Global Warming: Recent Data

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Wed May 02, 2018 9:30 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:29 am
The "climate change debate" falls naturally into three topics: climate science + climate change mitigation + climate politics and opinion
Kim, you got that dangerously wrong.
The 2nd element of the debate is climate change mitigation and adaption.. Not just mitigation.
The overwhelming consensus of informed opinion includes mitigation and adaption. The IPCC reports and numerous other sources make this clear. This is climate change 101 level stuff.
I hope you agree.

Failure to adapt (to prepare for warmer weather for instance) in some ways is more harmful than a failure to mitigate.

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Wed May 02, 2018 12:18 pm

"Portugal reaches 100% renewables ... "

My analysis says the headline is a lie or highly misleading. Based on the very limited data reported, it appears to be that in a good to exceptional month they can produce between 86% to 97% of the power needed. The article makes it clear that this was a very good month compared to last year. More importantly, the major challenge is not how much power you can generate on a good day. The challenge is the annual average power supplied on a average year. The annual numbers tells you how well the system works when, for instance, the wind isn't blowing. And that number is conspicuously missing from the news reports. "Fake news" anyone?

What, in terms of percentage of power used that was generated by renewables, did they actually achieve? It's becoming clear that is was not 100%.
A better number to pay attention to is the average of total power used in the last 12 months provided by renewables. A honest and well researched report would tell us that. And they don't.

Other news reports give different numbers:
The grid only ran on 100% renewables for relatively short periods: two 70 hour spans
-- https://qz.com/1245048/portugal-generat ... -in-march/
This does not mean that the country was consistently run on renewable energy during March — most countries do not rely so heavily on renewable energy that they presume they won’t need excess sources of electricity generation, or that renewable energy will generate consistently 100% of the time. Accordingly, thermal fossil fuel power plants and/or imports were required to complement the country’s electricity supply at times, but these periods were fully compensated by renewable energy generation in other times.

Specifically, therefore, Portugal’s supply of renewable energy accounted for a minimum daily share of 86% on March 7, and a maximum of 143% on March 11. Hydroelectricity and wind energy accounted for the lion’s share of renewable energy production, with 55% and 42% respectively.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/12/re ... ity-needs/
KEY REALITY POINT:
Unless you have electrical storage that is available and needs to be charged then generating over 100% of your current needs means little to nothing. (It can even burn out the system). A key challenge with wind and solar is that sometimes we get way more power than we can make use of and other times nothing. Electricity is the poster child for transitory phenomena.
Claiming credit for generating more power than is needed is a kind of con-game ... a way of creating "fake news". So to is focusing on max power periods when you can generate too much electricity.

Again, unless there is a way to store the energy, claiming that generating 110% of power used somehow "compensates" is a way to indulge in Moha (delusion, confusion), Raga (greed, sensual attachment), and Dvesha (aversion, ill will).
On some days California and Germany have to pay (yes pay!) nearby states to take their excess power. In California they pay Arizona to take the power which pays Arizona to disconnect their newable power sources. So it's not a net gain for the system -- it merely kicks the problem down the road.
---------------------------------------------------
Kim OHara wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:18 am
It looks like those who say the thing can't be done should just get out of the way of those doing it:
Portugal reaches 100% renewables, ends fossil fuel subsidies

Portugal’s renewable energy sources generated enough power to exceed total grid demand across the month of March, a new report has found, setting a standard that is expected to become the norm for the European nation.

In that time, power generated by Portugal’s hydroelectric dams accounted for 55 per cent of monthly consumption – boosted by drought-breaking rainfall of four times the monthly average – and wind power, 42 per cent.

The achievement comes nearly one year after hydro, wind, and solar power helped push the Iberian country to run on 100 per cent renewable electricity for 107 hours straight. Last March, however, the average renewables supply was 62 per cent.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Wed May 02, 2018 9:33 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Wed May 02, 2018 9:30 am
Kim OHara wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:29 am
The "climate change debate" falls naturally into three topics: climate science + climate change mitigation + climate politics and opinion
Kim, you got that dangerously wrong.
The 2nd element of the debate is climate change mitigation and adaption.. Not just mitigation.
The overwhelming consensus of informed opinion includes mitigation and adaption. The IPCC reports and numerous other sources make this clear. This is climate change 101 level stuff.
I hope you agree.

