http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/

Interesting critique of recent report commissioned by these people

https://www.nic.org.uk/

"The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) provides the government
with impartial, expert advice on major long-term infrastructure
challenges" (taken from .gov.uk)

"newshound" wrote in message
...
http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/


might help if it didn't just jump into jargon without explaining it

what's DSR?

what's RES?

what's CCS?

what's OCGT?

what's Recip?

tim

On 23/08/18 09:58, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
...
http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/


might help if it didn't just jump into jargon without explaining it

what's DSR?

Demand side response. Shutting of te telly when te wind aint blowing



what's RES?

Renewable Energy Sources

what's CCS?

Carcon Capture and Storage

what's OCGT?

Open Cycle Gas Turbine

what's Recip?

Reciprocating - i.e. normal diesel

tim





--
€œI know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.€�

ۥ Leo Tolstoy

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 23/08/18 09:58, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
...
http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/


might help if it didn't just jump into jargon without explaining it

what's DSR?

Demand side response. Shutting of te telly when te wind aint blowing



what's RES?

Renewable Energy Sources

Isn't that a bit circular

I.e. We can achieve our 100% renewable energy target by using 100% Renewable
Energy Sources

Well I never would have guessed

tim

On 23/08/2018 18:56, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 23/08/18 09:58, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
...
http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/


might help if it didn't just jump into jargon without explaining it

what's DSR?

Demand side response. Shutting of te telly when te wind aint blowing



what's RES?

Renewable Energy Sources

Isn't that a bit circular

I.e. We can achieve our 100% renewable energy target by using 100%
Renewable Energy Sources

Well I never would have guessed

tim



Plus, of course, a whole shed load of stored energy capacity to cover
intermittency.

On 23/08/2018 09:58, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
...
http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/


might help if it didn't just jump into jargon without explaining it

what's DSR?

what's RES?

what's CCS?

what's OCGT?

what's Recip?

tim



Fair point, Porter does rather write for "insiders". But it does confirm
that she has a deep understanding of and involvement with the detail, in
contrast to people like Aurora. Fortunately TNP has already stepped in!

On 22/08/2018 22:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:47:04 +0100, newshound
wrote:

http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/

Interesting critique of recent report commissioned by these people

https://www.nic.org.uk/

"The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) provides the government
with impartial, expert advice on major long-term infrastructure
challenges" (taken from .gov.uk)

Andrews' critique on the NIC report, on which the Watt-logic article
is based, is here https://tinyurl.com/ydysuy2x

Thanks, that is an even better link.

Depressing, isn't it.

Politicians, of course, will be delighted with the advice "Don't bother
to build more nukes". Talk about chosing the consultants who will give
you the results you want.

And JC is faffing on about taxing Facebook to subsidise the BBC.

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to show
that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that the
Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.


While on the subject of renewables, there's also this interesting MIT
review on use of batteries:

"The $2.5 trillion reason we cant rely on batteries to clean up the
grid" https://tinyurl.com/y7c9vtrw

newshound wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to show
that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that the
Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.

'They' seem to have decided to emphasise the hothouse earth model
recently, probably it sounds more urgent so something must be done?

On 23/08/18 09:59, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to
show that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that
the Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.

'They' seem to have decided to emphasise the hothouse earth model
recently, probably it sounds more urgent so something must be done?

Somehow it has become relatively obvious that a naked all out battle of
the bull****ters is under way - Climate change, Renewable energy,
Brexit, Donald Trump....there is a naked power struggle going on and the
myth that politicians and people in power, in the media and in authority
do not deliberately lie, but are merely 'just mistaken' has been blown
right out of the water.

We are being deliberately lied to, on a massive and unprecedented scale.

By some very very scary people.

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:59, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to
show that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that
the Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.

'They' seem to have decided to emphasise the hothouse earth model
recently, probably it sounds more urgent so something must be done?

Somehow it has become relatively obvious that a naked all out battle of
the bull****ters is under way - Climate change, Renewable energy,
Brexit, Donald Trump....there is a naked power struggle going on and the
myth that politicians and people in power, in the media and in authority
do not deliberately lie, but are merely 'just mistaken' has been blown
right out of the water.

We are being deliberately lied to, on a massive and unprecedented scale.

By some very very scary people.

or lizards

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 23/08/18 10:40, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:59, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to
show that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that
the Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.

'They' seem to have decided to emphasise the hothouse earth model
recently, probably it sounds more urgent so something must be done?

Somehow it has become relatively obvious that a naked all out battle of
the bull****ters is under way - Climate change, Renewable energy,
Brexit, Donald Trump....there is a naked power struggle going on and the
myth that politicians and people in power, in the media and in authority
do not deliberately lie, but are merely 'just mistaken' has been blown
right out of the water.

We are being deliberately lied to, on a massive and unprecedented scale.

By some very very scary people.

or lizards


Possibly. I couldn't say.


--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/08/18 09:59, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to
show that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential". I suspect that
the Juggernaut is unstoppable on the decadal timescale.

'They' seem to have decided to emphasise the hothouse earth model
recently, probably it sounds more urgent so something must be done?

