General energy news

[RGR]

"Do you accept that the laboratory and theoretical explanation of what is a greenhouse gas has nothing to do with climate change, and only provides some basis for the folks who model climate change...and fail?"

You hit the nail right on the head. This is what I've never seen. Here's your opportunity to educate me.

Post it.

While I certainly agree that you need an education, at the very least on the basics of geosciences, what do you want me to post?

Certainly the things that need answered to make the science on the topic "settled" I CAN'T find, which is the entire point of my beef about climate change modelers.

Here is the climate changing in a heavily studied area. I am looking for the model that uses first order principles to replicate it. If folks have already done this, I haven't seen it. In which case I am ignorant, and am the one needing the education.

 

[flacaltenn]

What PMZ doesnt under RGR is that physics tells us what the CO2 warming SHOULD be for a doubling of conc. From 250 to 500 ppm. THAT value of warming is about 1.2degC. But his theory AGW doesnt stop there. His brain does tho.

Because all the doomy 4 and 8 degC predictions are NOT SIMPLY DUE to man putting some CO2 into the atmos. ITs due to the AGW Magic Multipliers that say a small trigger event, like the CO2 rise from fossil fuel will cause the Earths climate to commit suicide.

Apparently the majority of rabid warmers dont understand that part their own AGW theory.. PMZ is the worst, because he will never even admit his theory says those things...

 

[PMZ]

"Do you accept that the laboratory and theoretical explanation of what is a greenhouse gas has nothing to do with climate change, and only provides some basis for the folks who model climate change...and fail?"

You hit the nail right on the head. This is what I've never seen. Here's your opportunity to educate me.

Post it.

While I certainly agree that you need an education, at the very least on the basics of geosciences, what do you want me to post?

Certainly the things that need answered to make the science on the topic "settled" I CAN'T find, which is the entire point of my beef about climate change modelers.

Here is the climate changing in a heavily studied area. I am looking for the model that uses first order principles to replicate it. If folks have already done this, I haven't seen it. In which case I am ignorant, and am the one needing the education.

It's done in eighth grade science by learning about bodies in space and the conservation of energy, the simple chemistry of the oxidation of hydrocarbons, the quantum mechanics of dipole molecules, and the properties of electromagnetic energy.

Ask any recently educated high schooler on a science track.

 

[RGR]

"Do you accept that the laboratory and theoretical explanation of what is a greenhouse gas has nothing to do with climate change, and only provides some basis for the folks who model climate change...and fail?"

You hit the nail right on the head. This is what I've never seen. Here's your opportunity to educate me.

Post it.

While I certainly agree that you need an education, at the very least on the basics of geosciences, what do you want me to post?

Certainly the things that need answered to make the science on the topic "settled" I CAN'T find, which is the entire point of my beef about climate change modelers.

Here is the climate changing in a heavily studied area. I am looking for the model that uses first order principles to replicate it. If folks have already done this, I haven't seen it. In which case I am ignorant, and am the one needing the education.

It's done in eighth grade science by learning about bodies in space and the conservation of energy, the simple chemistry of the oxidation of hydrocarbons, the quantum mechanics of dipole molecules, and the properties of electromagnetic energy.

Ask any recently educated high schooler on a science track.

Sure. That is why the climate modelers can't do it, because it is special knowledge only taught to high schoolers who then don't become climate modelers. Got it.

 

[Old Rocks]

That is Richard Alley's graph. So what does Dr. Alley have to say about CO2?

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" on Vimeo

 

[RGR]

That is Richard Alley's graph. So what does Dr. Alley have to say about CO2?

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" on Vimeo

Do you have any videos showing how Richard Alley demonstrates his model matching those temperatures, thereby establishing that someone, at the very least, accounts for the variability in the system? Or does he not participate in the "gee I don't understand why temperature hasn't increased recently either" games?

