Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here

[Bill Derington]

That's a good point but how many years have coal burners been in development? That is the advantage they have in performance---long term development.

Development has nothing to do with it. Electricity is used as its made, and load demand is what drives it.

When the demand increases the electricity must be present then, and quickly or the grid voltage and frequency sags which can lead to blackouts.

Wind powwr cannot meet that demand, you may have it today, but tomorrow it's not making any power.Gnerally the peak wind seasons are the Spring and Fall, thats when demand is at it's lowest due to mild temps.

Wind power has a place, but it's not going to replace the big baseloaded plants. The reason coal plants are closing now is due to Natural gas being cheap, not wind or solar.

 

[JHB4UK]

just checking, is this logical result of more carbon dioxide in the environment a "Climate Change Nightmare"? More plants, more trees growing on our planet, sucking up the excess carbon dioxide since that is plant food y'know, and producing more oxygen? Is that bad?

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

Science is not about feelings.

Science has nothing to do with the point I was making. My point had to do with markets, regulation, and economics. Nice try though.

 

[Deeeefense]

Wind powwr cannot meet that demand, you may have it today, but tomorrow it's not making any power.Gnerally the peak wind seasons are the Spring and Fall, thats when demand is at it's lowest due to mild temps.

But as you know spring and fall is when utilities schedule a lot of planned outages for repairs and upgrades. Nice to have that power during those times.

The thing about wind is, the wind doesn't stop blowing all over the country at the same time. You can use historical data to know the wind velocity in various parts of the country at each time period and then construct high/low wind flow expectancy graphs and use a statistical model to know what the minimum and maximum win velocities will be at any given time. If you do that you can arrive at statistical certainty of specific levels of power production with the same certainty as a coal-fired plan which encur unexpected outages at times.

So I reject the argument that wind is of little value due to uncertainty, becasue EVERY form of generation has uncertainty. But you're right that wind can never be the single source of production due to the variances but it can be useful to augment other forms of power maybe as much as 20% or more. (some Scandinavia countries use it more than that)

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

But as you know spring and fall is when utilities schedule a lot of planned outages for repairs and upgrades. Nice to have that power during those times.

The thing about wind is, the wind doesn't stop blowing all over the country at the same time. You can use historical data to know the wind velocity in various parts of the country at each time period and then construct high/low wind flow expectancy graphs and use a statistical model to know what the minimum and maximum win velocities will be at any given time. If you do that you can arrive at statistical certainty of specific levels of power production with the same certainty as a coal-fired plan which encur unexpected outages at times.

So I reject the argument that wind is of little value due to uncertainty, becasue EVERY form of generation has uncertainty. But you're right that wind can never be the single source of production due to the variances but it can be useful to augment other forms of power maybe as much as 20% or more. (some Scandinavia countries use it more than that)

You are right to a degree, and that is what is happening to a certain degree. Wind is being developed in areas that have higher and more consistent wind. However, what you describe would require the wind to be transportable to any area of country to meet demand. That is an extremely expensive proposition. Transmission is at least $2 million per mile to construct, and that is on flat terrain. It goes way up from there. I have seen transmission average $8 million per mile in certain areas. Also wind cannot perform var support remotely. It's just not a very cost effective approach to providing capacity. In some cases regulators are forcing it to be done, but consumers are paying through the nose because of it.

 

[Deeeefense]

You are right to a degree, and that is what is happening to a certain degree. Wind is being developed in areas that have higher and more consistent wind. However, what you describe would require the wind to be transportable to any area of country to meet demand. That is an extremely expensive proposition. Transmission is at least $2 million per mile to construct, and that is on flat terrain. It goes way up from there. I have seen transmission average $8 million per mile in certain areas. Also wind cannot perform var support remotely. It's just not a very cost effective approach to providing capacity. In some cases regulators are forcing it to be done, but consumers are paying through the nose because of it.

I agree on your point about the cost of infrastructure to transport power, however I would like to see a cost comparison over say a 40 year life cycle on constructing transmission infrastructure for a given amount of wind power product vs. the cost of constructing and maintaining a new coal fire steam plant that would produce a comparable amount of electricity.