Failure to adapt (to prepare for warmer weather for instance) in some ways is more harmful than a failure to mitigate.

But readers should take note how poorly informed and/or reckless this statement by Kim Ohara is. At best it's a real dumb and "bonehead" error.
Mindful Buddhists take note.
Welcome back, Leeuwenhoek2, although I would say that with more enthusiasm if you hadn't begun by attacking me over a very trivial point in a month-old post.
As for the point itself, I said, "The "climate change debate" falls naturally into three topics: climate science + climate change mitigation + climate politics and opinion," and I'm still going to stand by it. It could have been expanded to, "The "climate change debate" falls naturally into three topics: climate science (data and modelling) + climate change mitigation and adaptation + climate politics, opinion and activism," but that wasn't necessary for my purposes at the time. We were talking about whether DW needed a third climate-related thread, weren't we? Hardly a world-shaking issue.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Fri May 04, 2018 12:12 am

I've been reflecting, that a across a diversity of fields, nearly everyone has an issue or issues where they tend to be "in denial" or have "inconvenient truths". For climate campaigners this sometimes shows up as a (sometimes exclusive) focus on climate mitigation at the expense of adaption.

So what is mitigation and adaption?
Because we are already committed to some level of climate change, responding to climate change involves a two-pronged approach:
  • Reducing emissions of and stabilizing the levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (“mitigation”);
  • Adapting to the climate change already in the pipeline (“adaptation”).
https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adap ... itigation/
Climate Mitigation and Adaptation
The terms “adaptation" and “mitigation" are two important terms that are fundamental in the climate change debate.

... For developing countries, good adaptation and good development policy are very strongly intertwined ...
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.co ... ation.html
So I beg to differ with Kim. Describing societal response to climate change as only involving mitigation is more than a trivial mistake.

It is not surprising that those who attribute climate change mostly to CO2 for instance will likely tend to emphasis mitigation.
Getting the right balance between mitigation and adaption is a matter of judgement. I think the NASA web page mostly gets it right. The trend over the last 200 years or so has been towards overall warming interspersed with periods of cooling or hiatus. Combining that trend with some degree of warming due to anthropocentric drivers (of which CO2 is one) we can reasonable expect some level of climate change/warming. Responding to climate change involves a two-pronged approach: mitigation and adaption.

---------------------------------

FYI: Having separate threads for climate mitigation and adaption makes sense to me. Combining them together is OK too ... either way ... but proposing a thread for mitigation without one for adaption really is a mistake.

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

"The Hockey Stick" ... 20 Years Later

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sat May 05, 2018 9:53 am

A pretty good report of the so-called "Hockey Stick" Graph

It was 20 years ago, climate scientist Michael Mann published his famous “hockey stick” graph that he says “galvanized climate action” by showing unprecedented global warming.
A later version of the graph was featured prominently by the IPCC in it's 3rd assessment report and press conferences. The IPCC report and the heavy "marketing" of the hockey stick by the IPCC and member governments seemed to galvanized scientists to take another look at the IPCC and it's standards and procedures for creating their climate assessments reports. The latest report, AR5, is much better for it IMO.

The hockey stick was challenged on several grounds including the complicated and relatively untried method of statistical analysis it replied on. A number of climate models and data analysis are based on, and depend heavily on, statistical analysis. Because of the heavy use of statistics in such research often persons with a mathematical or statistical bent are far more qualified than the climate scientists when it comes to reviewing major portions of the studies. Thus often economists and others with a interest in applied statistics outclass climate scientists when it comes to analyzing data.

There really are a lot of ways that smart, otherwise well educated people fool themselves with statistics.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2 ... paper.html
Two Canadian researchers who found serious flaws in the “hockey stick” study’s data and methodology disputed Mann’s characterization of the graph’s legacy.

“For everyone else, the debate was about data and statistical methods,” Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph in Canada.

