TexasCHLforum.com

Not to quibble strat9mm...but water actually expands as it freezes, so when it melts it will displace less than the same volume as water than it had as ice.

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Based on your previous comments it seems like your experience with renewables is at the home or business small scale distribution level? From what you've said that does not translate to the grid level. For instance, large wind generators are not "wild" nor do they require any kind of storage for operation. They have very sophisticated control systems and are well controlled. Unfortunately, our political system and money considerations greatly influence how they are actually operated so that they tend to be less "reliable" than they could be and are in Europe, where grid operators are apparently allowed to make decisions for the system rather than maximizing generator revenues.

Definitely small scale. Non-industrial. Basically the optimum target is to cover 100% of your energy use based on weather averages and approximate usage data. Treat the grid like a battery and target a yearly bill that comes out to $0 after factoring in debits and credits for use.

The small (residential) wind generator that I was certified to install was wild AC. No clutch, no regulation. It would feather to prevent over speed. As such you feed a battery to store it an then regulate it out to regulated (household) AC via a converter. Non-ideal.

One of the other posters is right though. There's a limit to how much "renewable" you can throw into the mix before unpredictable demand starts to destabilize things. Europe is way out in front.. And right now it's prime time in the USA due to subsidies and the fact that the vast majority of energy is from conventional means, so you can product your own power and net meter from the grid largely because none of your neighbors are doing it.

Some of the issues are due to the nature of for-profit power producers and the lack of a "socialistic" (my words). We've got discreet players that all want to make money, and an entire real-time market designed for brokering those deals. It's not optimized to work well. You point out that these are the limits that we have now and they're not changing. I point out that we're just so barely scratching the surface that renewables aren't really a technical problem in the USA.. Yet...

BTW, just to be clear, I'm not against renewable energy. I think it would be great if it could replace thermal fuel consuming energy resources.....but it can't now or in the foreseeable future. What I object to is all the hype and hooey used to peddle it, and subversion of market mechanisms via huge subsidies. There is no stability threat on the demand side and such a threat is unlikely to materialize in the foreseeable future. The demand side threat is the hazard to linemen due to improperly installed or operated systems during outages or line clearances (same as backup generators running on gas or diesel).

There are numerous wind plants out there that can generate in excess of 300 MW. ERCOT leads the nation in installed wind capacity with over 13,000 MW (and looking at reaching around 20,000 MW in the next couple years --assuming subsidies continue). However, that 13,000 MW does not displace 13,000 MW of thermal generation or anything close to it. The contribution of renewable generation to the system is reasonably predicable in the aggregate over longer periods of time and locally in an operational time frame, and hasn't caused any particular problem in ERCOT so far. However, renewable penetration is reaching the point where system stability will become an issue during off-peak loading and operational and economic adjustments will have to be made.

TVegas wrote:

mojo84 wrote: Once you graduate, will you be in a profession utilizing your degree and will that result in personal income or profit? Will that profit or income be increased by the existence or perceived existence of global warming?

I'm going to law school next fall and may be working in environmental law after that, but likely in commercial litigation. Will my work and therefore income be affected as a result of the completely factual existence of climate change? Possibly, but most likely not. Do I personally stand to gain more from the projected consequences of climate change than I will lose? Absolutely not. If I work in environmental law, it will not be in air quality or alternative energy, but almost certainly wetland restoration/regulation or hazardous materials.

mojo84 wrote: If you do not like the idea of looking at the last 20 years, what period of time fits your argument? Haven't we gone through something like 7 ice ages? Didn't those involve, climate change, global warming, global cooling etc.?

No one with adequate knowledge of climate science could claim that we have 100% certainty in our understanding of climatology. As a result, we have to account for uncertainty, which is small enough that we can still be sure we are having an influence. As I stated, you can debate the exact amount of warming, but you can not debate that there has been significant warming (even the lowest estimates are still high enough to be significant).