Somehow it has become relatively obvious that a naked all out battle
of the bull****ters is under way - Climate change, Renewable energy,
Brexit, Donald Trump....there is a naked power struggle going on and
the myth that politicians and people in power, in the media and in
authority do not deliberately lie, but are merely 'just mistaken' has
been blown right out of the water.

We are being deliberately lied to, on a massive and unprecedented
scale.

By some very very scary people.

or lizards

So good the likes of Turnip comes clean and wants to go back to the law of
the jungle. Forgetting that he wouldn't survive five minutes.

--
*Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The Natural Philosopher used his keyboard to write :
We are being deliberately lied to, on a massive and unprecedented scale.

By some very very scary people.

+1 and another!

On 23/08/2018 09:50, newshound wrote:
On 22/08/2018 22:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:47:04 +0100, newshound
wrote:

http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/

Interesting critique of recent report commissioned by these people

https://www.nic.org.uk/

"The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) provides the government
with impartial, expert advice on major long-term infrastructure
challenges" (taken from .gov.uk)

Andrews' critique on the NIC report, on which the Watt-logic article
is based, is here https://tinyurl.com/ydysuy2x

Thanks, that is an even better link.

Depressing, isn't it.


Well, sort of. But why do they focus on storage? No mention that I can
see of capital (OK, not a major marginal cost) or maintenance costs?

I see it less as a damning indictment of renewables, more how
transformative radical storage solutions would be.

One of my rare sunny moments :-0


--
Cheers, Rob

On 24/08/18 15:04, RJH wrote:
On 23/08/2018 09:50, newshound wrote:
On 22/08/2018 22:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:47:04 +0100, newshound
wrote:

http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/

Interesting critique of recent report commissioned by these people

https://www.nic.org.uk/

"The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) provides the government
with impartial, expert advice on major long-term infrastructure
challenges" (taken from .gov.uk)

Andrews' critique on the NIC report, on which the Watt-logic article
is based, is here https://tinyurl.com/ydysuy2x

Thanks, that is an even better link.

Depressing, isn't it.


Well, sort of. But why do they focus on storage? No mention that I can
see of capital (OK, not a major marginal cost) or maintenance costs?

I see it less as a damning indictment of renewables, more how
transformative radical storage solutions would be.


Oh dear.

Of course 'radical storage solutions' would be transformative. Just
which ones would those be is of course the proiblem.

Its mor ****ing cat-belling crap from the Green Leftards

One of my rare sunny moments :-0

The best energy storage solution in the world, a million times better
than a lithium battery is sitting there right now, violently opposed by
the Greentards.


The best thing is , it doesnt even need windmills or solar panels to
charge it. It comes pre charged by a supernova!


And a compact plant that last longer than any windmill or solar panel is
all it takes to release its energy in usable form

Why has this ideal storage solution not been deployed? Because it would
put moiney in the hands if the wrong people? Poelp who do not own gaz
companies or oil wells, or windmills?




--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 25/08/2018 10:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/08/18 15:04, RJH wrote:
On 23/08/2018 09:50, newshound wrote:
On 22/08/2018 22:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:47:04 +0100, newshound
wrote:

http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/

Interesting critique of recent report commissioned by these people

https://www.nic.org.uk/

"The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) provides the government
with impartial, expert advice on major long-term infrastructure
challenges" (taken from .gov.uk)

Andrews' critique on the NIC report, on which the Watt-logic article
is based, is here https://tinyurl.com/ydysuy2x

Thanks, that is an even better link.

Depressing, isn't it.


Well, sort of. But why do they focus on storage? No mention that I can
see of capital (OK, not a major marginal cost) or maintenance costs?

I see it less as a damning indictment of renewables, more how
transformative radical storage solutions would be.


Oh dear.

Of course 'radical storage solutions' would be transformative. Just
which ones would those be is of course the proiblem.

Its mor ****ing cat-belling crap from the Green Leftards

One of my rare sunny moments :-0

The best energy storage solution in the world, a million times better
than a lithium battery is sitting there right now, violently opposed by
the Greentards.


The best thing is , it doesnt even need windmills or solar panels to
charge it. It comes pre charged by a supernova!


Personally, I don't rule it out - but have nothing approaching the
expertise to evaluate it properly. Even you would have to concede that
it's difficult to do right, and potentially, massively destructive.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 25/08/18 12:11, RJH wrote:
On 25/08/2018 10:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/08/18 15:04, RJH wrote:
On 23/08/2018 09:50, newshound wrote:
On 22/08/2018 22:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:47:04 +0100, newshound
wrote:

http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/

Interesting critique of recent report commissioned by these people

https://www.nic.org.uk/

"The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) provides the government
with impartial, expert advice on major long-term infrastructure
challenges" (taken from .gov.uk)

Andrews' critique on the NIC report, on which the Watt-logic article
is based, is here https://tinyurl.com/ydysuy2x

Thanks, that is an even better link.

Depressing, isn't it.


Well, sort of. But why do they focus on storage? No mention that I
can see of capital (OK, not a major marginal cost) or maintenance costs?