“For Mann, judging by his rant, it was all a giant political conspiracy against him and his heroic crusade to save the planet. He still won’t acknowledge the errors in his work,” said McKitrick who co-authored a 2003 study with mining executive Steven McIntyre that challenged Mann’s work.
The Canadians’ 2003 study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th century that exceeds the warmth of the 20th century.
[I'd tone down that last sentence. I think it was shown that it is very plausible, perhaps more plausible, to reach a conclusion the opposite of Mann's -- that part of the 15th century was warmer than the 20th century. ]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/30/ ... n-dispute/

---------------------------------
A note about this wattsupwiththat.com
1) The article reflects my understanding of the hockey stick story which I followed with much interest.
2) This is the first time I've quoted from wattsupwiththat.com. It's a blog with multiple contributors and the quality varies widely. This post is one of the good ones IMO.
3) I note that persons in this forum and other prominent activists in Buddhist circles recommend thinkprogress.org. Thinkprogress.org contains a lot of partisan, sometimes sharply worded opinion -- opinion that is not surprising given it's political roots. Those who think it's OK to quote from thinkprogress.org have little ethical or principled ground to complain with an occasional piece from a blog on the "other side".
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/20/ ... wikileaks/
4) The writer, Anthony Watts, has made fundamental and objective scientific contributions to our understanding of climate.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Leeuwenhoek2's ideas about "The Hockey Stick" ... 20 Years Later

Post by Kim OHara » Sat May 05, 2018 11:39 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 9:53 am
A pretty good report of the so-called "Hockey Stick" Graph
I hardly know where to start with that post. I think I should start by asking what the "pretty good report" is.
Is it the beginning of your post? If so, did you write it? If not, can you tell us who did, and link to it?

BTW, can you stop changing the thread title as you go? It's confusing and can be irritating, can't it?

:coffee:

Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

"The Hockey Stick" ... 20 Years Later

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sat May 05, 2018 12:23 pm

Kim OHara wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 11:39 am

I hardly know where to start with that post. I think I should start by asking what the "pretty good report" is.
The link to the report (a blog post actually) is:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/30/ ... n-dispute/
(The link is there in the original post but it did seem to get lost in the text. But if you had clicked on the links you would have found it.)
20 Years Later, The ‘Hockey Stick’ Graph Behind Waves Of Climate Alarmism Is Still In Dispute
Yes, the blog post has a definite slant to it. But the more factual stuff is accurate to my memory of the unfolding events.

FYI: I usually avoid words like "alarmism" even though it can be usefully defined with a bit of effort.
Kim OHara wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 11:39 am
Is it the beginning of your post? If so, did you write it? If not, can you tell us who did, and link to it?
Now I'm confused by what you are asking.
The segments in the quote boxes are quoted from the cited blog post.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: "The Hockey Stick" ... 20 Years Later

Post by Kim OHara » Sat May 05, 2018 10:28 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 12:23 pm
Kim OHara wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 11:39 am

I hardly know where to start with that post. I think I should start by asking what the "pretty good report" is.
The link to the report (a blog post actually) is:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/30/ ... n-dispute/
(The link is there in the original post but it did seem to get lost in the text. But if you had clicked on the links you would have found it.)
20 Years Later, The ‘Hockey Stick’ Graph Behind Waves Of Climate Alarmism Is Still In Dispute
Yes, the blog post has a definite slant to it. But the more factual stuff is accurate to my memory of the unfolding events.

FYI: I usually avoid words like "alarmism" even though it can be usefully defined with a bit of effort.
Kim OHara wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 11:39 am
Is it the beginning of your post? If so, did you write it? If not, can you tell us who did, and link to it?
Now I'm confused by what you are asking.
The segments in the quote boxes are quoted from the cited blog post.
Okay - clear now.
I will come back to comment on it when I've got time.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: "The Hockey Stick" ... 20 Years Later

Post by Kim OHara » Sun May 06, 2018 3:44 am

Okay ... here I am with a proper response. Hold on for a bumpy ride, L2.
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 9:53 am
A pretty good report of the so-called "Hockey Stick" Graph
You clarified that you are referring to this, so I will put it in its proper place:
Two Canadian researchers who found serious flaws in the “hockey stick” study’s data and methodology disputed Mann’s characterization of the graph’s legacy.