In short if you want to include the total cost of capitalizing new wind power systems you have to also look a the cost of capitalizing alternative systems.

 

[Levibooty]

Development has nothing to do with it. Electricity is used as its made, and load demand is what drives it.

When the demand increases the electricity must be present then, and quickly or the grid voltage and frequency sags which can lead to blackouts.

Wind powwr cannot meet that demand, you may have it today, but tomorrow it's not making any power.Gnerally the peak wind seasons are the Spring and Fall, thats when demand is at it's lowest due to mild temps.

Wind power has a place, but it's not going to replace the big baseloaded plants. The reason coal plants are closing now is due to Natural gas being cheap, not wind or solar.

You and I will have to disagree that development doesn't have a history of solutions to problems. Most peakers that aid the coal burners today are gas-fired. I'm not saying that wind power is the sole solution but then I think that is the gist of the ongoing development of the solution. It will have to be an integrated system of various generators that combined makes for a clean and efficient grid. It may entail changes in how we use power also and our societal activities as a whole. I would think a man of your knowledge would be aware of T Boone Pickens ongoing billion dollar bet that wind is the future and Gas is the bridge.

 

[Levibooty]

just checking, is this logical result of more carbon dioxide in the environment a "Climate Change Nightmare"? More plants, more trees growing on our planet, sucking up the excess carbon dioxide since that is plant food y'know, and producing more oxygen? Is that bad?

Have you checked out deforestation? Brazil is carving up the Amazon to raise cattle. If you research it a bit you will find the satellite photos.

 

[Levibooty]

Science has nothing to do with the point I was making. My point had to do with markets, regulation, and economics. Nice try though.

My own experience is when every decision is based on economics you wind up with an inferior product. The "market' has created trillions of tons of worthless trash, pet rocks, deforested rain forests, diseased whores, and all sorts of calamities that have a detrimental effect on the environment, mental and spiritual processes. I am not a follower of the Money is my God solutions and I'm not particularly religious. I believe "the market" has its place but is not the panacea Milton Friedman convinced Ron Reagan it was and has been responsible for many people rationalizing the abuse and destruction of our resources. In fact the market has more to do with human feelings than logic.

 

[JHB4UK]

Have you checked out deforestation? Brazil is carving up the Amazon to raise cattle. If you research it a bit you will find the satellite photos.

have you checked the links & the sat studies? the entire planet is greener now than in the recent past.

stuff your 'save the rainforests!!' garbage, that is so 1980's. I was a little kid in elementary school hearing horror stories about the amazon jungle getting cleared out by intentional forest fires to be used by Brazilian farmers. this is 2016, sumbitch should be gone by now - but it ain't.

 

[Levibooty]

have you checked the links & the sat studies? the entire planet is greener now than in the recent past.

stuff your 'save the rainforests!!' garbage, that is so 1980's. I was a little kid in elementary school hearing horror stories about the amazon jungle getting cleared out by intentional forest fires to be used by Brazilian farmers. this is 2016, sumbitch should be gone by now - but it ain't.

So you're saying that deforestation does not have long term effects.

 

[Bill Derington]

But as you know spring and fall is when utilities schedule a lot of planned outages for repairs and upgrades. Nice to have that power during those times.

The thing about wind is, the wind doesn't stop blowing all over the country at the same time. You can use historical data to know the wind velocity in various parts of the country at each time period and then construct high/low wind flow expectancy graphs and use a statistical model to know what the minimum and maximum win velocities will be at any given time. If you do that you can arrive at statistical certainty of specific levels of power production with the same certainty as a coal-fired plan which encur unexpected outages at times.

So I reject the argument that wind is of little value due to uncertainty, becasue EVERY form of generation has uncertainty. But you're right that wind can never be the single source of production due to the variances but it can be useful to augment other forms of power maybe as much as 20% or more. (some Scandinavia countries use it more than that)

I agree its useful, but to think it's going to replace coal, natural gas or Nukes is wishful thinking, power must be available on demand.

