidence based approach to fears about health.

Your point about radiative forcings thereafter implies you do not understand factors affecting the planet's energy budget.  Instead you toss in a time-worn fool's defence that we need "Knowledge of every variable that may affect temperature over every time scale."  Why is it a fool's defence you may ask? Because TIME has absolutely nothing to do with the physics of global warming, which is well understood.  You also seem to be clueless about GCMs.

By the way If DanilKa had done research on solar pvs she should have installed a system with micro-inverters so that shading had minimal affect on evergy conversion.  I cannot really comment on her "pay back" period as if subsidies were involved, that variable plus many others, eg average annual energy expectations from siting, quality of system, and "feed-in" rates (if any), will all affect the equation.  We got payback (after installing a subsidised 5 Kw system) in just over 4 years in Australia, and now earn in excess of $1000/year feeding energy back into the grid.  

Finally, your comments on ERoEI do not constitute an argument.  ERoEI is merely one of many measurement tools available in economics. You failed to address the basis of Nick's point, viz. that technology is not just leading to greater efficiencies, it's getting a great deal cheaper over time, as shown graphically in Mr Albasini's earlier post 

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

6 hours ago, Rodent said:

banter is fine but when there are more comments that have nothing to do with the thread I start putting my finger on the lock thread for comments button.

if you don't have anything to add to the thread please carry on your banter in private over personal messages. 

^

[NickW + 2,714]

17 hours ago, mthebold said:

Consider the uproar from environmentalists over fracking chemicals (1) when there were no proven cases of ill health effects.  IIRC, the companies that manufactured tetraethyllead made similar arguments - and even hired scientists to back their claims.  It's rather convenient to claim there are no proven effects when the issue hasn't been seriously studied, isn't it? 

Let's talk about how medicine works.  Wind turbines are a new disturbance in human habitats; the burden of proof lies on the wind industry (2) to prove they're safe, and the observations of GP's - while occasionally incorrect - are the first clues on where to look & what to study.  If you refuse to look for evidence, you're no better than the sociopathic corporate executives who fought over leaded gasoline for years.  

You've attempted to misplace the burden of proof.  Seems a bit disingenuous.  

 

You made the initial claim that wind turbines are space efficient; I merely pointed out that the bases of thousands of turbines would still take up a lot of space.  If you wish to claim your preferred technology has some advantage, it's your responsibility to prove it (3)

Again, misplacing burden of proof is a bit disingenuous.  

 

So roughly 65% of anthropogenic radiative forcing is from CO2.  That's a sufficiently narrow claim that scientists have a reasonable shot at being correct.  

Unfortunately, you ignored my main point: radiative forcing is not the only variable that affects climate, and the study you cited fails to establish radiative forcing's relative importance.  Now that you've cited details, we can add another question: how much of the total change in radiative forcing comes from anthropogenic radiative forcing?   We can talk about changes in radiative forcing all day, but until we place your 65% figure in context, it doesn't mean anything.  

The average person doesn't know to ask how important anthropogenic radiative forcing is, much less have the technical skills to analyze it themselves - but they will likely be impressed by your 65% figure.  That's a clever rhetorical tool, but I consider it disingenuous.  I also note that you've deliberately avoided addressing my question about context, which I assume means you have no answer.  Again, clever but disingenuous. (4) 

 

Nice try, but pay attention to the details: an Ad Hominem is when one ignores opposing arguments and directly attacks a person.  In this case, I first analyzed your arguments.  It was your arguments, specifically, that warranted skepticism of your motives.

Twice now, nearly everything you've said could be considered a misleading rhetorical technique.  I wish there were a way to know if you're doing this on purpose or if you really don't know how to think critically.

1. Well the starting point there is that many fracking chemicals are known to be toxic - some carcinogenic. so there is some basis for concern at the outset when large quantities are being injected into the ground with the potential to contaminant ground water supplies. 

2. In the absence of any actually evidence that anyone has actually been made ill by wind turbines then it is reasonable to doubt any ill effect. The main complaint I have seen concerns infrasound however we know this is not a likely cause of ill health as anyone living by the sea would be affected as such. 