“For everyone else, the debate was about data and statistical methods,” Ross McKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph in Canada.

“For Mann, judging by his rant, it was all a giant political conspiracy against him and his heroic crusade to save the planet. He still won’t acknowledge the errors in his work,” said McKitrick who co-authored a 2003 study with mining executive Steven McIntyre that challenged Mann’s work.
The Canadians’ 2003 study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th century that exceeds the warmth of the 20th century.
[I'd tone down that last sentence. I think it was shown that it is very plausible, perhaps more plausible, to reach a conclusion the opposite of Mann's -- that part of the 15th century was warmer than the 20th century. ]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/30/ ... n-dispute/
It is indeed a "pretty good report" if - but only if - you're looking for a report which casts as much doubt as possible on climate science without actually lying. In fact, almost the only outright lie in it is the title, "20 Years Later, The ‘Hockey Stick’ Graph Behind Waves Of Climate Alarmism Is Still In Dispute."
The original Hockey Stick paper was never seriously disputed by anyone with good climate science credentials. It was good science to begin with - it pretty well had to be, to be accepted for Nature - and Mann and others quickly extended it to make it even better. By now, the general shape of the hockey stick is unchanged although its 'handle' (the earliest part of the graph) is far longer.
Mann's own account of the paper's reception is far more honest than Watts' account which you (L2) commend. It's here - https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... r-message/ - and begins:
Mann wrote:Two decades ago this week a pair of colleagues and I published the original “hockey stick” graph in Nature, which happened to coincide with the Earth Day 1998 observances. The graph showed Earth’s temperature, relatively stable for 500 years, had spiked upward during the 20th century. A year later we would extend the graph back in time to A.D. 1000, demonstrating this rise was unprecedented over at least the past millennium—as far back as we could go with the data we had.

:reading: It's worth reading in full.
L2 wrote:It was 20 years ago, climate scientist Michael Mann published his famous “hockey stick” graph that he says “galvanized climate action” by showing unprecedented global warming.
A later version of the graph was featured prominently by the IPCC in it's 3rd assessment report and press conferences. The IPCC report and the heavy "marketing" of the hockey stick by the IPCC and member governments seemed to galvanized scientists to take another look at the IPCC and it's standards and procedures for creating their climate assessments reports. The latest report, AR5, is much better for it IMO.
As Gavin Schmidt said on Real Climate - here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... tructions/ - "What makes science different from politics? ... the difference is that with time scientists can actually make progress on problems."
That particular blog post takes the story forward to 2008 ...
Schmidt wrote:What makes science different from politics?

That’s not the start of a joke, but it is a good jumping off point for a discussion of the latest publication on paleo-reconstructions of the last couple of millennia. As has been relatively widely reported, Mike Mann and colleagues (including Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes) have a new paper out in PNAS with an update of their previous work. And this is where the question posed above comes in: the difference is that with time scientists can actually make progress on problems, they don’t just get stuck in an endless back and forth of the same talking points.
We discussed what would be required in an update of these millennial reconstructions a few months back and the main principles remain true now. You need proxies that are a) well-dated, b) have some fidelity to a climate variable of interest, c) have been calibrated to those variable(s), d) that are then composited together somehow, and e) that the composite has been validated against the instrumental record.
The number of well-dated proxies used in the latest paper is significantly greater than what was available a decade ago: 1209 back to 1800; 460 back to 1600; 59 back to 1000 AD; 36 back to 500 AD and 19 back to 1 BC (all data and code is available here). This is compared with 400 or so in MBH99, of which only 14 went back to 1000 AD. The increase in data availability is a pretty remarkable testament to the increased attention that the paleo-community has started to pay to the recent past – in part, no doubt, because of the higher profile this kind of reconstruction has achieved.
It's a decade old now, but progress on the issue since then has only extended and refined the original findings, as indeed progress in the first year did. In fact, Schmidt concludes near the end of his blog post:
Secondly, in comparison with previous reconstructions, the current analysis does not provide many surprises. Medieval times are warmer than the Little Ice Age as before, and a little warmer using the EIV method than was the case in MBH99. The differences in the 11th Century are on the order of a couple of tenths of a degree – well within the published error bars in IPCC TAR though. Interestingly, there are quite rapid and strong drops in temperature near 1100 AD and around 1350 AD which may make interesting case studies for attribution to solar or volcanic forcings in future. Overall, there are a few more wiggles than before, but basically nothing much has changed.
L2 wrote: The hockey stick was challenged on several grounds including the complicated and relatively untried method of statistical analysis it replied on.
A number of climate models and data analysis are based on, and depend heavily on, statistical analysis. Because of the heavy use of statistics in such research often persons with a mathematical or statistical bent are far more qualified than the climate scientists when it comes to reviewing major portions of the studies. Thus often economists and others with a interest in applied statistics outclass climate scientists when it comes to analyzing data.