 

[Bill Derington]

You and I will have to disagree that development doesn't have a history of solutions to problems. Most peakers that aid the coal burners today are gas-fired. I'm not saying that wind power is the sole solution but then I think that is the gist of the ongoing development of the solution. It will have to be an integrated system of various generators that combined makes for a clean and efficient grid. It may entail changes in how we use power also and our societal activities as a whole. I would think a man of your knowledge would be aware of T Boone Pickens ongoing billion dollar bet that wind is the future and Gas is the bridge.

I work at a peak plant, thats not whats replacing coal. Combined Cycle is whats replacing coal, it's basically a peaker plant with a boiler on the exhaust.

Its hard to have a quick turnaround on coal and nukes, when they're on they have to stay on. Gas plants can be started today, shutdown later at night and started right back up tomorrow. They do this everyday, the combined cycle plants that is.

There's a lot more to the power grid than just throwing up some wind turbines and saying" hey we have green power."

 

[Cawood86_rivals]

Don't believe in this climate change nonsense. Don't believe Oswald acted alone.

 

[jtrue28]

Coal/Nat gas are still going to be the "backup" options though. There is no way around that. It's not sunny all the time, and it's not windy all the time. And when they're actually being used 75% of the time, I'm not quite clear on how that is considered "backup" source. Good to see that we're keeping this monthly thread up to date.

[eyeroll]

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

You and I will have to disagree that development doesn't have a history of solutions to problems. Most peakers that aid the coal burners today are gas-fired. I'm not saying that wind power is the sole solution but then I think that is the gist of the ongoing development of the solution. It will have to be an integrated system of various generators that combined makes for a clean and efficient grid. It may entail changes in how we use power also and our societal activities as a whole. I would think a man of your knowledge would be aware of T Boone Pickens ongoing billion dollar bet that wind is the future and Gas is the bridge.

Wind being used as peaking capacity is not the gist of what is going on at all. Wind and solar both have horrible capacity factors and do not function well at all as peaking capacity. Wind and solar both, as capacity options, must have another dispatchable generation source associated with it for when the system needs capacity and the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining.

T Boone Pickens got into wind because of the tax credits, not because of some belief that wind can replace carbon based generation in the long run.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

My own experience is when every decision is based on economics you wind up with an inferior product. The "market' has created trillions of tons of worthless trash, pet rocks, deforested rain forests, diseased whores, and all sorts of calamities that have a detrimental effect on the environment, mental and spiritual processes. I am not a follower of the Money is my God solutions and I'm not particularly religious. I believe "the market" has its place but is not the panacea Milton Friedman convinced Ron Reagan it was and has been responsible for many people rationalizing the abuse and destruction of our resources. In fact the market has more to do with human feelings than logic.

You have a very poor understanding of economics then. Free market economics is the reason we have high quality mass produced products that come with very reasonable prices. I also have some other news for you, it was the basis for our economic system long before Reagan was president.

 

[Levibooty]

I work at a peak plant, thats not whats replacing coal. Combined Cycle is whats replacing coal, it's basically a peaker plant with a boiler on the exhaust.

Its hard to have a quick turnaround on coal and nukes, when they're on they have to stay on. Gas plants can be started today, shutdown later at night and started right back up tomorrow. They do this everyday, the combined cycle plants that is.

There's a lot more to the power grid than just throwing up some wind turbines and saying" hey we have green power."

Come on Man give me some credit. I've worked on many coal burners from the Jacksonville powerhouse to refueling the Dresden Nuclear power plant near Joliet Ill. I'm aware of combined cycle, cyclone burners, fuel cells, fluidized lime bed combustion, bag houses, precips etc. etc. etc. I've replaced the bottles on the electrostatic precipitators and I've solder the control conductors to the control rods beneath the reactor vessel in full body suits with supplied air as well as connected the control wiring to the 750 KV transformers in the switchyard at Rockport IN, I've crawled all over the taurus ring during refuels. I've been around a generator or two as a skilled technician and supervision. I've had EE's come to me for my advice in my later years. While I'm no guru I was respected by the EE's I worked with and helped more than one out of a jam. People in the trade know this is not unheard of with grizzled old wiremen. I am retired now but I'm not completely addled yet.