There have been plenty of bonefide studies on the effects of wind turbines - all of which have shown zilch in terms of ill effects (Psyschogenic illness aside) 

(3) Contemporary Wind would appear to be reasonably efficient in its land usage

A Wind turbine tower concrete platform is typically 20 metres across so approx 310m2 for a 2-3MW turbine. If appropriately sited near exisiting service roads that reduces road requirements  but lets apply a factor of 4 

Drax (Europes 2nd biggest thermal power station) takes about 4km2 of land space for 4.4GW of capacity

On that same space equivalent , based on the above for you could get 3000x 3MW wind turbines. Taking into account actual  capacity factors the land use is approximately equal per MW. Of course that doesn't account for all the land used for mining coal and then disposing of the fly ash if its not reused. 

(4) To clarify - approx 65% of the anthropogenic radiative forcing effect (according to the IPCC) comes from anthropogenic CO2. That equates to 1.83w/m2. I think that is simple enough to grasp. At no point did I ever say that it was the only factor. My original point was to refute the usual 'Co2 isn't a warming gas' whiny drivel that pervades this site. I don't feel it necessary to then point out every positive and negative feedback feature of the global climate on every point made about climate change. The crux of the point was that huge amounts of work have been done examining the radiative forcing effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. 

(5) The obnoxious ad -hominen part comes from your accusation of deliberately trying to mislead. If you felt some part was misleading or confusing fair enough. I like anyone may right stuff at times that on reflection is not as clear as it could be. 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, zerogrid said:

Yes, DA?.....Unfortunately, your attempt to diminish my comment with childish reference to 'Primary' that your wife teaches, according to you.....pushes home the point I made in the entirety of my comment. Whereas the difference is purely 'Time'..The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time....and then see my comment about ''  And, the latest magical scientific 'facts' being offered by the 'Scientific Community' is that by 2070 the Earth will be 5 degrees warmer. Now ask these same people to do a 3 month weather forecast....and they will scream that Long Range weather forecasting is not reliable. (You can extrapolate any data to suit your intentions !!).....merely underlines the fact of taking things out of their context produces childish retorts such as yours. I will not be around to see your comment as I thought this forum was a more grown up platform with energy professionals and not the usual twats trying to get one over the other. Don't waste your time replying as I won't be here to see it......but I know that won't stop you will it !?

To be fair you are the Renewables section of the site. We have had people on threads in this part of the site telling us to get back to discussing oil and gas. 

Invariably renewables go hand in hand with climate change, other pollution issues and resource depletion so its quite reasonable to discuss those points. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

8 hours ago, NickW said:

To be fair you are the Renewables section of the site. We have had people on threads in this part of the site telling us to get back to discussing oil and gas. 

Invariably renewables go hand in hand with climate change, other pollution issues and resource depletion so its quite reasonable to discuss those points. 

Good point.  Well taken.

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, mthebold said:

The physics of global warming aren't "well understood" until scientists produce a model capable of predicting.  Thus far, they've failed - often with comical results.  I mention that we need all the variables because they're necessary to predict.  If what you've claimed is also the opinion of climate scientists, then I'll take that as evidence that climate scientists are utterly incompetent and should be ignored.  

I won't waste my time addressing the rest of your comment because your intentionally missing the point.  

I guess you are not an atmospheric physicist.  The concept of an energy budget is basic, and it's not hard too work out that if more energy is being retained by a system than is being released (which has been the case for planet earth for some considrable time), then it will increase in temperature.  So your claim on "warming" has no merit.

Your idea that we need all the variables to predict an outcome is a nonsense.  I think you are confusing the idea of weather with that of climate but, more particularly, temperature.  The rather simple fact here is that there are no GCMs that predict a declining temperature concurrent with increasing radiative forcing.  To get such an outcome requires a violation of physical principles.  

Your claim that it is me missing the point is fallacious.  You never mounted an argument of merit because you completely ignored the reasons behind the original claim, viz. that technogical advances have led to greater efficiences while at the same time costs are declining. A more credible response in any case might have introduced the concept of LCOE.

Perhaps some facts might help you mount a case.  Do you have any?

 

[Red + 252]

3 hours ago, mthebold said:

 Thus far, they've failed - often with comical results. 

Speaking of facts, perhaps you should check the accuracy of your link.  The climate science community laughed it off a long time ago.

Of course, you can easily check from the source: Time Magazine's actual cover

[DA? + 301]

15 hours ago, Auson said:

No one is trying to stop Elon ( in fact the government support him ) but they should be. Producing high performance 2 ton virtue signaling vehicles is not green. 