I see it less as a damning indictment of renewables, more how
transformative radical storage solutions would be.


Oh dear.

Of course 'radical storage solutions' would be transformative. Just
which ones would those be is of course the proiblem.

Its mor ****ing cat-belling crap from the Green Leftards

One of my rare sunny moments :-0

The best energy storage solution in the world, a million times better
than a lithium battery is sitting there right now, violently opposed
by the Greentards.


The best thing is , it doesnt even need windmills or solar panels to
charge it. It comes pre charged by a supernova!


Personally, I don't rule it out - but have nothing approaching the
expertise to evaluate it properly. Even you would have to concede that
it's difficult to do right, and potentially, massively destructive.


No, I wouldnt concede either of those things.

Its a piece of **** to make a reactor.

Its not even hard to make a safe one.

And as chernobyl shows, no its NOT potentially massively destructive

60 people dead in et worst oimaginable reactor meltdown?

Thats about as many people a year die in the wundmill industry.


--
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

On 24/08/2018 15:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 23/08/2018 09:50, newshound wrote:
On 22/08/2018 22:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:47:04 +0100, newshound
wrote:

http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/

Interesting critique of recent report commissioned by these people

https://www.nic.org.uk/

"The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) provides the government
with impartial, expert advice on major long-term infrastructure
challenges" (taken from .gov.uk)

Andrews' critique on the NIC report, on which the Watt-logic article
is based, is here https://tinyurl.com/ydysuy2x

Thanks, that is an even better link.

Depressing, isn't it.

Well, sort of. But why do they focus on storage? No mention that I can
see of capital (OK, not a major marginal cost) or maintenance costs?

I see it less as a damning indictment of renewables, more how
transformative radical storage solutions would be.

Such as what? How d'ye beat a tank of dizzle for energy storage?


But be beaten it must. Surely the most game changing, researched and
potentially lucrative next big thing outside medical science?

--
Cheers, Rob

On 24/08/18 18:01, RJH wrote:


But be beaten it must. Surely the most game changing, researched and
potentially lucrative next big thing outside medical science?


I do love a leftard!

Cat-bellers all.

"The solution to our problems is cheap radical compact energy storage"

Yes dear.

We know.

It would be.

If we had any.

Well of course we do.

Fossil fuel and uranium and thorium.

Which come pre charged. So no need for windmills and solar panels.

But rechargeable?

If we had a clue how to do it, we would have done it 100 years ago when
the basic principles of electrochemistry showed that it couldn't be done
at the scale required.

Electric cars predate IC cars. If a suitable battery had been available
we would never have had V8s.

Renewable energy is a giant con and so are grid scale batteries. just
invented to make it look like reneable energy might be usable.

As a qualified electrical engineer, I am horrified at how easily the
entire world has been utterly misled lied to and cheated out of cheap
power that could reduce poverty by a cabal of scary men who bought the
greens 20 years ago as a political marketing tool,

If they can do that with energy, what else have they done? Education?
How come this years crop of arseholes are so much brighter than last years?


Plebs go through the Public Indoctrination School System, whilst the
children of Diane Abbott attend private schools.


Thank you government, for removing freedom of choice over education.
Except for the super rich MPS kids.



--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx

On 25/08/2018 10:21, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 24/08/18 18:01, RJH wrote:


But be beaten it must. Surely the most game changing, researched and
potentially lucrative next big thing outside medical science?


I do love a leftard!


Is that the only pejorative you can manage?

Cat-bellers all.

No idea what that's supposed to mean.


"The solution to our problems is cheap radical compact energy storage"


That is not my view at all. It is necessary but not sufficient, and
problems in supply need to be met by problems in demand.

In fact, if we started with looking at consumption I'm not sure how much
of a supply problem would be left. The car is the classic case in point
- so many alternative-mode solutions out there that but all we seem to
focus on is more cars, but electric.


--
Cheers, Rob

On 24/08/2018 18:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 24/08/2018 15:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 23/08/2018 09:50, newshound wrote:
On 22/08/2018 22:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:47:04 +0100, newshound
wrote:

http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/

Interesting critique of recent report commissioned by these people

https://www.nic.org.uk/

"The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) provides the
government
with impartial, expert advice on major long-term infrastructure
challenges" (taken from .gov.uk)

Andrews' critique on the NIC report, on which the Watt-logic article
is based, is here https://tinyurl.com/ydysuy2x

Thanks, that is an even better link.

Depressing, isn't it.

Well, sort of. But why do they focus on storage? No mention that I
can see of capital (OK, not a major marginal cost) or maintenance
costs?

I see it less as a damning indictment of renewables, more how
transformative radical storage solutions would be.

Such as what? How d'ye beat a tank of dizzle for energy storage?

But be beaten it must.

Must it? How?

Surely the most game changing, researched and potentially lucrative
next big thing outside medical science?

That is undeniably the case but wishing it so won't make it so. There
are only so many elements in the periodic table, and the chemistry of
them all is pretty well understood. What we are talking about here are
*fundamental* limitations, not engineering ones like that the Wright
Brothers didn't know how to build a 747.