Or is he just a fan of a particular trace greenhouse gas, versus real heavy hitters like water vapor and methane?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Renewable Energy Is Now The Source Of 40 Percent Of Scotland’s Electricity

In 2012, Scotland got 40.3 percent of its electricity from renewable sources — up from 36.3 percent in 2011 and just 24.1 percent in 2010. The Scottish government plans to get half of its electricity from renewable energy by 2015 — a target it said it was on track to meet — and 100 percent of its electricity by 2020. Scotland’s renewable energy numbers are much higher than many other U.K. countries — renewables produced only 8.2 percent of England’s electricity in 2012, and in Wales, 8.7 percent of electricity comes from renewable sources.

“Renewable electricity in Scotland is going from strength to strength, confirming that 2012 was a record year for generation in Scotland and that 2013 looks set to be even better,” said Scotland’s energy minister Fergus Ewing.’

Lang Banks, Director of WWF Scotland, told the BBC that if Scotland is to meet its target of renewable energy generating 100 percent of electricity by 2020, the country will need to invest more in offshore wind.

Renewable Energy Is Now The Source Of 40 Percent Of Scotland's Electricity | ThinkProgress

 

[RGR]

Renewable Energy Is Now The Source Of 40 Percent Of Scotland’s Electricityl]

Scotland raising power prices in 2011.

BBC News - Scottish Power raises gas and electricity prices

Scotland raising power prices in 212.

Scottish Power raises gas and electricity prices | Money | theguardian.com

Scotland raising power prices in 2013.

BBC News - Scottish Power to raise prices by 8.6% from 6 December

So looks like Scotland has decided that energy poverty is the way to go for their people?

https://www.orcadian.co.uk/2013/10/...e-hike-will-see-more-slide-into-fuel-poverty/

So whatever happened to the idea of this kind of power being comparable to fossil fuel fired power? My electric and gas bills aren't going up 10% per year for years in a row? Matter of fact, mine have been pretty stable, and pretty inexpensive for about half a decade, corresponding roughly with the onslaught of cheap and abundant fracked shale natural gas? If renewables are designed to just make sure some big chunk of the population is dependent on government handouts to pay their electric bills, it sounds like a success! Go Scotland! While you are taking money out of your pocket and paying ever increasing electrical rates, Americans will be using abundant natural gas to drop CO2 emissions by substituting for coal, pass along the lower costs to American citizens in the form of cheaper home heating and electrical power, lure businesses and manufacturing back to the States to create jobs, grow the economy, etc etc.

Cheap Natural Gas Pumping New Life Into U.S. Factories : NPR

Someone tell me who sold renewables to Scotland on the basis of it being an improvement for those poor, unfortunate folks?

 

[flacaltenn]

Renewable Energy Is Now The Source Of 40 Percent Of Scotland’s Electricity

In 2012, Scotland got 40.3 percent of its electricity from renewable sources — up from 36.3 percent in 2011 and just 24.1 percent in 2010.

Renewable Energy Is Now The Source Of 40 Percent Of Scotland's Electricity | ThinkProgress

ThinkProgress eh?? Not very deep analysis.. The amount of money flowing out of govt coffers to subsidize this circus is causing the GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND to be an unreliable a source of information. Especially when the fluffheads at ThinkProgress are taking their word verbatim..

I TRIED to get a better handle on this "claim".. But Govt hasnt published a new statement listing the breakdown of this renewable record. First piece of evidence that the numbers are rigged is ...



National Average ScottishPower
coal 34.8% 59%
gas 27.7% 26%
nuclear 20.6% 1.3%
renewables 11.3% 12.9%
other 2% 1.2%

Something stinks.. Now ScottishPower serves the broader UK market. So maybe the
National Average is not just Scotland.

But even the Scotland gov figures are telling a story..

Energy - Electricity Generation

In 2012, Scotland generated a total of 49,498 GWh of electricity, a decrease of 3.4% on 2011. The main source of electricity generation in 2012 was nuclear power, accounting for 34% of the electricity generated. Output from nuclear power was particularly low in 2006 and 2007 due to unplanned condition related outages. Coal accounted for 25.0% of the total electricity generation in Scotland in 2012 - up from 21.1% in 2011.