 

[Levibooty]

Wind being used as peaking capacity is not the gist of what is going on at all. Wind and solar both have horrible capacity factors and do not function well at all as peaking capacity. Wind and solar both, as capacity options, must have another dispatchable generation source associated with it for when the system needs capacity and the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining.

T Boone Pickens got into wind because of the tax credits, not because of some belief that wind can replace carbon based generation in the long run.

You do not know what you are talking about here. I've heard his presentation even when he admitted he only had barely enough years left to live to see the transformation completely through. The tax incentives came along after the 2008 collapse endangered the project barely after it got off the ground.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

Science is not about feelings.

It's not about consensus either.

 

[Levibooty]

It's not about consensus either.

But there is a consensus among scientists.

 

[Bill Derington]

Come on Man give me some credit. I've worked on many coal burners from the Jacksonville powerhouse to refueling the Dresden Nuclear power plant near Joliet Ill. I'm aware of combined cycle, cyclone burners, fuel cells, fluidized lime bed combustion, bag houses, precips etc. etc. etc. I've replaced the bottles on the electrostatic precipitators and I've solder the control conductors to the control rods beneath the reactor vessel in full body suits with supplied air as well as connected the control wiring to the 750 KV transformers in the switchyard at Rockport IN, I've crawled all over the taurus ring during refuels. I've been around a generator or two as a skilled technician and supervision. I've had EE's come to me for my advice in my later years. While I'm no guru I was respected by the EE's I worked with and helped more than one out of a jam. People in the trade know this is not unheard of with grizzled old wiremen. I am retired now but I'm not completely addled yet.

I wasn't trying to rag on you Levi, sorry if it came across that way.

Glad to hear you're retired and still able to enjoy it.

 

[Levibooty]

I wasn't trying to rag on you Levi, sorry if it came across that way.

Glad to hear you're retired and still able to enjoy it.

We're cool I just didn't want you to think you were talking to a smart mouth dumbass. I try to be a respectful dumbass. LOL

 

[rodgerblue]

Man made climate change is a myth. An opiate for the masses. Very similar to organized religion.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

But there is a consensus among scientists.

Regarding what?

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

You do not know what you are talking about here. I've heard his presentation even when he admitted he only had barely enough years left to live to see the transformation completely through. The tax incentives came along after the 2008 collapse endangered the project barely after it got off the ground.

Don't believe everything someone tells you his true motives are. Unless he is completely ignorant, which I doubt considering the money he spent, he knows full well that wind will never completely replace fossil fuel capacity. Even if cheap storage technology becomes available, I doubt that wind by itself could come close to replacing the fossil fuel capacity in the united states. That's not to say that as technology improves, a combination or wind, solar, and perhaps other sources of generation couldn't do it. However, we are a long, long way from that.

 

[allabouttheUK]

If people would stop farting and force spontaneous combustion we wouldn't have this problem...selfish arseholes!

The planet could stand to cut a few million people anyway. Preferably the poor and hungry, they are such a drag to look at while sitting on my couch trying to enjoy TV.

 

[Levibooty]

Don't believe everything someone tells you his true motives are. Unless he is completely ignorant, which I doubt considering the money he spent, he knows full well that wind will never completely replace fossil fuel capacity. Even if cheap storage technology becomes available, I doubt that wind by itself could come close to replacing the fossil fuel capacity in the united states. That's not to say that as technology improves, a combination or wind, solar, and perhaps other sources of generation couldn't do it. However, we are a long, long way from that.

I don't believe he has ever said as much. His main focus was for the USA to be energy independent.

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

I don't believe he has ever said as much. His main focus was for the USA to be energy independent.

I am all for that myself as long as it can be accomplished economically.