+1

One of the problems with the UK, post glaciation, is that we just don't
have enough big deep valleys that can be dammed off to make pumped
storage. (Quite apart from the excellent point made above about capital
cost).

On 24/08/2018 18:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 24/08/2018 15:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 23/08/2018 09:50, newshound wrote:
On 22/08/2018 22:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 21:47:04 +0100, newshound
wrote:

http://watt-logic.com/2018/08/22/myth-4/

Interesting critique of recent report commissioned by these people

https://www.nic.org.uk/

"The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) provides the
government
with impartial, expert advice on major long-term infrastructure
challenges" (taken from .gov.uk)

Andrews' critique on the NIC report, on which the Watt-logic article
is based, is here https://tinyurl.com/ydysuy2x

Thanks, that is an even better link.

Depressing, isn't it.

Well, sort of. But why do they focus on storage? No mention that I
can see of capital (OK, not a major marginal cost) or maintenance
costs?

I see it less as a damning indictment of renewables, more how
transformative radical storage solutions would be.

Such as what? How d'ye beat a tank of dizzle for energy storage?

But be beaten it must.

Must it? How?


I'll have to get back to you on that. It's here somewhere . . .

Surely the most game changing, researched and potentially lucrative
next big thing outside medical science?

That is undeniably the case but wishing it so won't make it so. There
are only so many elements in the periodic table, and the chemistry of
them all is pretty well understood. What we are talking about here are
*fundamental* limitations, not engineering ones like that the Wright
Brothers didn't know how to build a 747.


Ah OK, impossible to improve fundamentally, let alone solve? Is that
your view, or a simple fact?

And engineering ideas seem to crop up frequently. I've often thought per
household storage/insulation etc, combined with a degree of intelligence
around what consumes what and when, could work. Space heating would need
a parallel solution though.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 25/08/18 09:48, RJH wrote:
Ah OK, impossible to improve fundamentally, let alone solve? Is that
your view, or a simple fact?

That is a fact.


And engineering ideas seem to crop up frequently.

And are discarded even more frequently.

I've often thought per
household storage/insulation etc, combined with a degree of intelligence
around what consumes what and when, could work. Space heating would need
a parallel solution though.

Actually that is one area where we could actually do something
worthwhile cheaply and easily.


It tiurns out that a well inuslated pool of hot ware about e size of
half a house could when heated by off peak electricity via heat pumps
used for aircon in summer, hold enough warmth to heat a house all winter.

Keeping people warm using less energy is soluble. Storing heat is not so
much an issue.

Unfortunately no one makes any money out of this, so no one has adopted it.

And of copurse domestic heating is just one part of where energy goes.
Its teh part peolle notice,. because they pay it directly.

They dont realise that te cost of fresh food in the supermarkets is
energy to make fertiliser, energy to plough land and plant it and
harvest it, energy to process the raw foods into consumer suitable
products, energy to package them,. energy to transport them, energy to
keep them cool and dry....same goes for wattre - energy to pump, and
sewage, energy to pump and purify and return to the potable water circuit...

Or take houses. How much energy in the bricks or the processingf of
timber or slate and te cement and so on?



Or their work. How much energy is consumed transportuing peole to anbd
fromn their make believe public sector jobs, lighting their offices and
powering the computers that just say 'no'?

Rationally we would be better off of nearly all public sector workers
were sent home on the dole to nice insulated hosues made of plastic,
and paid to shut the **** up and watch Jeremy Kyle all day.

Which is probbably all their modern school curricula make them fit for.



--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

In article ,
RJH wrote:
And engineering ideas seem to crop up frequently. I've often thought per
household storage/insulation etc, combined with a degree of intelligence
around what consumes what and when, could work. Space heating would need
a parallel solution though.

Of course. Things like passive houses exist.

But a real man insists on burning things to keep the family warm. Never
been quite sure why.

--
*IS THERE ANOTHER WORD FOR SYNONYM?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Once the possible chemistries for batteries have been examined, there
are no others. Just as the amount of energy you can get from a solar
panel is limited by the amount that falls on it, and that's that. You
can approach that limit, but never exceed it.

Interesting the way your crystal ball works. Seems to be limited to what
exists now at one minute but excellent at predicting the next.

To me, it would be a very foolish man who thinks converting light to
electricity and storing that won't improve in years to come. But it
certainly won't improve without the demand and subsequent research.

--
*Windows will never cease *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25/08/2018 09:57, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 24/08/2018 18:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

On 24/08/2018 15:27, Tim Streater wrote:

Such as what? How d'ye beat a tank of dizzle for energy storage?

But be beaten it must.

Must it? How?

I'll have to get back to you on that. It's here somewhere . . .

Surely the most game changing, researched and potentially lucrative
next big thing outside medical science?

That is undeniably the case but wishing it so won't make it so. There
are only so many elements in the periodic table, and the chemistry of
them all is pretty well understood. What we are talking about here are
*fundamental* limitations, not engineering ones like that the Wright
Brothers didn't know how to build a 747.

Ah OK, impossible to improve fundamentally, let alone solve? Is that
your view, or a simple fact?