There really are a lot of ways that smart, otherwise well educated people fool themselves with statistics.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2 ... paper.html
This is true enough but it fails on two separate counts in relation to the hockey stick.
(1) People who didn't like the result went to enormous amounts of effort to discredit the methodology of the hockey stick and found only a few little picky points, none of which changed the results significantly. Schmidt outlined the pros and cons here - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ntroversy/ - in 2005, deliberately "in language even our parents might understand." :reading:
(2) If you're sick, you are more likely to get accurate advice from a doctor with a shaky knowledge of biochemistry than from a biochemist. :thinking:

L2 wrote:
---------------------------------
A note about this wattsupwiththat.com
1) The article reflects my understanding of the hockey stick story which I followed with much interest.

You have ben seriously misled, as I hope I have shown.
L2 wrote:
2) This is the first time I've quoted from wattsupwiththat.com. It's a blog with multiple contributors and the quality varies widely. This post is one of the good ones IMO.

"Good" in the very limited sense I defined above. The quality normally varies between poor and appalling.
L2 wrote:
3) I note that persons in this forum and other prominent activists in Buddhist circles recommend thinkprogress.org. Thinkprogress.org contains a lot of partisan, sometimes sharply worded opinion -- opinion that is not surprising given it's political roots. Those who think it's OK to quote from thinkprogress.org have little ethical or principled ground to complain with an occasional piece from a blog on the "other side".
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/20/ ... wikileaks/

I will not complain (much) if anyone here posts material from :spy: the other side :spy: but neither will I hold back from criticism of it - as you may have noticed.
Also, I would like to say that Think Progress reports others' facts reasonably honestly, while WUWT has no respect for integrity whatsoever. (I was going to say "journalistic integrity" but decided the adjective was unnecessary.)
L2 wrote:
4) The writer, Anthony Watts, has made fundamental and objective scientific contributions to our understanding of climate.
:rofl:
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]
https://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts
Anthony Watts studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology at Purdue University, but according to correspondence between Purdue University and SourceWatch, he did not graduate. [1], [2]
... and if you don't like my references, search for your own. Please, for your own good, don't search only in the denialist community. It's an echo chamber, and it's as toxic as the anti-vaxxers, birthers, etc.

:thinking:
That will do for now, I think.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Talk by head of Austrialia's gas and electricity system operator

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun May 06, 2018 6:15 pm


Talk by the head of AEMO, the independent gas and electricity system and market operator in Australia, an organisation that has, primarily, the responsibility of managing and maintaining energy system security for all Australians.

My notes on some of the more interesting parts.
At times the talk reminded me of listening to a combination of a banking expert and technology expert. Experts tend to take shortcuts in their explanations which assume that the listener can fill in what the expert doesn't explicitly say.. Translating this tech talk into complete descriptions in plain language is one reason why I write these blog posts.

A term of art is "energy security" -- I would call it energy reliability especially during times of high demand.

The rapid increase in solar which causes disrupting in the system the grid, adding variability, making management more complicated.

6:50 Rooftop solar
Can lose the equivalent of a large power plant instantaneously because of cloud cover over a city

7:40 Coal plants shut down and go cold because they are not needed during the day because of solar. But coal plants take time to start back up.
"We can't afford to have that load dip that much" = under good conditions, especially mid-day rooftop solar provides a lot of power. To the conventional generators that looks like "load" (demand for power) has dipped. So what I mean about confusing tech talk??