Accounting for uncertainty means comparing global average temperature trends over time, not simply comparing the average temperature in a given year to another year that supports your argument (this is called cherry-picking data). The "20 years of cooling" claim is usually based on comparing 1995 and 2014 average winter temperatures in the US. That is in fact true, but not only is it too short of a time frame, it is also only winter temperatures and only in the US. Using the exact same data, extending the time frame to 1981 and 2010 shows "40 years of warming".

When conducting solid analysis (not cherry-picking convenient years), there has been about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit warming since 1880, and about two-thirds of that was in the last forty years. If you look at the historical record, there has been a clear upward acceleration since the industrial revolution. This isn't a time frame that fits my argument, it is history starting today and going back for up to thousands of years.

Yes, there have been ice ages and warmer periods, but that is not the issue. The issue is that we humans have become a prominent factor that has accelerated the warming since we started burning coal as fuel.

What I have posted here is simply the facts. I am not debating the general reality, because there is no rational argument to be had. You can continue to debate specifics, but I will not be wasting anymore of my time. This is like debating religion and politics.

Pure unadulterated hooey. Nothing more than a recitation of false claims.

I'm too lazy to write my own version so I'll let Karl Denninger speak on the subject: http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp ... d=14667570

First: the tactics of the "globull warmers".....

....and the so-called "climate denier" label is intended to evoke The Holocaust, which is an outrageous and intentional appeal to a factually-known act of mass-murder that left a few million skeletons behind as evidence.

The problem with so-called "climate science" is that it's not science at all; it's hucksterism and fraud. Let's look at a few (and only a few!) of the problems that the so-called "climate change" people peddle.

1. It was called "global warming", but when the warming stopped and failed to verify against the claims of their computer models for 15 years running they changed their name. That's fraud.

2. Only something like 3% of the surface of the earth has a temperature probe covering a place in the immediate vicinity. That's a lack of data.

3. There has been zero control, intentionally, for the change in the surface of the earth immediately surrounding said temperature probes. Specifically, over time as development has continued people do things like put blacktop roads and parking lots near said probes, which raises the local temperature (due to the sun heating the material, not atmospheric composition.) This impact must be adjusted out, preferably by adding more probes in other, non-developed places, but it isn't -- intentionally.

4. The CO2 "balance" allegedly from human activity intentionally ignores sub-sea volcanic production of CO2. There are an enormous number of these, by the way, and yet there is no so-called greenhouse-gas model that attempts to place upper and lower boundaries on their emissions. It is entirely possible, by the way, that due to this (and the error bands for above-ground volcanic release) man-made CO2 emissions are immaterial -- whether CO2 is involved in climate change or not!

11. There have been multiple examples found of data being "adjusted" and all said adjustments have been one-way -- upward. This is statistically impossible; anyone with even a modicum of statistical training understands that statistically speaking adjustments to data should cluster around the mean with a few outlying points. When all of the adjustments are in one direction it is a virtual certainty that the intention of said adjustment is to deceive.

12. When said "adjustments" are removed from the data the so-called "precipitous warming" of the last half of the 20th century entirely disappears.

13. 10 years ago the global scaremongers told us that global warming was going to cause more and nastier hurricanes that would decimate the United States coastline. Wilma, which hit Florida in October, was the last serious hurricane impact on the state; in point of fact the hurricane incidence has precipitously declined since 2005 in terms of impacts on the United States.

Oh, yeah, this is the short list. I could probably come up with 100 bullet points if I was willing to spend more than 20 minutes or so on the subject.

In short exactly who is the "denier"? When you look at the facts surrounding this alleged "warming" what you find is cooked data, intentional refusal to consider time frames beyond the immediate past in geologic terms, the slander of those who point out the deceptions, omissions and outright lies of those pressing the agenda along with rank hypocrisy (Obama and Gore flying around in jets spewing monstrous amounts of CO2 into the air while claiming it's a "serious problem".)