This is important 

'For all the comparisons in this map the vehicle manufacturing of a gasoline car is just 40g CO2e/km compared to 70g CO2e/km for the electric vehicle.  This is because we have accounted for both a greater manufacturing footprint and lower lifetime mileage in an electric car.'
Read more at http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green#uYjIyWUj7FRyjGM2.99

Basing your argument on this rather badly done article is leading to a false opinion. For a start Tesla is using these are large vehicles to help finance the drive to more efficient EV's, which the Model 3 is a large step to reach this goal. The goal hasn't been reached but we are on the road forward.

Manufacturing is more energy intensive at the moment. But you have to look at life time use and how this is beginning to change. At the moment as the MIT study and Dutch University (can't remember what that one's called) even with dirty coal generated electricity a large EV is better than a small ICE exhaust on emissions in real world use. Then add on the fact that many owners of EV's have solar or buy renewable generated electricity and the grid is turning increasingly to renewables. Then add on the energy used to get that petrol or diesel, which is normally over looked. Also EV's lifetimes are getting to be dam good, far better than an ICE. Always love the cherry picking of "my ICE car has done 400,000 miles", that's great but he average ICE isn't so good.   

Yes riding a bike is far better, but in reality most people aren't going to give up their car (until self driving comes and that changes everything). And already EV's are on apples to apples comparison better for the environment when all factors are taken into account, especially when we take the human health impact into account.

Everything we do has an environmental impact it's just trying to find the best way forward to a wealthy world but for the least amount of environmental damage possible.   

[Auson + 123]

2 hours ago, DA? said:

Basing your argument on this rather badly done article is leading to a false opinion. For a start Tesla is using these are large vehicles to help finance the drive to more efficient EV's, which the Model 3 is a large step to reach this goal. The goal hasn't been reached but we are on the road forward.

Manufacturing is more energy intensive at the moment. But you have to look at life time use and how this is beginning to change. At the moment as the MIT study and Dutch University (can't remember what that one's called) even with dirty coal generated electricity a large EV is better than a small ICE exhaust on emissions in real world use. Then add on the fact that many owners of EV's have solar or buy renewable generated electricity and the grid is turning increasingly to renewables. Then add on the energy used to get that petrol or diesel, which is normally over looked. Also EV's lifetimes are getting to be dam good, far better than an ICE. Always love the cherry picking of "my ICE car has done 400,000 miles", that's great but he average ICE isn't so good.   

Yes riding a bike is far better, but in reality most people aren't going to give up their car (until self driving comes and that changes everything). And already EV's are on apples to apples comparison better for the environment when all factors are taken into account, especially when we take the human health impact into account.

Everything we do has an environmental impact it's just trying to find the best way forward to a wealthy world but for the least amount of environmental damage possible.   

DA,

The rear-wheel drive Model 3’s kerb weight is 1740kg it does 0 -100 kmh in 5.1secs thats Porsche Boxster territory.

A vehicle built with the environment and efficiency in mind could be half that weight and half that performance ( that was fast in the 1970s ) 

The amount of energy of any kind required to move such weight at such speed is excessive therefore uses excessive amounts of energy, earth minerals, oil, rubber and carbon . Therefore Tesla isn't and probably never will be about saving the planet. 

Do you know about Elons interesting margin arrangements on his Tesla stock ?

The whole ethos and it seems yours too is about consumption although a different type of consumption it should be about conservation otherwise it is NOT I repeat NOT about saving the planet. We should be developing ultra fuel / energy efficient vehicles but we are not. For an example of why weight is so important. The world record in diesel efficiency was achieved by a team from the Universitat Politècnica de Valencia (Politechnical University of Valencia, Spain) in 2010 with 1396.8 kilometres per litre.

Thats approx 3277 mpg us ! There is no need for more miners in third world countries to die we just need to concentrate on efficiency efficiency efficiency.

[DA? + 301]

57 minutes ago, Auson said:

DA,

The rear-wheel drive Model 3’s kerb weight is 1740kg it does 0 -100 kmh in 5.1secs thats Porsche Boxster territory.

A vehicle built with the environment and efficiency in mind could be half that weight and half that performance ( that was fast in the 1970s ) 

The amount of energy of any kind required to move such weight at such speed is excessive therefore uses excessive amounts of energy, earth minerals, oil, rubber and carbon . Therefore Tesla isn't and probably never will be about saving the planet. 

Do you know about Elons interesting margin arrangements on his Tesla stock ?