Sometimes large power demands come in the evening after the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing -- especially on hot days when it's still hot and humid in the evening.

9:00 Storage -- electricity has to be produced and consumed at the same time and it's hard to store.

10:00 What if a lot of people drive their electric cars into a major city and they want to recharge before they leave? You have a large spike in electricity demand that you don't know when it hit.

13:00 Investors are discouraged upgrading or replacing existing generation in a market where they are in competition for solar during times of peak demand. That means that instead of making money to pay back the cost of upgrading the coal plants during peak hours the plants are underused or idle. Under those conditions it's difficult to justify upgrading or replacing coal plants. But this means that the coal plants will no longer be there to provide "backup power" on the the days when it's overcast and solar generation is low.
(Investors and the fossil fuel generators are OK during 'brownout conditions'. They are not being paid to provide "backup power". IMO given the politics and how public utilities are often financed the same problem would probably still happen with a publicly owned power plant.)

18:20 Planning for all time peak demands-- because of hot, humid weather new records have been set several times. Fortunately in a region that had sufficient generation reserves. If this happened in another region we would be in trouble.
There is a Need to plan for peak demand.

21:25 Paying for value -- so much of the system is variable, we can't really predict what will happen like sudden shifts in wind direction.
22:20 Paying enough to make a supplier turn on extra generation -- because the market is currently structured in a way that that doesn't always value flexibility and dispatchability.

Demand and supply must balance all the time
- "price signals" (read price) must be enough to encourage gasoline/diesel generators to start up when they are needed. (Gas motors can start quickly but the price of fuel is relatively high.)
Today turning on a "fill-in" or backup generator tends to lower the price paid in the next spot market segment under the rules of the managed market. This discourages the operators from starting up their generators in the first place -- rather they wait for a special intervention of the AEMO market operator.

[Note: My free market friends say that a open, less regulated market could handle this challenge. In a free market users who wanted more reliable power would enter into long term contracts to make it viable for generators to provide it. That could mean that one business got power while the one next door would either be shut off or shut themselves down unless they were willing to pay high price. With today's smart grids and smart meters that can be done. The system would be more like connecting to a cable TV or telephone network where you pay for specific services which you have to order ahead of time. (Planning for demand and having customers put in requests for service early can be a big deal for some internet providers.)
There is a lot of talk about demand management. Free market types say that smart demand management is what free markets are all about.]

28:20 Austrailia is an isolated Island with a high rate of change


Question and Answer


33:30 In the US is so cheap that coal and nuclear aren't competative but if we retired all the coal but the demands on gas will be huge. WHat will happen if there is a gas shortage? This has happened in New England during
(Until we reach a point where the US can't get enough gas from fracking


Such people still get to use the public grid whenever they want but most of the time someone else is paying most of the cost of keeping it available on demand and running. So when there is a problem on the micro grid or there is peak usage they can just buy power for a short time as backup.

36:20 I am truely concerned about the issue of economic bypass. THe fact that people can leave the system, and are leaving the system, because they are finding it affordable is a good thing for an individual but horrible for the rest of us because it's a single system. [Leaving the system I belief means micro grids/private grids; or making special deals with nearby generators where they don't have to connect to the main grid] That means there is less and less of the consuming base and what happens is that you have a huge group of haves and have nots. That becomes a recipe for government intervention.

[Everyone gets to use the public grid whenever they want but people who "leave the system" still get to use the public grid even though most of the time someone else is paying most of the cost of keeping it available on demand and running. This suggests a kind of "free rider" problem on a grid that is a monopoly.]

39:00 Will we ever have nuclear power in Australia?
The nuclear industry in the US has thrown in the white flag -- too difficult, too expensive, too much policy uncertainty (meaning uncertainty about changing government regulations).
Plants in the UK and China are being build with support of government policy.
Australia is a small market -- maybe modular nuclear plants would be feasible

42:30 We can go for 2 weeks without wind

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4406
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Talk by head of Austrialia's gas and electricity system operator

Post by SDC » Sun May 06, 2018 7:14 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 6:15 pm
The rapid increase in solar which causes disrupting in the system the grid, adding variability, making management more complicated.