Renewable sources accounted for 29.8% of electricity generated in 2012, an increase of 7.3% in the amount of electricity generated by renewables since 2011. The share of electricity generated from non-Hydro renewable sources (wind, wave, tidal, solar power and thermal renewables) has consistently increased every year from 0.6% in 2000 to 20.0% in 2012.

1) Why has COAL INCREASED DRAMATICALLY --- if "renewables" are on such a tear?
Because renewables CANNOT INCREASE peak generation capacity.. Simply cant.

2) Hydro was a 1/3 of the renewable miracle.. And it comes at continuing cost as Scotland dams every river and stream available to acheive it's goal. SIGNIFICANT amounts of environmentally disasterous hydro have been added since 2000. Doing damage to the CO2 sequestration of the land they sink under water and becoming a significant source of CO2 emissions for years after starting operation.

3) These clowns are counting "pumped hydro" as a GENERATOR. This is bookkeeping fraud because it double counts the energy required to PUMP the water and should be a NEGATIVE generator of electric power.

4) Another LARGE and Growing "renewable" in Scotland is the burning of garbage and calling it "green and clean".. They are burning animal waste, chicken droppings, and literally garbage and SOMEHOW --- that's cleaner than coal. Ask the folks of UK how they feel about being DUPED into believing that "biomass conversion" was a clean alternative.

All of this phoney accounting for renewables and the lack of mention of how much in subsidies it's costing would be bad enough.. ((RGR covered the price issue nicely)) But the very statistic of how much wind generates on a yearly average is a distraction for the ThinkProgress crowd -- who could never comprehend that you CANT close old fossil plants EVEN IF wind produces 25% of your annual power. Because there are days when wind generates NOTHING. And even more days where it's SOOOO SPORADIC that the coal plants HAVE TO OPERATE to back up wind --- even if the power gets dumped to ground. A cost that never entered the "thinking process" of dupes like ThinkProgress..

BBC News - Ofgem warns danger of power shortages has increased

The danger of power shortages in the UK by the middle of the decade has risen, according to industry regulator Ofgem. Spare electricity power production capacity could fall to 2% by 2015, increasing the risk of blackouts.

More investment in power generation and other action is needed to protect consumers, Ofgem said. "Ofgem's analysis indicates a faster than anticipated tightening of electricity margins toward the middle of this decade," it said in a report.

Andrew Wright, the regulator's chief executive, said: "Britain's energy industry is facing an unprecedented challenge to secure supplies."

The global financial crisis, tough emissions targets, the UK's increasing dependency on gas imports, and the closure of ageing power stations were all contributing to the heightened risk of shortages, Ofgem said.

Most american grids operate on MINIMUMS of 12% margins. If you're projecting 2% margins --- people are gonna die...

 

[flacaltenn]

There is no Environmental support for this push to "renewables".. The Govts will sink forests and meadows underwater for hydro, kill off raptors in wide denials of habitat with wind, and even MORE importantly --- kill human beings with pollution JUST AS BAD AS COAL with "biomass"..

Ask the TRUE enviros in Scotland how they feel about having MORE of their energy budget generated by burning dead animal guts and trees imported from Finland.. FIND ONE SCOT Enviro group that wants MORE of this madness so that the politicians can "reach their goals"....

Crunch time for big biomass in Scotland | Bright Green

With these proposed changes looking certain to be approved and support for big biomass already in existence, it’s no surprise that energy companies are rushing to get in on it. In Scotland, Forth Energy have three applications for 100MWe biomass power stations at Grangemouth, Dundee and Rosyth, and withdrew a hotly-contested application in Leith. The new ROCs would make Forth Energy eligible for some £220 million a year in subsidies, or a whopping £5.5 billion over the 25 year life span of the plants.

Unsurprisingly, this funding will be sucked out of the consumer and paid for by people’s energy bills, where most of the energy used is from non-renewable generation – which is most of Scotland. A move which, incidentally, coincides with rising fuel poverty and at a time when energy companies are making record profits and communities are spending record amounts of their meagre incomes on energy bills.