Once the possible chemistries for batteries have been examined, there
are no others. Just as the amount of energy you can get from a solar
panel is limited by the amount that falls on it, and that's that. You
can approach that limit, but never exceed it.


Well, I'm not an expert (by any chalk) so I'll defer to you there. If
we've reached the limits of natural science, we've reached the limits.
Which means we need to engineer a solution out of what we've got.

You might want to let all those poor researchers know about your
insights, though - save them a lot of time and wasted careers :-)

And engineering ideas seem to crop up frequently. I've often thought
per household storage/insulation etc, combined with a degree of
intelligence around what consumes what and when, could work. Space
heating would need a parallel solution though.

Now you're moving the goalposts. We're talking about batteries and
energy storage, not energy usage reduction (important though that is).


No - they're different things from your device - one's engineering -
doing what you can from the available toolbox. The other is working
towards developing new materials and tools (which you seem to be saying
has been exhausted).

I don't see why the problem (and it is a problem) can't be addressed
from two angles. In fact, it annoys me that as soon as new 'solutions'
arise there's an assumption that consumption almost should increase
because of it.

--
Cheers, Rob

On 24/08/18 18:41, Tim Streater wrote:
That is undeniably the case but wishing it so won't make it so. There
are only so many elements in the periodic table, and the chemistry of
them all is pretty well understood. What we are talking about here are
*fundamental* limitations, not engineering ones like that the Wright
Brothers didn't know how to build a 747.

Well what happened with aviation is that since da vinci, we had pretty
mucch everything needed to build and aeroplane of sorts, except a power
unit. Gliders were gliding in the 1800s.

All the wright brothers did was fit a motorbike engine to a glider. And
not a very good glider, at that.


What happened was petroleum, aluminium and eventually the jet engine. As
these new materials came onstream physical engienering explosred teh
theoretical limits of aviation.

Which took about 100 years really. Todays dreamliner is just a big
boeing 707 that uses a bit less fuel. It doesnt fly faster or higher or
anything at all really.



--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 24/08/18 18:41, Tim Streater wrote:
That is undeniably the case but wishing it so won't make it so. There
are only so many elements in the periodic table, and the chemistry of
them all is pretty well understood. What we are talking about here are
*fundamental* limitations, not engineering ones like that the Wright
Brothers didn't know how to build a 747.

Well what happened with aviation is that since da vinci, we had pretty
mucch everything needed to build and aeroplane of sorts, except a power
unit. Gliders were gliding in the 1800s.

All the wright brothers did was fit a motorbike engine to a glider. And
not a very good glider, at that.


What happened was petroleum, aluminium and eventually the jet engine. As
these new materials came onstream physical engienering explosred teh
theoretical limits of aviation.

Which took about 100 years really. Todays dreamliner is just a big boeing
707 that uses a bit less fuel.

A lot less fuel per pax in fact.

It doesnt fly faster or higher

Correct.

or
anything at all really.

Fraid so with fuel use per pax.

On 24/08/2018 17:20, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:24:26 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:50:01 +0100, newshound
wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to show
that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential".

There is already evidence of that, but of course the climatologists,
engineers and industries in the renewable businesses have so much to
lose in terms of reputations and revenues that it won't be
acknowledged until it becomes unavoidable.

A key factor in all the GW models is the climate sensitivity to CO2
increase, in particular the estimates of how much the temperature will
rise for a doubling of the CO2 concentration. Early estimates of this
factor varied from 1.5 to 4.5°C, and the IPCC have plumped for the
mean, 3.0°C, but the error on this key factor is large. Attempts to
measure it more accurately continue, and a number of recent estimates
suggest a figure of 1.5°C or lower, significantly lower than the 3.0°C
used by the IPCC*. At this low level, the effect of CO2 of climate
temperature will be small, almost negligible, and nothing to be
concerned about.

* https://tinyurl.com/y9rqtfu7 and references therein.
In particular https://tinyurl.com/y9bv48d3 and
http://www.iieta.org/sites/default/f...35.Sp01_03.pdf

Monckton has had his calculator out and reckons he's pulled the rug
out from under the IPCC's numbers, here https://tinyurl.com/yd7gzpn5
with a summary here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-conte...error-summ.pdf
and a follow-up here https://tinyurl.com/yauohgaw

Good luck with understanding them!

Thanks for the links. I've only scanned them quickly on screen, not sat
down with a printout and pencil to try to follow the detail.

But I don't immediately "get" the argument about how the sun has been
left out.

One of the things which has always bothered me about IPCC etc is the
suspicion that atmospheric dust and clouds are probably partly
anthropogenic, and partly affected by random geological events. And that
these are likely to get in the way of the GG sums. Also the fact that
there are very visible cycles in the climate data, not just the ice ages
but things like the Roman and Medieval warm periods, the dark ages and
little ice age. I havn't seen any modelling to explain these, but what's
very clear is that the warm periods were good for people, while the cold
ones were bad.

On 24/08/18 20:59, newshound wrote:
Also the fact that there are very visible cycles in the climate data,
not just the ice ages but things like the Roman and Medieval warm
periods, the dark ages and little ice age. I havn't seen any modelling
to explain these, but what's very clear is that the warm periods were
good for people, while the cold ones were bad.


They are not cycles. Not per se. Any (non linear) system of complex time
delayed *negative* feedback will show chatoic fluctuations.

'The year of the ladybird' 'Butterfly summer' Dutch elm disease. These
are classic examples.

http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed...ator-prey.html

Ther are HUGE lags in the earths geoclimatology equations. Continental
drift, ocean currents, movement of air - all these are massive lags and
the non linearity of the water cycle is massive as well.

How much energy is lost from cloudtops whose formation is driven by
convection, that are well above 90% of the CO2 in the atmosphere?

In short we dont need any other 'cause' for 'global warming' and 'global
cooling' than the sheer nature of feedbacks within the climate system
itself.


--
€œI know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.€�

ۥ Leo Tolstoy

On 24/08/2018 21:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:

On 24/08/2018 17:20, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:24:26 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:50:01 +0100, newshound
wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to
show
that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential".

There is already evidence of that, but of course the climatologists,
engineers and industries in the renewable businesses have so much to
lose in terms of reputations and revenues that it won't be
acknowledged until it becomes unavoidable.

A key factor in all the GW models is the climate sensitivity to CO2
increase, in particular the estimates of how much the temperature will
rise for a doubling of the CO2 concentration. Early estimates of this
factor varied from 1.5 to 4.5°C, and the IPCC have plumped for the
mean, 3.0°C, but the error on this key factor is large. Attempts to
measure it more accurately continue, and a number of recent estimates
suggest a figure of 1.5°C or lower, significantly lower than the 3.0°C
used by the IPCC*. At this low level, the effect of CO2 of climate
temperature will be small, almost negligible, and nothing to be
concerned about.

* https://tinyurl.com/y9rqtfu7 and references therein.
In particular https://tinyurl.com/y9bv48d3 and
http://www.iieta.org/sites/default/f...35.Sp01_03.pdf

Monckton has had his calculator out and reckons he's pulled the rug
out from under the IPCC's numbers, here https://tinyurl.com/yd7gzpn5
with a summary here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-conte...error-summ.pdf
and a follow-up here https://tinyurl.com/yauohgaw

Good luck with understanding them!

Thanks for the links. I've only scanned them quickly on screen, not
sat down with a printout and pencil to try to follow the detail.

But I don't immediately "get" the argument about how the sun has been
left out.

One of the things which has always bothered me about IPCC etc is the
suspicion that atmospheric dust and clouds are probably partly
anthropogenic, and partly affected by random geological events. And
that these are likely to get in the way of the GG sums. Also the fact
that there are very visible cycles in the climate data, not just the
ice ages but things like the Roman and Medieval warm periods, the dark
ages and little ice age. I havn't seen any modelling to explain these,
but what's very clear is that the warm periods were good for people,
while the cold ones were bad.

Aren't some of these the Milankovich cycles due to various
periodicities concerning the Earth in its orbit.

Yes that used to be argued as the basis of ice ages (although I think
that's not as well agreed as it once was) but they don't explain the
shorter cycles that I mentioned. Also I am very conscious of how, in the
early 1960's, my great aunts used to complain about how cold and wet the
summers were compared to 50 years before. I believe there was a lot of
clear water in the arctic ocean when they were young too. For those with
only a 50 year memory (and also satellite data which only goes back 50
years) it would be easy to believe they had "seen" anthropogenic climate
change when they had actually only experienced one half of a cycle.

Similarly another well known "since records began" argument misses the
point that "scientific" weather measurements started at the peak of the
little ice age. So a temperature rise is exactly what you would expect.

On 24/08/18 21:45, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:

On 24/08/2018 17:20, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:24:26 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:50:01 +0100, newshound
wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to
show
that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential".

There is already evidence of that, but of course the climatologists,
engineers and industries in the renewable businesses have so much to
lose in terms of reputations and revenues that it won't be
acknowledged until it becomes unavoidable.

A key factor in all the GW models is the climate sensitivity to CO2
increase, in particular the estimates of how much the temperature will
rise for a doubling of the CO2 concentration. Early estimates of this
factor varied from 1.5 to 4.5°C, and the IPCC have plumped for the
mean, 3.0°C, but the error on this key factor is large. Attempts to
measure it more accurately continue, and a number of recent estimates
suggest a figure of 1.5°C or lower, significantly lower than the 3.0°C
used by the IPCC*. At this low level, the effect of CO2 of climate
temperature will be small, almost negligible, and nothing to be
concerned about.

* https://tinyurl.com/y9rqtfu7 and references therein.
In particular https://tinyurl.com/y9bv48d3 and
http://www.iieta.org/sites/default/f...35.Sp01_03.pdf

Monckton has had his calculator out and reckons he's pulled the rug
out from under the IPCC's numbers, here https://tinyurl.com/yd7gzpn5
with a summary here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-conte...error-summ.pdf
and a follow-up here https://tinyurl.com/yauohgaw

Good luck with understanding them!