6:50 Rooftop solar
Can lose the equivalent of a large power plant instantaneously because of cloud cover over a city

7:40 Coal plants shut down and go cold because they are not needed during the day because of solar. But coal plants take time to start back up.
"We can't afford to have that load dip that much" = under good conditions, especially mid-day rooftop solar provides a lot of power. To the conventional generators that looks like "load" (demand for power) has dipped.
There is no reason they have to shut down generation completely. I'm quite skeptical of what they are on about here.

Sounds like they need a more aggressive collection of reactors on the grid to absorb reactive power when the demand from customers has dipped. They are basically a dummy loads to stabilize the grid. They are used on every major system at the end of the day when the customer load drops and the are excess vars on the system (they are also used in black starts - story for another time). Just like in the morning, in order to bring up the load, you would switch in equipment that adds capacitance to the system prior to customers "joining" the grid for the day. You do not want customer load to be responsible for bringing up the load which will happen at variable rates, so you control the increase with your own equipment and keep all of your protective systems happy.

If this is a financial concern I can understand - you don't want to generate power for hours at a time just to dump it into a reactor, but there are many ways to deal with this. Dynamic and flexible grid topology is the wave of the future with all these alternate forms of generation, especially with storage batteries on the horizon. This excuse about solar disrupting the grid seems like the tollbooth in the middle of the desert that they are trying convince everyone they must pass through. Just redesign your system. There really isn't an option on this anyway - even the above methods of stabilization are archaic in that regard. The next 50 years are going to be insane from a topology standpoint.

I didn't listen to the whole talk.

EDIT - Listened to many of the minutes you quoted - she is basically on point with what I was saying. Totally misunderstood the intention of the speech based on what was quoted. Very informative talk. Not really a dig against solar either. The business is changing and grids need to get a whole hell of a lot smarter.

Just my 2 cents...not exactly an expert on system design - I just fix it when its broken. :smile:

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Talk by head of Austrialia's gas and electricity system operator

Post by Kim OHara » Sun May 06, 2018 9:56 pm

SDC wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 7:14 pm
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 6:15 pm
The rapid increase in solar which causes disrupting in the system the grid, adding variability, making management more complicated.

6:50 Rooftop solar
Can lose the equivalent of a large power plant instantaneously because of cloud cover over a city

7:40 Coal plants shut down and go cold because they are not needed during the day because of solar. But coal plants take time to start back up.
"We can't afford to have that load dip that much" = under good conditions, especially mid-day rooftop solar provides a lot of power. To the conventional generators that looks like "load" (demand for power) has dipped.
There is no reason they have to shut down generation completely. I'm quite skeptical of what they are on about here.

Sounds like they need a more aggressive collection of reactors on the grid to absorb reactive power when the demand from customers has dipped. They are basically a dummy loads to stabilize the grid. They are used on every major system at the end of the day when the customer load drops and the are excess vars on the system (they are also used in black starts - story for another time). Just like in the morning, in order to bring up the load, you would switch in equipment that adds capacitance to the system prior to customers "joining" the grid for the day. You do not want customer load to be responsible for bringing up the load which will happen at variable rates, so you control the increase with your own equipment and keep all of your protective systems happy.

If this is a financial concern I can understand - you don't want to generate power for hours at a time just to dump it into a reactor, but there are many ways to deal with this. Dynamic and flexible grid topology is the wave of the future with all these alternate forms of generation, especially with storage batteries on the horizon. This excuse about solar disrupting the grid seems like the tollbooth in the middle of the desert that they are trying convince everyone they must pass through. Just redesign your system. There really isn't an option on this anyway - even the above methods of stabilization are archaic in that regard. The next 50 years are going to be insane from a topology standpoint.

I didn't listen to the whole talk.

EDIT - Listened to many of the minutes you quoted - she is basically on point with what I was saying. Totally misunderstood the intention of the speech based on what was quoted. Very informative talk. Not really a dig against solar either. The business is changing and grids need to get a whole hell of a lot smarter.