So what would these new power stations mean, other than increased energy bills for those who can least afford it? Firstly, biomass power stations are as polluting as coal power stations (emitting more of some pollutants and less of others). This means that they have many of the same negative impacts on air quality and community health. For places like Grangemouth where communities already live close to the UK’s second biggest coal power station and a petrochemical works/oil refinery, further increases in air pollution only make these impacts worse.

While the withdrawal of the Leith biomass application was a substantial victory, the fate of the remaining three applications is much less certain. The result of a Public Inquiry over the plant at Grangemouth is overdue and expected any time. Almost 1,000 people in Grangemouth signed a petition against the application and Grangemouth Community Council co-ordinated strong evidence being heard against it at the Public Inquiry.

x
x
x
x


These statistics quickly turn a supposedly clean and green alternative to fossil-fuels into a climate disaster.

Friends of the Earth Scotland are currently running an e-campaign, asking people to write to their MSP to get them to tell Fergus Ewing (Energy Minister) to put a stop to Forth Energy’s devastating biomass plans. You can find this here.

The ministry of Scotland have created an enviro monster.. And it's called "BIG RENEWABLES".. Dedicated to the proposition that we will RAPE the environment and bankrupt the citizenry and leave them cold and dark --- as long as we reach our goals..

 

[ScienceRocks]

Burn baby burn

 

[ScienceRocks]

As gas prices rise, U.S. utilities to burn more coal

Dec 12 (Reuters) - A recent rise in U.S. natural gas prices is set to further dent demand for gas as utilities are expected to use more coal to generate power, energy traders said on Thursday.

The relative price difference between NYMEX Central Appalachian coal and NYMEX Henry Hub gas has widened to more than $2 per million British thermal units for the first time since early July 2010, according to Reuters data.

Since the beginning of December, NYMEX gas has climbed almost 12 percent to $4.434 per mmBtu early Thursday, the highest since early May.

Traders said gas prices are climbing on forecasts for cold weather over the next week or two, which is expected to boost heating demand.

NYMEX Central Appalachian coal meanwhile has gained 5 percent since the start of December to $57.25 per ton, or $2.39 per mmBtu.

The traders said coal was the cheaper fuel even though gas plants are about 25 percent more efficient than coal plants, and despite an estimated $1 per mmBtu cost to transport coal by rail from the mine to the plant.

In 2012, the price of gas, which has historically been more expensive than coal, dropped to a more than 10-year low due primarily to record shale gas production.

Even though that record shale gas production is continuing, traders noted power companies have used more coal in 2013 than in 2012 because gas has been more expensive this year.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration in December forecast that coal used for power generation will rise to 39.3 percent in 2013 and 39.9 percent in 2014, from 37.4 percent in 2012.

With the forecast rise in gas prices, natural gas used for power generation is expected to decline to 27.5 percent in 2013 and 27.2 percent in 2014, from 30.3 percent in 2012, EIA said.

As gas prices rise, U.S. utilities to burn more coal | Reuters

Ouch for the fight to reduce carbon emissions...

 

[flacaltenn]

As gas prices rise, U.S. utilities to burn more coal

Dec 12 (Reuters) - A recent rise in U.S. natural gas prices is set to further dent demand for gas as utilities are expected to use more coal to generate power, energy traders said on Thursday.

The relative price difference between NYMEX Central Appalachian coal and NYMEX Henry Hub gas has widened to more than $2 per million British thermal units for the first time since early July 2010, according to Reuters data.

Since the beginning of December, NYMEX gas has climbed almost 12 percent to $4.434 per mmBtu early Thursday, the highest since early May.

Traders said gas prices are climbing on forecasts for cold weather over the next week or two, which is expected to boost heating demand.

NYMEX Central Appalachian coal meanwhile has gained 5 percent since the start of December to $57.25 per ton, or $2.39 per mmBtu.

The traders said coal was the cheaper fuel even though gas plants are about 25 percent more efficient than coal plants, and despite an estimated $1 per mmBtu cost to transport coal by rail from the mine to the plant.

In 2012, the price of gas, which has historically been more expensive than coal, dropped to a more than 10-year low due primarily to record shale gas production.

Even though that record shale gas production is continuing, traders noted power companies have used more coal in 2013 than in 2012 because gas has been more expensive this year.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration in December forecast that coal used for power generation will rise to 39.3 percent in 2013 and 39.9 percent in 2014, from 37.4 percent in 2012.

With the forecast rise in gas prices, natural gas used for power generation is expected to decline to 27.5 percent in 2013 and 27.2 percent in 2014, from 30.3 percent in 2012, EIA said.

As gas prices rise, U.S. utilities to burn more coal | Reuters

Ouch for the fight to reduce carbon emissions...

It's a temporary increase in price.. Largely due to delivery bottlenecks and seasonal demands. If you'd get the global warming to stop the snow and ice --- things would clear up.. OR if you weren't standing in the way of new pipeline construction..

 

[ScienceRocks]

UK power squeeze avoided as tougher coal rules rejected

(Reuters) - MPs rejected an amendment on Wednesday that would have forced tougher rules on old coal-fired power plants, sparing the energy market from an even tighter squeeze as ageing nuclear plants shut later this decade.

The amendment would have extended the so-called emissions performance standard (EPS) to cover old and inefficient coal plants, as well as new ones, unless they were fitted with costly carbon capture and storage technology.

It will now go back to the House of Lords to be discussed again and possibly reworked.

Supporters say the move would have delivered rapid and cheap carbon emissions reductions.

UK power squeeze avoided as tougher coal rules rejected | Reuters

 

[ScienceRocks]

New coal-fired generation to top 112 GW globally

In 2014, about 112 GW of new coal-fired generating capacity will begin operations with most of the investments happening in Asia, according to a report from the McIlvaine Co.

The report, “Fossil & Nuclear Power Generation: World Analysis & Forecast,” also says countries under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will build 500 MW of new coal-fired generation. In total, 112,099 MW of new capacity is expected to come online next year. East Asia has the most with 60,774 MW; followed by West Asia with 41,335. Africa will bring online 4,100 MW of coal, followed by Western Europe, South & Central America and Eastern Europe.

The report says almost all of the power plants, with the exception of a few in West Asia and the former Soviet Union will also add sulfur dioxide control equipment. All of the Chinese power plants will also have NOx controls, and European plants are being modified to co-fire with biomass.

New coal-fired generation to top 112 GW globally - Power Engineering

 

[ScienceRocks]

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Latest Update and Plans to Demonstrate Net Gain Nuclear Fusion in 2014 and a commercial reactor in 2018

Eric Lerner presented at the 2013 Fusion Energy Symposium.

What Has Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP) achieved so far ?

* Ion temperature—goal achieved—over 1.8 billion degrees, enough to ignite pB11
*  Confinement time—goal achieved 20 ns—more than 8 ns goal
*  Energy transfer to plasmoid—over 50% of goal
* Density—must increase by 10,000

Steps To Increase Density
*  50x-- Achieve theoretical density—tungsten electrodes to eliminate impurity
*  10x-- Increase current to 2.8 MA
* 20x-- Better compression with heavier pB11

A committee of researchers was led by Dr. Robert Hirsch, a former director of fusion research for the US Atomic Energy Commission and the Energy Research and Development Agency gave a positive assessment of LPP, their research and recommended funding. Other members of the committee were Dr. Stephen O. Dean, President of Fusion Power Associates and former director of fusion Magnetic Confinement Systems for the Department of Energy; Professor Gerald L. Kulcinski, Associate Dean for Research, College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison; and Professor Dennis Papadopoulos, Professor of Physics, University of Maryland. The committee was organized by Dr. Hirsch at the request of Mr. Alvin Samuels, an investor in LPP’s effort, to give an objective assessment of the program. Neither Mr. Samuels nor LPP had any control over the committee’s conclusions.