Thanks for the links. I've only scanned them quickly on screen, not
sat down with a printout and pencil to try to follow the detail.

But I don't immediately "get" the argument about how the sun has been
left out.

One of the things which has always bothered me about IPCC etc is the
suspicion that atmospheric dust and clouds are probably partly
anthropogenic, and partly affected by random geological events. And
that these are likely to get in the way of the GG sums. Also the fact
that there are very visible cycles in the climate data, not just the
ice ages but things like the Roman and Medieval warm periods, the dark
ages and little ice age. I havn't seen any modelling to explain these,
but what's very clear is that the warm periods were good for people,
while the cold ones were bad.

Aren't some of these the Milankovich cycles due to various
periodicities concerning the Earth in its orbit.

Allegedly yes, but they dont seem to account for all the effects that
are historically present.


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On 24/08/2018 23:10, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 20:59:44 +0100, newshound
wrote:

On 24/08/2018 17:20, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:24:26 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:50:01 +0100, newshound
wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to show
that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential".

There is already evidence of that, but of course the climatologists,
engineers and industries in the renewable businesses have so much to
lose in terms of reputations and revenues that it won't be
acknowledged until it becomes unavoidable.

A key factor in all the GW models is the climate sensitivity to CO2
increase, in particular the estimates of how much the temperature will
rise for a doubling of the CO2 concentration. Early estimates of this
factor varied from 1.5 to 4.5°C, and the IPCC have plumped for the
mean, 3.0°C, but the error on this key factor is large. Attempts to
measure it more accurately continue, and a number of recent estimates
suggest a figure of 1.5°C or lower, significantly lower than the 3.0°C
used by the IPCC*. At this low level, the effect of CO2 of climate
temperature will be small, almost negligible, and nothing to be
concerned about.

* https://tinyurl.com/y9rqtfu7 and references therein.
In particular https://tinyurl.com/y9bv48d3 and
http://www.iieta.org/sites/default/f...35.Sp01_03.pdf

Monckton has had his calculator out and reckons he's pulled the rug
out from under the IPCC's numbers, here https://tinyurl.com/yd7gzpn5
with a summary here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-conte...error-summ.pdf
and a follow-up here https://tinyurl.com/yauohgaw

Good luck with understanding them!

Thanks for the links. I've only scanned them quickly on screen, not sat
down with a printout and pencil to try to follow the detail.

But I don't immediately "get" the argument about how the sun has been
left out.

I didn't even try! I think you'd need to understand the IPCC's
modelling before you could see how the sun has been left out.

One of the things which has always bothered me about IPCC etc is the
suspicion that atmospheric dust and clouds are probably partly
anthropogenic, and partly affected by random geological events. And that
these are likely to get in the way of the GG sums. Also the fact that
there are very visible cycles in the climate data, not just the ice ages
but things like the Roman and Medieval warm periods, the dark ages and
little ice age. I havn't seen any modelling to explain these, but what's
very clear is that the warm periods were good for people, while the cold
ones were bad.

Nicola Scafetta is your man. If you can get yourself a copy of
'Climate Change, The Facts 2017' ed. Jennifer Marohasy, pub. Connor
Court Publishing Pty Ltd, 2017, Amazon at £25 (ouch!)
https://tinyurl.com/y7xa7een or a bit cheaper at £21.35 on the
Advanced Book Exchange https://tinyurl.com/ydc6tdt5

Scafetta has a chapter in there describing a high-resolution analysis
of the global temperatures going back to 0 AD, and including the
Roman, Medieval and modern warm periods. Oversimplifying, he relates
the peaks and troughs to solar cycles as influenced by the gas giants
Saturn and Jupiter as they orbit the Sun. They have 'years' of 29.5
and 11.9 earth years, respectively. As the orbit, there will be times
when they are aligned and times when they are in opposition, and these
periods cause the sun to wobble (rather like spring and neap tides as
the Moon and Sun pull on the sea). These wobbles produce 20 and 60
year cycles that can be seen in the high-resolution temperature
analysis. His graphs are a very much better fit to the actual
temperature record than are the IPCC's CO2-related equivalents.

There's also a suggestion that as the Solar System drifts through the
Milky Way, on it's way around the black hole in the centre, it passes
through regions of lower or higher cosmic ray density, and that these
bombard the Earth's atmosphere and influence cloud formation, thus
affecting the albedo. Apparently there are variations in the 14C and
7Be levels that correlate with global temperature variations.
Alternatively, cyclical variations in the Sun's magnetic field allows
more cosmic rays to reach the Earth's surface, with the same result.

It all makes my head hurt!



Thanks, very interesting. Added to my "things to look at" file.

Mildly amusing if it really does all turn out to be related to the
position of the planets!

On 24/08/18 17:20, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:24:26 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:50:01 +0100, newshound
wrote:

I wonder if there is any possibility that GW models might start to show
that decarbonisation is not quite so "essential".

There is already evidence of that, but of course the climatologists,
engineers and industries in the renewable businesses have so much to
lose in terms of reputations and revenues that it won't be
acknowledged until it becomes unavoidable.