Just my 2 cents...not exactly an expert on system design - I just fix it when its broken. :smile:
:goodpost:
Just quickly, for those who don't know Australian energy bodies or politics:
The Centre for Independent Studies, host of the talk, is a right-wing think-tank - see https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/C ... nt_Studies. It is not at all unlikely that that the talk was shaped to that audience. :thinking:
AEMO stuggles to do anything sensible because of its limited powers and competing pressures on it.

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Talk by head of Austrialia's gas and electricity system operator

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Mon May 07, 2018 3:44 pm

Kim OHara wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 9:56 pm
Just quickly, for those who don't know Australian energy bodies or politics:
The Centre for Independent Studies, host of the talk, is a right-wing think-tank - see https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/C ... nt_Studies. It is not at all unlikely that that the talk was shaped to that audience. :thinking:
And if the talk was to a left-wing audience it might have been shaped differently. But so what?
Do we know anything about any way that Zibelman would have shaped the talk differently? Have you heard her speak before such that you have a basis for comparison?

Rhetoric like this seems well designed to plant seeds of doubt in the face of ignorance.
And it seems well designed to promote prejudice instead of knowledge. That is the basis upon which illusion is built.
It's also a form of, or closely related too, a ad hominem attack.

There is a more mature and constructive path or way to dialog about these issues. One that is more in line, I believe, with the dharma. Please let us endevour to follow it.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Talk by head of Austrialia's gas and electricity system operator

Post by Kim OHara » Mon May 07, 2018 9:44 pm

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 3:44 pm
Kim OHara wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 9:56 pm
Just quickly, for those who don't know Australian energy bodies or politics:
The Centre for Independent Studies, host of the talk, is a right-wing think-tank - see https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/C ... nt_Studies. It is not at all unlikely that that the talk was shaped to that audience. :thinking:
And if the talk was to a left-wing audience it might have been shaped differently. But so what?
Do we know anything about any way that Zibelman would have shaped the talk differently? Have you heard her speak before such that you have a basis for comparison?

Rhetoric like this seems well designed to plant seeds of doubt in the face of ignorance.
And it seems well designed to promote prejudice instead of knowledge. That is the basis upon which illusion is built.
It's also a form of, or closely related too, a ad hominem attack.
Planting seeds of doubt was exactly what I wanted to do in the five minutes which was all I had at the time.
I hadn't (and haven't) enough time to pick apart all the half-truths but wanted to alert readers to the fact that they would be there.
There is a more mature and constructive path or way to dialog about these issues. One that is more in line, I believe, with the dharma. Please let us endevour to follow it.
Indeed. I'm fairly sure it includes (e.g.) responding to my thorough answer to your praise of Watts and his attack on Mann, instead of starting an unrelated issue.

:popcorn:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Talk by head of Austrialia's gas and electricity system operator

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Tue May 08, 2018 1:47 am

What makes climate change a difficult issue, what trips people up, is that the big changes we are concerned about haven't happened. The big changes "exist" as predictions or forecasts -- also known as projections, scenarios, and "representative concentration pathways"/RCP's (scenarios of future CO2/GHG emissions), estimates, models.
Foolish to ignore them but also foolish to understand them as more than what they are - some kind of prediction or estimate.
As for me I am concerned but at the same time aware that illusion is mistaking a imagined future, no matter how plausible the prediction, as a fact. The trap is to fall into the pattern of speaking of these predictions as if they were facts.

To confound the issue, in a world of finite resources, every action taken in response means attention or effort not spent to address some other aspect of human harm.
----------------------------------------------

The quote below is an example of a bold prediction. A quote which also contains includes an admission and a assertion.
The admission of planting seeds of doubt, based not on knowledge but upon a prediction. Also, I venture to say, a implicit admission of being unable to wait, of impatience.
The assertion being that once something is picked apart, "half-truths" will emerge. :clap:
Kim OHara wrote:
Mon May 07, 2018 9:44 pm
Planting seeds of doubt was exactly what I wanted to do in the five minutes which was all I had at the time.
I hadn't (and haven't) enough time to pick apart all the half-truths but wanted to alert readers to the fact that they would be there.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests