Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

[Greg Locock]

"Caution is required in interpretation, however, because the data prior to 1881 are estimates based on proxies (such as tree rings and ice cores)"

Yes folks, it's the tree ring data, welded to the instrumental record. If you actually use the same proxies for temperature into the 20th century the spike disappears.

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

Trees are NOT thermometers.

[Andres125sx]

Oh great, it's random graph time. So, what temperature is that, how was it obtained?

I´ve read more political ways to ask for a source

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/publi ... /mbh99.pdf

[Greg Locock]

No, the graph you posted is by an anonymous editor on wikipedia. It didn't have properly labelled axes. As the article on the Divergence problem indicates, tree rings are not good thermometers.

[Andres125sx]

No, the graph you posted is by an anonymous editor on wikipedia.

Same as your divergence link

As the article on the Divergence problem indicates, tree rings are not good thermometers.

.... prior to AD 1600, so after that those proxies combined with modern measurings are accurate

Tree ring proxies are essentially consistent with other proxy measurements for the period 1600–1950. Before around AD 1600, the uncertainty of temperature reconstructions rises

Anycase you should read the link I posted. It does explain divergence too, but states the problem is for the period before AD 1400 instead of 1600



Anycase, to me it looks like if people is expecting to find an unquestionable evidence of global warming before accepting it´s real, when this is is not possible because our accurate meassuring is extremelly new from the geological point of view. But the matter is too important to be that reckless IMHO.

As an example, if your son start feeling dizzy when practicing some sport, will you say there´s no proof he´s ill, so he should continue pushing himself? Or his health is too relevant to assume any unnecessary risk and you´ll stop him until you´re sure he´s fine?

And what´s the reason we don´t care about the planet as much as we do about our sons? Are we really this stupid?

In my eyes this is the same, even if we can´t unquestionably assert it, there are more than enough signs indicating our emissions are affecting the planet.... but we continue ignoring these signs while asking for unquestionable evidences, we continue screaming to our son "I don´t mind if you feel dizzy, if you don´t have a doctor diagnosis you´re ok, keep pushing"

[Greg Locock]

"Won't somebody think of the children?"

Sorry, South Park killed that.

[Andres125sx]

"Won't somebody think of the children?"

Sorry, South Park killed that.

Nah, no reason, if we ruin the delicate planet balance we can always ask USA or China to build a new one with their huge amounts of money, can´t we?...

[Tommy Cookers]

OK we must reduce CO2 emissions to act against supposed warming which may even (all) be natural ?

so the UK spends hugely on 'renewable' sources of electricity eg imported wood pellet fuelling (increasing particulate pollution)

this week also our somewhat taxpayer-funded Channel 4 TV told us (via a former IPCC member) that ......
the CO2 emissions shown will not be cancelled (by forest regrowth/'renewal') within 100 years

apparently our laws to reduce carbon emissions ....
replace carbon emissions counted as carbon emissions with other carbon emissions not counted as carbon emissions

[Andres125sx]

Yes probably your laws are far from desirable, I agree

It´s pretty similar all around the world tough, most people and almost all politicians continue prioritizing economics over anything else. That´s the best for the short term, no doubt, but what will happen after that?

Timber!!
Timber!!



Then there will be no timber, and no train

[J.A.W.]

Oh No!
Suddenly, its 2025..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuCiiRDpbCk

[Tommy Cookers]

the Siemens wind turbine factory in Hull has just announced that wef 2020 it will be making blades over 81 m long
implying a unit capacity increased by c.20% over the present 75 m length units

[Greg Locock]

I just skimmed an interesting paper that worked out the economics of introducing non despatchable generators (NDGs) (ie wind and solar) into the grid. It attempted to estimate the value of additional NDGs. Not surprisingly the more NDGs you have the less cost effective they are. In the case of South Australia which claims to be 50% renewable (mostly wind) it needs backup for /all/ that . So you end up building 150% of your peak power requirement.

https://www.neon-energie.de/Hirth-2013- ... -Price.pdf

[Andres125sx]

Interesting article(s) about batteries in FE

https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/ ... batteries/

[roon]

I just skimmed an interesting paper that worked out the economics of introducing non despatchable generators (NDGs) (ie wind and solar) into the grid. It attempted to estimate the value of additional NDGs. Not surprisingly the more NDGs you have the less cost effective they are. In the case of South Australia which claims to be 50% renewable (mostly wind) it needs backup for /all/ that . So you end up building 150% of your peak power requirement.

https://www.neon-energie.de/Hirth-2013- ... -Price.pdf

Hence: https://electrek.co/2018/05/11/tesla-gi ... vice-cost/

[Greg Locock]

You did see what they did there, didn't you?

" And the 100MW battery has achieved over 55 per cent of the FCAS revenues in South Australia. So it’s 2 per cent of the capacity in South Australia achieving 55 per cent of the revenues in South Australia.”"

It is not 2 % of the FCAS installed base. Much of SA's generating capacity is not able to be used as FCAS.

So you've fallen for the PR speak.

[roon]

Can't speak to the validity of the article; bias-wise it's a pro electrification blog. I just meant to point at these sorts of backup/buffer power supplies being built as it relates to the NDGs you mentioned. There was recent news of new ones in Belgium and Puerto Rico as well.