He makes a lot of other points I haven't bothered to quote here. But perhaps the most relevant fact is that no model of climate change predicts what has actually occurred. If structural engineers used models like this their buildings and bridges would fall down and they'd be sued for fraud and negligence. All the climate hucksters have are the repetition of false claims, doctored data, and name calling. They get away with it because it will take decades for the claims to be irrefutably falsified, so they can assert all kinds of nonsense until they're caught up by reality. It's just another version of the same environmental end of the world nonsense peddled in the 70s...except this time around instead of a fad it has become a religion and those who refuse the climate change baptism are attacked as heretics, blasphemers, and moral degenerates. When "science" sounds and looks like religion it's not science.

cb1000rider wrote:

TVegas wrote:They are clinging to cherry-picked data that supports their beliefs ("No warming in 20 years!!!", "We're actually in a cooling phase!!"), but when you look at the evidence on long scale periods (the time periods that matter) it is obvious that the planet has warmed to a significant degree. The exact amount is entirely debatable, but the fact that it is a significant amount of warming is not.

Personally, I wouldn't ever argue that the planet isn't getting warmer, but (for me) the point of argument is about how much of that is impacted humans. And I admit that the human factor isn't a factual issue yet. However, if you can't get to the point of recognition that the climate is changing, that sort of kills any further debate and discussion.

I see some hope. BaldEagle doesn't buy the whole thing and points to some grand conspiracy (my words, not his). I love a good conspiracy, but need to understand how that works out of for the puppet masters. What I do appreciate about his posts are that regardless of agree/disagree on the global warming, he believes that we should take reasonable means to protect the environment. I consider that point of view to be inherently reasonable. I wish more people were of that sort of mind.

When we can't even agree on basic facts like coal power being relatively "dirty" in terms of green house gasses, there really isn't any ground to base a discussion on.

And at least this topic has been free of personal attacks!

You can dismiss this stuff by calling it "conspiracy" but the fact is BaldEagle is describing the way the world actually works. Ever read Noam Chomsky on the MSM? You can't accuse him of being some Fox news watching tea partier. He describes a set of filters that affect what appears in the media. The media isn't the only organization with filters. Ever read Carroll Quigley? He was once lauded as Bill Clinton's history professor.

I see how this stuff works every day. It's all about the money. There doesn't have to be any organized or over arching conspiracy anymore than bees pollinating flowers is a bee conspiracy. People naturally react to incentives and the incentives in this system are primarily money and power. That translates into a lot of people knowing on what side their bread is buttered.

cb1000rider wrote:

mojo84 wrote: CB, I take it you are in an industry that profits from alternative energy sources. Is this correct? If so, you benefit from the "climate change" is causing harm to the earth arguments. Is this correct?

I know some "green homebuilders". They laughingly say being "green certified" has added 25-30% to their bottom line as it has drives up the cost of construction, repair and maintenance. They are "all in" on climate change, global warming, climate or whatever you want to call it.

No, Mojo, I'm not. If I was, I'd freely admit it. I work in technology, but not at all related to the energy industry. My education affords me some sort of status as an "electrician" in some jurisdictions and in the lesser regulated ones (rural), I've got minimum credentials to do electrical work like solar when working with contractors. I've done a grand total of 3 arrays - all residential. Electrical (PV) and some hot water on those installs. I got certified to install wind, but then refused to install it as I didn't like the product. Unlike most of my hobbies, this one actually made money and I enjoy working with my hands - it feels like real work, especially hauling up an array in the middle of August. It really was a hobby and an interest thing that paid and I mainly did it for a friend who is a home builder.

I agree with you - I see builders that advertise "energy star" certifications and there isn't much to it. Some of that stuff there is value in - when we built, I did foam insulation, low E windows, solar hot water, and some altered construction to be able to pack more insulation in. I haven't done PV (solar) at home yet because I see that the price trend continues to be downward...

Based on your previous comments it seems like your experience with renewables is at the home or business small scale distribution level? From what you've said that does not translate to the grid level. For instance, large wind generators are not "wild" nor do they require any kind of storage for operation. They have very sophisticated control systems and are well controlled. Unfortunately, our political system and money considerations greatly influence how they are actually operated so that they tend to be less "reliable" than they could be and are in Europe, where grid operators are apparently allowed to make decisions for the system rather than maximizing generator revenues.

For example, in Europe, installations tend to reflect the expected geographic conditions, even if that means they cost more. Here, it's strictly the cheapest installation regardless of condition in order the maximize revenue. Also, in Europe, wind generators must feather their blades so they're not operating at full output, and therefore have some reserve power that can be employed when generation is lost in another part of the system. Not here, because that would reduce generator revenues, or alternatively, they'd want to be paid for not generating. Before the "deregulation" scam the system had higher reserve margins.

My point is simply that a lot of the problems with renewable energy are not technical problems, though intermittentancy is and will remain a problem well into the future. They're political and money problems. At the moment, renewables on the grid level are primarily a money extraction device from start to finish. Where there are technical problems they're generally being addressed by manufacturers and these devices are constantly being improved. Most of the renewable battle is over money extraction.

TVegas wrote:cb1000rider, I considered making an educated, logical argument based on everything you addressed, but I had to decide against wasting my time and energy. I commend you on trying though. The folks who doubt human impact on the climate simply don't understand how it works and they don't want to believe it is possible because life is rosier when you don't have to acknowledge fault, even if it is diffuse and common. They are clinging to cherry-picked data that supports their beliefs ("No warming in 20 years!!!", "We're actually in a cooling phase!!"), but when you look at the evidence on long scale periods (the time periods that matter) it is obvious that the planet has warmed to a significant degree. The exact amount is entirely debatable, but the fact that it is a significant amount of warming is not.

Why do I believe the reality of current climate change? I believe it because of research and analysis of the data, and methods of data collection, that I have personally done during my studies at A&M. I am about to graduate with a degree in Environmental Studies, but don't try to dismiss me as a "liberal hippy". I don't trust every word my largely liberal professors have said, but that only extends to opinions, and this subject is not based on politics or opinions when it comes to my professors. I trust my own education and analysis more than I would ever trust a handful of people making the same claims based on very little real evidence.

I respect all people, especially the folks who would be members of this forum, so please don't take my comments as inflammatory. They are simply the conclusions of what my own research in school has brought me.

P.S. Sorry for contributing to derailing the thread. I agree completely that the article is complete bunk.

An almost graduate lecturing those of us who are professional engineers with 30 years of experience in various fields....please. I was a fresh college graduate once and I had no idea how much I didn't know. I know this will be hard for you to accept, but sorry, in the fields of science and engineering, when you graduate from college, you really don't know anything. The degree prepares you to learn it doesn't make you an expert. You may not see it in environmental studies so much, but an undergraduate science or engineering degree of any kind does not prepare one for how stupid you soon feel in front of a group of non-degreed technicians with years of experience. I've seen engineers with Phd's and no experience made fools of by people with no degrees and lots of experience. It can be very humbling.

cb1000rider wrote:Expensive, yes, but trending downward substantially. Financially feasible enough to provide payback in <10 years - albeit in consideration federal subsidy (these are my economics, not the same for everyone). Without that subsidy, it's not adopted as widely and prices stay higher longer. Long term, the subsidy with disappear. In the mean time, I'll produce my own power and use the grid as necessary to deal with the lack of storage and predictability.

Intermittent - Yes. But predictable (at least solar). What we lack to make them work through the night and through days of no sun is storage technology, but that will come eventually. Wind - I've been "certified" to install it but refused to - I decided it was substantially impractical, at least where I am.. I didn't want to deal with the storage and conversion hassles for clients when essentially they could use the grid for storing energy credit.

You're right though - the grid demand and the availability of solar and wind will not work without storage. So lacking a cheap massive storage, we'll always need traditional fuels. But I think we could easily get to 25% renewable. Maybe more. It's easier to scale traditional fuels up and down based on demand.. And we can at least somewhat predict sunlight and wind within 24-48 hours...

You apparently don't fully understand how the grid operates which is understandable if you're not directly involved with the ERCOT market. The actual economics, versus the peddled fantasty economics, undermine the supposed benefits of renewable energy. Without massive storage capabilities that don't exist and have no prospect of existing in the predicable future, the 25% renewable number you're suggesting is essentially meaningless. Yes, you can get 25% renewable based on installed capacity, but not in terms of actually energy consumed (MWhrs). Wind is actually fairly predictable over short periods of time...an hour to a few hours. Both solar and wind have huge footprints. But those are side issues.

Just like in the "climate change" arena, a lot of the renewable math is based on lies. Apart from the subsidies, renewables, especially wind, are made to look better by completely ignoring capital costs and market reality by assuming that renewable energy is "free." And yeah, that's not the "consensus" because the "consensus" is created by all those with a vested interest in hawking renewables. They resist realistic economic evaluation tooth and nail and are supported for political reasons by the government you seem to trust so much. I

The bottom line is that renewables simply cannot replace thermal generators, because their generation is not dependable. With over 7,000 MW of installed wind capacity in West Texas there are times when they're only generating 300 MW or less. I'm not even addressing system stability, and as renewable penetration increases a large scale blackout becomes inevitable. No one knows where this limit is but we're approaching it in Texas. The effect of all this is that renewable generation does not fully displace thermal generation. Those generators must still exist but because during peak times they're under bid by renewables the more marginal producers will have to be paid for not generating in order to keep them available.

Renewables will therefore ultimately increase the cost of electricity, at least in ERCOT, because of the way the market works. We have a clearing price, not an as-bid market, so renewable generators don't get paid what they bid, they get paid the same price that the most expensive generation in the bid stack gets paid (thermal generators). However, the system allows them to under bid ensuring that they are always at the top of the bid stack so they are always first to run. I can assure you that there is no "cheap" renewable generation out there....in the market they get the full thermal generator price and there is very little difference in how they price their contract energy. So in the end, consumers will be paying at least twice for renewables without any compensating economic benefit: 1) subsidies; 2) and the extra cost of maintaing the thermal generation they do not displace. In fact, they are probably increasing the cost of transmission because the economic assumptions we are forced to use justify any amount of transmission for renewables --completely unrealistic-- but that effect is difficult to quantify.

Edited to add:

You seem to have a lot of faith in groups calling themselves scientists, and especially government groups. I was in the military....command routinely lied and falsified data to produce the results higher ups wanted to see and the higher ups not only knew it, but tacitly encouraged it. If I could tell you what they lied about you'd be shocked. Officers that were supposed to be on our side attempted to coerce me into changing the results of a technical inspection in favor of a contractor. The large company I used to work for routinely falsified data to chase money for managers and executives.

In my experience money and politics trump science and engineering reality at every opportunity and vested interests have a lock on what is "accepted" science and economics. This isn't stuff I'm reading about on the internet, this is what I'm witnessing first hand and immersed in. I see people keep their mouths shut because they know what they are supposed to say and not say and what is only the line if they don't comply. My company allows me to speak out and do the right thing. Often I am the only dissenting voice, and just as often people approach me to say they are glad I spoke out because they couldn't. As BaldEagle states, this is especially prevalent in academia and all across the board has been getting worse. The government economic stats on inflation and unemployment are complete nonsense and have been more and more blatantly rigged since Clinton was in office. Science has never been the pure intellectual endeavor that is popularized but all signs are that fraud is more pervasive than ever, and the more money that is at stake, the greater the fraud. In fact, if there is real money at stake you can pretty much count on the science claims being lies.

cb1000rider wrote:

baldeagle wrote: The vast majority of scientists are not with you, and James Hansen is one of the perpetrators of the hoax.

So NASA is lying to me? There are no less than 12 references cited.

baldeagle wrote: And please don't give me the tired old excuse of consider the sources. The chances of an alternative story about global warming being publicized in the mainstream media is so close to zero it is effectively zero. The only way you're going to find opposing views is to search them out.

OK, so the rules are:
1) Look for alternative opinions to the list in the NASA article I provided, which lists sources.
2) I don't get to consider the source of the information, I just have to consider contrary opinions.

I'm generally pretty good at searching for opposing views. A few things sink in with me, outside of the citations of most of the (source considered) scientific community:
1) I'm an engineer, so I understand energy. We've been converting mass into heat for a really long time. It makes sense to me that there might be an impact.
2) I also understand statistics, so regardless of 2014 being the "hottest year" or not, it's statistically meaningless.. (see, I did look at what you provided). Honestly, what you and I notice in our relatively short lives isn't enough evidence of anything.
3) Although I agree the cycles of climate are "normal", that doesn't allow me to rule out the massive impact that we as humans have as part of carving up the earth.
4) We haven't been here that long geologic timeline speaking, so I admit that our impact on the earth is fairly hard to prove with 100% certainty. The question is, would I be willing to change my behavior without being 100% factually-infallible certain?

The sources you cited largely point out that NASA and another agency are manipulating temperature data. So, lets accept that as true... How do you account for another 200 reasonably credentialed agencies that have come to the same conclusion without NASA data? You cited people poking holes in NASAs data set and I see legitimate concerns in that data set based on what you posted. But the link I provided was scientific consensus outside of that data set. At random, I looked at MITs papers on the subject.. I can't exactly find a lack of consensus there...

Is it all a grand conspiracy of the federal government? OK, I could buy that. How about a grand conspiracy in most well respected institutes of higher education? That one is a bit harder for me to buy.


Thinking about it other way, I consider the following:

Say you're right. Climate change is all fallacy and the "science" behind it is a grand conspiracy of epic proportions. Or, well, maybe it's less drastic than that and the scientists that study it are just wrong:
If we do nothing and continue on our ways, we're no worse for wear.
If we do something to reduce our environmental impact, we're also no worse for wear.

Say that you're wrong. And humans are contributing to climate change at a rate that will have substantial (negative) consequences:
If we do nothing and continue on our ways, we're messing up the earth for everyone else. Perhaps irreversibly.
If we do something and reduce our environmental impact, we just make sure that the planet works well for everyone for a much longer period of time.

Assuming you're not 100% sure... And honestly, I'm not 100% sure as it's not factually proven (yet), which choice would you pick?

An argument from authority? Please. I'm an engineer too and I also understand thermodynamics and statistics and I say you're wrong. What now?

cb1000rider wrote:

baldeagle wrote: And it looks like it's going to take a great deal longer for many to finally pay attention to the data and realize that global warming (now changed to climate change) is a hoax of huge proportions.

Assuming we're talking about the same thing, meaning: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.
Yea, I'm going to have to go with vast majority of the scientists on this one...

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, it's not like a majority has ever been wrong....especially a majority of scientists. Oh, wait, history shows that the majority of scientists have practically always been wrong and vigorously resisted dissenting opinion.

baldeagle wrote:

TVegas wrote:Except that, unlike this article, the consensus on climate change is based on objective analysis among experts in the field.

This article is actually based on the exact type of evidence anthropogenic climate change deniers cite.

Man, what in the world have you been smoking? Not only there very many experts who disagree, but the so-called experts, in many cases, aren't. Are you even aware that the earth hasn't warmed in the past 20 years, and some are now worried that we are entering a cooling period?
[youtube][/youtube]

That's why they changed the term from Global (GloBull) warming to "climate change." But hey, while you many not be able to fool all of the people all of the time, you can certainly fool most of the people most of the time.

TVegas wrote:Except that, unlike this article, the consensus on climate change is based on objective analysis among experts in the field.

This article is actually based on the exact type of evidence anthropogenic climate change deniers cite.

Except it's not. It's largely based on fraud serving a political agenda. And even if "largely" is incorrect, there is known fraud and that undermines the claims being made. Furthermore, none of the models can even predict already observed results based on available data. "Climate deniers" is the same kind of term as "gun nuts," intended to dismiss questions and stifle debate. When anyone claiming to be a scientist or pursuing science uses terms like "climate deniers" to dismiss criticism they're promoting an agenda, not serving science.