 

[CatDaddy4daWin]

I really don't think we are disagreeing. I think it's semantics. There are two issues in play. First, in reality is there a problem? Second, does the general population perceive that there is a problem? There can be a problem, but people may not recognize it as such. There can also be situations where there is no problem in reality, but people perceive a problem where none exists. If we assume there is a real problem, then you are correct in that people aren't making the connection and acting accordingly. However, if one assumes no real problem, only a perceived problem, the failure of the collective to act is not a concern. I was suggesting that you are looking at the world from the perspective of assuming that there is a real problem which is driving your thinking on everything else. I am looking at it from the perspective that climate is a very complex system that we are not highly educated about. There may be a problem in reality, but there also may not be. Given my love of liberty, I question the idea that government should force us all down a path that will create hardship, especially on the poor and middle class, to solve a problem that many in our society are not convinced exists. This is especially true if other countries aren't acting in the same manner as we are. In a free society, I think until there is wide spread consensus among the population that there is a problem, it is better left to market forces than government action.

spoken like a true idiot. Yeah there's only a mountain of evidence that humans are in fact capable of affecting their planet. I know that's just so hard for many to fathom with their pea sized brains and Trump like thinking skills.

So happy you are worried about hardship for poor people. Thank god climate change won't affect those people. Yes, let's let those market forces that have created this mess worry about it. I'm sure they won't put profits over the planet if they know it is causing harm to the environment.

 

[Ukbrassowtipin]

My thoughts on climate change: is the world going to end on my lifetime because of it?...no...okay then I don't care. Other countries and emerging markets are just now hitting their own industrial revolutions....they care about their growth not the air...we all live under the same atmosphere.

One thing funny about the OP's original comment, and this isn't for or against climate change but how people act, especially those that fear climate change:

Global warming person: "We had the hottest day in history yesterday, see climate change is real"

Other person: "We had a record low and record snow fall yesterday"
Global warming person: "Disregard, that's not how it works, means nothing"

 

[Bill Derington]

What's a more pressing issue to poor people. Finding a job, being able to afford basic necessities NOW, or taking it in the *** to possibly prevent something from happening that may or may not happen in the future?

 

[cat_in_the_hat]

spoken like a true idiot. Yeah there's only a mountain of evidence that humans are in fact capable of affecting their planet. I know that's just so hard for many to fathom with their pea sized brains and Trump like thinking skills.

So happy you are worried about hardship for poor people. Thank god climate change won't affect those people. Yes, let's let those market forces that have created this mess worry about it. I'm sure they won't put profits over the planet if they know it is causing harm to the environment.

Typically the idiots are the people who resort to name calling in order to try and make point. Congratulations.

 

[crazyqx83_rivals88013]

My thoughts on climate change: is the world going to end on my lifetime because of it?...no...okay then I don't care. Other countries and emerging markets are just now hitting their own industrial revolutions....they care about their growth not the air...we all live under the same atmosphere.

One thing funny about the OP's original comment, and this isn't for or against climate change but how people act, especially those that fear climate change:

Global warming person: "We had the hottest day in history yesterday, see climate change is real"

Other person: "We had a record low and record snow fall yesterday"
Global warming person: "Disregard, that's not how it works, means nothing"

"Doesn't affect me. Don't care."

Cool.............................

 

[Tskware]

One thing funny about the OP's original comment, and this isn't for or against climate change but how people act, especially those that dismiss climate change:

Global warming skeptic: "We had a really cold January, see climate change is a hoax"

Other person: "We had a record amount of ice melt in Greenland and the polar caps are disintegrating"
Global warming skeptic: "Disregard, that's not how it works, El Nino shows that it means nothing, it really got hot over 50 million years ago in the Jurassic Period, and Al Gore just made it all up"

There, fixed it for you.

 

[slick rick.ksr]

As George Carlin once said -"maybe it's God's ultimate plan for the earth to be three feet deep in plastic and aluminum cans?"

 

[Deeeefense]

I always get T Boon Pickins confused with Slim Pickins, were they brothers?

 

[rodgerblue]

Man made climate change is an invention of government. It is the latest hypnotic bogey man.

 

[Levibooty]

I always get T Boon Pickins confused with Slim Pickins, were they brothers?

They do bear a resemblance to each other. LOL

 

[allabouttheUK]

Climate change, abortion, gender neutral bathrooms, safe spaces...what a weak sheep-like society we have.

Libs are such a self-righteous bunch of loons.