A key factor in all the GW models is the climate sensitivity to CO2
increase, in particular the estimates of how much the temperature will
rise for a doubling of the CO2 concentration. Early estimates of this
factor varied from 1.5 to 4.5°C, and the IPCC have plumped for the
mean, 3.0°C, but the error on this key factor is large. Attempts to
measure it more accurately continue, and a number of recent estimates
suggest a figure of 1.5°C or lower, significantly lower than the 3.0°C
used by the IPCC*. At this low level, the effect of CO2 of climate
temperature will be small, almost negligible, and nothing to be
concerned about.

* https://tinyurl.com/y9rqtfu7 and references therein.
In particular https://tinyurl.com/y9bv48d3 and
http://www.iieta.org/sites/default/f...35.Sp01_03.pdf

Monckton has had his calculator out and reckons he's pulled the rug
out from under the IPCC's numbers, here https://tinyurl.com/yd7gzpn5
with a summary here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-conte...error-summ.pdf
and a follow-up here https://tinyurl.com/yauohgaw

Good luck with understanding them!

Its quite a clever thuing although very poorly expressed:

My understanding is as follows:

CAGW (catastrophic anthropgenic global warming) depends on two things.

1/. The propensity of CO2 to absorb and re-emit radiation: This by
itself would mean that only very slight warming is due to CO2. Perhaps
less than 1C per doubling of CO2 coinentration.


2/. And this is where 'settled science' us replave by smoke and mirrosr,
some sort of 'positive feedback' mechanism that would amplify
temperature changes made by CO2 to scary levels.

This latter issue is where all the real scientific argument is.

(a) As my Phd geologist BIL remarked 'if that sort of feedback existed,
teh climate would have been massively more unstable throughput gelogical
time'.

(b) The effects of that sort of feedback are completely absent from the
temperature records.

See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

(c) The 21st century Pause which shows (after tampering with raw data is
removed) no *significant* global warming in the 21st century despite
monotonically increasing CO2... show that the correlation implied by the
'CO2 alone + feedback' model of climate change assumed by the IPCC to be
completely correct, is in fact completely incorrect. No value of
feedback can fit both late 20th century warming and the 21st centiury Pause.

What Monckton et al have done is to calculate the value of feedback not
from climate *CHANGE** as such, but from the 'rest value' of the earth
given it's input radiation, heat of formation, age, and radioactive
decay heat, *and the existing CO2 pre industrialisation*.


This gives a figure for the feedback that is aproximately zero, or a
figure for climate sensitovty with respect to CO2 that is about what the
raw science says it should be without any positive feedback at all.

I.e. entirely un alarming. A mares nest. A storm in a teacup. Not worth
spending a bent hapenny on.




--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

On 25/08/2018 12:21, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 25 Aug 2018 11:04:02 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 24/08/18 17:20, Chris Hogg wrote:

Monckton has had his calculator out and reckons he's pulled the rug
out from under the IPCC's numbers, here https://tinyurl.com/yd7gzpn5
with a summary here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-conte...error-summ.pdf
and a follow-up here https://tinyurl.com/yauohgaw

Good luck with understanding them!

Its quite a clever thuing although very poorly expressed:

My understanding is as follows:

CAGW (catastrophic anthropgenic global warming) depends on two things.

1/. The propensity of CO2 to absorb and re-emit radiation: This by
itself would mean that only very slight warming is due to CO2. Perhaps
less than 1C per doubling of CO2 coinentration.


2/. And this is where 'settled science' us replave by smoke and mirrosr,
some sort of 'positive feedback' mechanism that would amplify
temperature changes made by CO2 to scary levels.

This latter issue is where all the real scientific argument is.

(a) As my Phd geologist BIL remarked 'if that sort of feedback existed,
teh climate would have been massively more unstable throughput gelogical
time'.

(b) The effects of that sort of feedback are completely absent from the
temperature records.

See
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

(c) The 21st century Pause which shows (after tampering with raw data is
removed) no *significant* global warming in the 21st century despite
monotonically increasing CO2... show that the correlation implied by the
'CO2 alone + feedback' model of climate change assumed by the IPCC to be
completely correct, is in fact completely incorrect. No value of
feedback can fit both late 20th century warming and the 21st centiury Pause.

What Monckton et al have done is to calculate the value of feedback not
from climate *CHANGE** as such, but from the 'rest value' of the earth
given it's input radiation, heat of formation, age, and radioactive
decay heat, *and the existing CO2 pre industrialisation*.


This gives a figure for the feedback that is aproximately zero, or a
figure for climate sensitovty with respect to CO2 that is about what the
raw science says it should be without any positive feedback at all.

I.e. entirely un alarming. A mares nest. A storm in a teacup. Not worth
spending a bent hapenny on.

Yup, all of that is my understanding also, apart from your brief
description of Monckton, which is better that I had before. Nice video
BTW; succinct. Blows away the whole AGW thing in a few minutes.
Marvellous!

+1 for the video, hadn't seen such a succinct argument before (and
apparently well supported by data).