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Latest Update and Plans to Demonstrate Net Gain Nuclear Fusion in 2014 and a commercial reactor in 2018

 

[ScienceRocks]

Perovskite solar cells become even more promising with cheaper materials

(

Phys.org) —Due to their rapid improvements in a short amount of time, perovskite solar cells have become one of today's most promising up-and-coming photovoltaic technologies. Currently, the record efficiency for a perovskite solar cell is 15% and expected to improve further. Although the perovskite material itself is relatively inexpensive, the best devices commonly use an expensive organic hole-conducting polymer, called spiro-OMeTAD, which has a commercial price that is more than 10 times that of gold and platinum.

In a new study, Jeffrey A. Christians, Raymond C. M. Fung, and Prashant V. Kamat from the University of Notre Dame in Indiana have found that copper iodide, an inexpensive inorganic hole-conducting material, may serve as a possible alternative to spiro-OMeTAD. Although the efficiency of perovskite solar cells containing copper iodide measured in this study is not quite as high as those containing spiro-OMeTAD, the copper iodide devices exhibit some other advantages that, overall, suggest that they could lead to the development of inexpensive, high-efficiency perovskite solar cells.

Perovskite solar cells become even more promising with cheaper materials

 

[ScienceRocks]

More rooftop solar was added in California in 2013 than in the past 30 years combined!

From 1 gigawatt to 2 gigawatts in a single year
It took the residents of California about 30 years to reach 1,000MW of rooftop solar. And during 2013, that number doubled to just over 2,000MW. The previous record for rooftop solar was in 2012 with 500MW. Let that sink in: In a single year, as much rooftop solar was installed as during the previous 30 combined. If that's not a good sign for clean energy, I don't know what is.

While California is the leader for solar power in the US, other states are also doing well. Bloomberg recently reported: "About 200,000 U.S. homes and businesses added rooftop solar in the past two years alone – about 3 gigawatts of power and enough to replace four or five conventionally-sized coal plants."

More rooftop solar was added in California in 2013 than in the past 30 years combined! : TreeHugger

 

[ScienceRocks]

US New Solar PV Installations Reach Record 4.2 GW

NPD Solarbuzz have released their first news of the new year, unexpectedly looking back at the year just gone. According to the NPD analysts, the new solar photovoltaic (PV) installations in the United States throughout 2013 reached a record 4.2 GW.

This figure is a 15% growth on 2012 figures, and places the country as the leading solar market outside of the Asia-Pacific region.

The news comes courtesy of the company’s latest North America PV Markets Quarterly report, which not only looked back at the year in total, but is the first report to look back at last quarter of 2013.

Fourth quarter installations for 2013 also reached a new record, hitting 1.4 GW.

“Each year, the final quarter in the U.S. results in a new quarterly record for solar PV installed,” saidMichael Barker, senior analyst at NPD Solarbuzz. “The solar PV industry in the U.S. is, on average, now installing more than one gigawatt of solar PV each quarter.”



The news comes as no real surprise given the way things had been looking throughout much of 2013 for the US solar industry. Large-scale projects had dominated the scene all through the year, ending up accounting for over 80% of new solar capacity deployed for the yer.

Happily, the small-scale solar segment — comprising primarily of residential and small non-residential rooftop installations — accounted for approximately 700 MW in 2013, an increase of 10% compared to the previous year’s tally.

And, completely unsurprisingly, California lead the way for US states in terms of total installed solar PV, but saw hot contention from North Carolina which rocketed up 3 spots thanks to strong utility-scale activity. Texas jumped four spots overall to come in 5th, while New Mexico and New York were new entrants to the top ten, displacing Maryland and Colorado

US New Solar PV Installations Reach Record 4.2 GW | CleanTechnica

 

[RGR]

US New Solar PV Installations Reach Record 4.2 GW

Excellent! I want to fuel my EV this evening...say 6PM. Can ANY of those GW's do that? I only need a few kWh, surely out of all those GW there are some that can give me a little juice when I plug in my car? This evening?