The whole ethos and it seems yours too is about consumption although a different type of consumption it should be about conservation otherwise it is NOT I repeat NOT about saving the planet. We should be developing ultra fuel / energy efficient vehicles but we are not. For an example of why weight is so important. The world record in diesel efficiency was achieved by a team from the Universitat Politècnica de Valencia (Politechnical University of Valencia, Spain) in 2010 with 1396.8 kilometres per litre.

Thats approx 3277 mpg us ! There is no need for more miners in third world countries to die we just need to concentrate on efficiency efficiency efficiency.

At present I'm looking at buying a Model 3. Why, safety I don't think the Uni of Valencia would have stood up to much of a crash with anything with more of a mass than a leaf (slight exaggeration for effect). We will be travelling large distances, the place we are moving back to our local big supermarket is an hour and half away each way, sharing the road with large speeding trucks that keep crashing on this road and suicidal animals running in front of vehicles. We buy renewable sourced electricity, a large producer and storer of it in the mountains near by and despite government pressure are also contracting out to other renewable producers rather than coal. For the present we will be renting so solar isn't possible unfortunately as it would save us money. But anyway as I will be charging for the most part at home the environmental damage per km is far less than if I brought an ICE (less fuel rucks on that road up there the better). I'm also getting old an like my comfort these days.

I suggest you look at Tesla's moto or whatever they call it. Musk does want to make money from Tesla and for it to be profitable. This is to show EV's can be profitable and to continue the development of this and other tech. But also for him to personally to make money to invest especially in SpaceX and the Mars mission. His motivation isn't personal wealth.

Yes conservation of energy and materials is important and the over use we see in society on buying just to show off wealth is sad. But the reality is it's going to happen. So we work in the boundaries of possibilities. Staying with the old and just trying to squeeze a little more efficiency out of it is a dead end. I'm not going back to live in a mud hut when there is a path to a sustainable world with comfort.

[William Toffenetti + 3]

What percentage is it in the US ? What country uses the most solar and wind? Germany? That seems very low for the us.

[DA? + 301]

21 hours ago, Auson said:

No one is trying to stop Elon ( in fact the government support him ) but they should be. Producing high performance 2 ton virtue signaling vehicles is not green. 

This is important 

'For all the comparisons in this map the vehicle manufacturing of a gasoline car is just 40g CO2e/km compared to 70g CO2e/km for the electric vehicle.  This is because we have accounted for both a greater manufacturing footprint and lower lifetime mileage in an electric car.'
Read more at http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-cars-green#uYjIyWUj7FRyjGM2.99

That's from EEA, well to wheel emissions.

EEA, lifetime emissions by size segment. Using a 180,000km expected travelled, although average ICE is above this an average modern EV is just starting to be run in at this distance.

[Auson + 123]

46 minutes ago, DA? said:

At present I'm looking at buying a Model 3. Why, safety I don't think the Uni of Valencia would have stood up to much of a crash with anything with more of a mass than a leaf (slight exaggeration for effect). We will be travelling large distances, the place we are moving back to our local big supermarket is an hour and half away each way, sharing the road with large speeding trucks that keep crashing on this road and suicidal animals running in front of vehicles. We buy renewable sourced electricity, a large producer and storer of it in the mountains near by and despite government pressure are also contracting out to other renewable producers rather than coal. For the present we will be renting so solar isn't possible unfortunately as it would save us money. But anyway as I will be charging for the most part at home the environmental damage per km is far less than if I brought an ICE (less fuel rucks on that road up there the better). I'm also getting old an like my comfort these days.

I suggest you look at Tesla's moto or whatever they call it. Musk does want to make money from Tesla and for it to be profitable. This is to show EV's can be profitable and to continue the development of this and other tech. But also for him to personally to make money to invest especially in SpaceX and the Mars mission. His motivation isn't personal wealth.

Yes conservation of energy and materials is important and the over use we see in society on buying just to show off wealth is sad. But the reality is it's going to happen. So we work in the boundaries of possibilities. Staying with the old and just trying to squeeze a little more efficiency out of it is a dead end. I'm not going back to live in a mud hut when there is a path to a sustainable world with comfort.

DA,

Wow the University of Valencia manages to achieve something truly spectacular in a competition and you still find some way to criticise them. That takes some skill to do that. Yet you still extol the virtues of Elon. I'm not going to list the things here so you can do your own research on that.

