| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
 Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:51 pm |
|
|
How does a non sequitur show I've been out of the loop?
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:53 pm |
|
|
| gb wrote: | | MG is either just argumentative or is extremely unaware. Blinders work but only for the blindfolded. |
Neither. You could have addressed the issue I raised in the quote, instead you make a personal comment.
People interested in actual science don't need to do this. There's a reason you, do.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6310 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Wed Aug 08, 2018 10:21 pm |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | gb wrote: | | MG is either just argumentative or is extremely unaware. Blinders work but only for the blindfolded. |
Neither. You could have addressed the issue I raised in the quote, instead you make a personal comment.
People interested in actual science don't need to do this. |
Don't pretend you are interested in science.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:45 am |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | |
How does a non sequitur show I've been out of the loop? |
In China , especially since the Bejing Olympics the pace of adding additional coal fired electrical generating capacity has dramatically dropped and the the've started building solar generation capacity at a rapid rate.
I think this has more to do with factors related to non-co2 air pollution and that the cost of photovoltaics dropping to the point that it is cost competitive with imported coal.
You express opposition to restrictions on CO2 emissions and any sort of scheme to favor new sources of energy over old.
But China whose government isn't influenced by ExxonMobil and the like has pursued solar independently over coal and oil.
India and many African countries are also aggressively developing solar capacity.
They are doing this even though their countries are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:04 am |
|
|
| gb wrote: | | Don't pretend you are interested in science. |
I don't need to pretend. I argue for by the numbers standard method here, while your methods chiefly orbit the array of logical fallacies known for millennia.
Look at your approach in your response...you go for a personal jibe, and one which presumes dishonesty.
All because I disagree over ....science. That's what has you wrapped around the axle and engaging in the methods you're applying.
IF you were engaged in actual science, you'd merely show us the actual flaws in my arguments, not throw logical fallacies.
This thread is 600+ pages long because warming enthusiasts do not have the science to close the deal....and they can neither admit it nor deal with it. So..personal attacks and logical fallacies, and excuses.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:07 am |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | In China , especially since the Bejing Olympics the pace of adding additional coal fired electrical generating capacity has dramatically dropped and the the've started building solar generation capacity at a rapid rate.
I think this has more to do with factors related to non-co2 air pollution and that the cost of photovoltaics dropping to the point that it is cost competitive with imported coal.
You express opposition to restrictions on CO2 emissions and any sort of scheme to favor new sources of energy over old.
But China whose government isn't influenced by ExxonMobil and the like has pursued solar independently over coal and oil.
India and many African countries are also aggressively developing solar capacity.
They are doing this even though their countries are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol. |
If they want to spend resources on more costly sources that is up to them, of course. Thank you for a more informative post than a link and a dig.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:31 am |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | If they want to spend resources on more costly sources that is up to them |
Another example of your stuck in the past thinking.
The cost of solar and wind energy are dropping very rapidly and will soon be cheaper in raw cost per kwh. Before even factoring in less tangible factors like the benefit of not living in a smog shrouded city (I think an important factor in Bejing/China's pursuit of solar generation)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:38 am |
|
|
I'm not particularly invested in the kind of analysis which needs to infer people are incorrect because they're claimed to be 'stuck' in some time or another.
How can solar be 'cheaper' .....than the cost of the base capacity it *requires* in order to be viable ? When it takes the dam or the coal plant to actually keep the heat and lights on 24/7/365, the actual total cost is...upkeep of the real sources, *plus* the costs of the renewables.
It's interesting, we are continually told how the cost of renewables is falling, and yet somehow, the places with the most renewables have the most expensive power.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gb
Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6310 | TRs | Pics
|
|
gb
Member
|
Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | I don't need to pretend. I argue for by the numbers standard method here
IF you were engaged in actual science, you'd merely show us the actual flaws in my arguments |
Here you go:
For your data you look at selected individual small towns like Poughkeepsie and Dusty, and then misrepresent those carefully selected individual sites to be accurate records of global temperature. This is, of course, BS. Here is the real record of earth surface temperatures: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
And the graph of CO2: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
If you can propose that the earth surface is not warming and that CO2 is rising commensurately, let’s hear it. Otherwise no more BS.
If you think there is another reason that makes any sense at all that C02 is rising other than anthropocentric causes, let’s see your proof. Otherwise no more BS.
You are either argumentative, protecting financial self interests, or just plain unobservant.
I frankly find it amusing that people respond to your BS as if it had any validity. That ship sailed long ago.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:18 am |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | How can solar be 'cheaper' .....than the cost of the base capacity it *requires* in order to be viable ? |
You are making an assumption about how power grids need to be configured.
In the PNW peak power demands are typically in the winter and at night when solar energy generation is zero.
However for other environments needs and constraints are different.
For example in the SW USA peak power demands are in the summer and during the day when solar power is abundant.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:24 am |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | You are making an assumption about how power grids need to be configured.
In the PNW peak power demands are typically in the winter and at night when solar energy generation is zero.
However for other environments needs and constraints are different.
For example in the SW USA peak power demands are in the summer and during the day when solar power is abundant. |
Yes, I am making those assumptions for sure. People, industry, buisness, health care and everyone else rely on the basic assumption that the lights are on, the fridge is running, the operating theater has power, and the furnace, foundry, and tools are running when they need to be, 24/7/365. To everyone in modern civilization, this is what electrical service is.
You talked around my question about how power can be cheaper when 'green' sources are an additional cost, requiring the *additional* expense of dispatchable base load generation...and the actual cost of a system is it's *total* cost.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:32 am |
|
|
| gb wrote: | | Here you go:
For your data you look at selected individual small towns like Poughkeepsie and Dusty, and then misrepresent those carefully selected individual sites to be accurate records of global temperature. This is, of course, BS. Here is the real record of earth surface temperatures: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
And the graph of CO2: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
If you can propose that the earth surface is not warming and that CO2 is rising commensurately, let’s hear it. Otherwise no more BS.
If you think there is another reason that makes any sense at all that C02 is rising other than anthropocentric causes, let’s see your proof. Otherwise no more BS.
You are either argumentative, protecting financial self interests, or just plain unobservant.
I frankly find it amusing that people respond to your BS as if it had any validity. That ship sailed long ago. |
Where did "I" show those small towns, please. You claimed
| Quote: | | For your data you look at selected individual small towns like Poughkeepsie and Dusty |
Show me doing so, I don't recall doing so.
I did not propose that both were not rising. I argued correlation is not causation, and that the few arguments for CO2 causality for the increases were not empirical, but model/theory.
I'm plenty observant. The issue is not being 'observant'.... which is mere data at best.
The issue is the nature of the arguments tying what is observed into a cohesive whole. Data is not a theory or an argument. You can be 'aware' or 'observant' all day long, day in day out...and if what you argue ties your observations together is wrong, it's wrong regardless of how 'observant' you are. You act as if one need merely 'observe' and then, come to conclusions you agree with.
If my arguments didn't have validity, it would be a simple matter to simply show they are actually false. The 600 pages of inability to do so is the best example of how climate 'science' cannot actually close the deal it claims.
You can be amused all day long, and engage in the logical fallacies and emotional misdirections you appear to be welded to, and it won't change a thing. I don't respond to those methods and I don't make decisions based upon them.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:02 pm |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | Yes, I am making those assumptions for sure. People, industry, buisness, health care and everyone else rely on the basic assumption that the lights are on, the fridge is running, the operating theater has power, and the furnace, foundry, and tools are running when they need to be, 24/7/365. To everyone in modern civilization, this is what electrical service is. |
That's a layman's view of electrical service and demand. For example when I worked for Boeing, the wind tunnel (which uses huge amounts of power) would schedule tests during periods when other electrical demands on the grid were low -- because they got much better pricing per kwh. Similarly PNW aluminum smelters -- which also utilize massive amounts of electricity make aluminum during periods of time when other utilization is low.
So it is true that a certain amount of "base load" capacity needs to be 24/7/365 -- but it isn't necessary to duplicate 100% of all solar capacity with fossil fuel generation, particularly in areas of the world where universal electrification is more recent than the 1930s.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MtnGoat
Member
Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA |
|
MtnGoat
Member
|
Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:23 pm |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | That's a layman's view of electrical service and demand. For example when I worked for Boeing, the wind tunnel (which uses huge amounts of power) would schedule tests during periods when other electrical demands on the grid were low -- because they got much better pricing per kwh. Similarly PNW aluminum smelters -- which also utilize massive amounts of electricity make aluminum during periods of time when other utilization is low.
So it is true that a certain amount of "base load" capacity needs to be 24/7/365 -- but it isn't necessary to duplicate 100% of all solar capacity with fossil fuel generation, particularly in areas of the world where universal electrification is more recent than the 1930s. |
Yes, that's the layman's view..and it's still true for the Boeing example.
After all...Boeing didn't plan around outages...it planned around lower prices. That still requires the power be on, 24/7/365
I'd never argue it's necessary to back 100% of solar capacity with standard plant (nuclear, hydro, fossil fuels), after all you can argue for a partial power system if you wish.
That needs to be made clear upfront during such arguments, so that the implications of 100% service are not used to support systems which will not in fact produce on that basis.
You still haven't addressed my questions about how power can be cheaper from green sources in places which do expect 100% of load to be met 24/7/365, when the green sources are an *additional* cost.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Thu Aug 09, 2018 3:21 pm |
|
|
| MtnGoat wrote: | | After all...Boeing didn't plan around outages...it planned around lower prices. That still requires the power be on, 24/7/365 |
That's not how it worked when I was at Boeing in the '80s. Tests were canceled during periods of high demand by other users. That's the nature of a "standby power" contract.
| MtnGoat wrote: | | You still haven't addressed my questions about how power can be cheaper from green sources in places which do expect 100% of load to be met 24/7/365, when the green sources are an *additional* cost. |
There are more things to consider than simply $ per kwh. As I noted earlier Bejing/China has largely stopped development of new coal fired capacity and put their effort into solar and other non-polluting energy sources. Not because of Kyoto Protocol constraints (which they are not subject to) but to avoid other aspects of air pollution from coal fired plants.
The Bejing Olympics was a turning point. The government shutdown the coal plants in advance of the games to clear the air for the games. I believe that this made people in Chinese leadership aware of how bad the air had become and motivated them to seek another way.
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-china-42513531
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