Thats it from me as I can see there is no point. I wasn't trying to change your mind on anything just to have some reasoned debate which is not happening. Enjoy your model 3.

[DA? + 301]

4 minutes ago, Auson said:

DA,

Wow the University of Valencia manages to achieve something truly spectacular in a competition and you still find some way to criticise them. That takes some skill to do that. Yet you still extol the virtues of Elon. I'm not going to list the things here so you can do your own research on that.

Thats it from me as I can see there is no point. I wasn't trying to change your mind on anything just to have some reasoned debate which is not happening. Enjoy your model 3.

I did not criticise them for their achievement but pointed out that it wasn't likely to be a vehicle that could withstand much of an accident. Not something I'd like to drive my son about on dangerous roads. I respect Elon and what he is trying to achieve which is far more than you or me.

Your argument had no depth just saying Tesla isn't the answer to the world problems and that conservation of materials and energy is the only way doesn't sound much like a reasoned debate. I agree with reducing usage as much as possible to limit the environmental costs but it has to be done that will actually work in the real world. Trying to force people to live a very simple life style isn't going to work. Giving them a better life style whilst lowering their environmental impact at the same cost or below that works (on the majority).

[Red + 252]

4 hours ago, mthebold said:

Go study calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, statistics, two semesters of physics, thermodynamics, and at least one course dealing with radiation (I aced this one, but I'm sure others cover similar material).  Then we can talk about radiation forcing and energy budgets. 

I asked for facts and you presentd none, again! (By the way, it's "radiative forcing", so if you do have something meaningful to say you might want to use language which is intelligible.)

I am sure reputable scientists will make mistakes from time to time, but they are not likely to propose violations of physical laws. 

I read posts like yours every day, and don't usually bother responding because they are vapid and obfuscatory.  

Is it the case that the best you can do is appeal to authority for your arguments?

When I do take the time to address an argument, I look carefully at what is offered.  So let me address several comments in just one of your paragraphs: 

You said "Logic is the understanding that inference doesn't work." Yet inferences are steps in reasoning, and involve moving from premise to logical consequences through steps such as deduction, induction and abduction.  Your claim has no merit.

You then said  "Science is the hope that it does."  Yet "hope" plays no role in science.  If you wish to claim it does, cite evidence.

You followed with "Everything scientists do is based on the *hope* that their data is sufficient."  Your personal view is not relevant to science.  A scientist who does not understand the concept of falsifiability should not be calling themselves a scientist.

You next claim "Climate scientists are trying to predict across millenia using mere decades of sparse data pulled from a system they don't fully understand that sometimes operates on geological time scales".  I suggest you cite evidence.  Your claim is so far removed from reality as to confirm you are somewhat clueless about climate science.

Moving on, you say "You're just debating to win - a consistent, annoying feature of climate activists." Two points: first, you have not presented anything which can be debated.  Secondly, whatever you think a "climate activist" might be, it has no relevance to science.  

If you seriously want to "discuss" climate matters, I suggest you link to or quote from peer reviewed science sources and not magazine articles over 40 years old.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Red

[markslawson + 1,061]

On ‎11‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 5:10 AM, NickW said:

The IPCC reports have to be about the most peer reviewed publications on the planet. Major energy companies (particularly coal) pay huge sums to researchers who are unable to pick any significant holes in the data........unlike if the same approach is take to WUWT

Sorry but this is either all wrong or irrelevant. Sure the IPCC report is peer reviewed but the editors are the same as the authors in the report process so they can ignore the reviews they don't agree with and pick those they do. Peer review is, in any case, irrelevant for forecasting. As for energy companies paying huge sums, that's activist nonsense. The bulk of the IPCC critics are part timers with no funding at all. I met one of the WUWT people when they came to Australia some years back - 2010 I think - and the organisers of the "tour" had to pass the hat around to raise their air fares. There is simply no funding on the sceptics side - or pitifully little compared to the warming side - no climate fellowships, no jobs at well-funded NGOs, nothing. The energy companies give grants to think tanks which might, also, take on some of the global warming nonsense among other matters but the funding is tiny, and they still get pilloried for it. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

11 minutes ago, mthebold said:

After re-reading your comment, it seems... off.  @Rodent and @Tom Kirkman, is this a bot?  It's hard to tell with the climate people.

Nope.  I've seen the endless back and forth between climate armageddonists and climate skeptics on oil & gas forums.  It is unlikely that either side will budge, as they are worlds apart.