Global Warming: Recent Data

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4395
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: 4975
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: 4975
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.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
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 » Tue May 08, 2018 5:21 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
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.
What relevance does that have to either the AEMO talk or the hockey stick?
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.
Metadiscussion

:focus:

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4395
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by SDC » Tue May 08, 2018 1:34 pm

In the utility field we are constantly looking ahead, and the load dips we've seen due to alternate means of generations are not exactly a surprise. It's been the talk for the better part of two decades. This whole idea of "blame" is really more along the lines of "cause" - it is finally being taken seriously, because it is actually coming to fruition. That is all. In the US our generating infrastructure is relatively old and needs upgrading and or replacement anyway. But this new direction, as the system undergoes this rebuilding phase, isn't just a bunch of hippies crying for cleaner energy - a lot of this has to do with a focus on the customer. People are looking to pay less. They want more efficient lighting and appliances to keep expenses down. Though it doesn't end their - or rather, it didn't start there. Systems all over the US were being pushed to the absolute max and failing due to high loads in the hot weather season. With that it was the utilities who spearheaded campaigns to educate the customer on how to draw less power. In the end the utilities knew that the aging system could not handle the demand. And to boot, state gov'ts are denying utilities rate cases left and right which is a real advantage for the customer, and this is forcing the utilities to go into cost reduction mode.

Not to mention, utilities in the US, because of deregulation, are no longer able to generate and transmit. So the owners of generation do not own the systems that move their power. This makes the situation even more complex, namely the owners of the transmission systems make money from moving power, not generating it, so they have a different set of concerns when it comes to design and capability. Of course generation is part of this, but it isn't so cut and dry.

All of this has come full circle into the whole environmental end of these changes, so that is how we got here. So yeah climate change is a concern for the utility industry, but it has been more of nuisance concern until now as it just becomes yet another factor in just how to upgrade the aging infrastructure going forward.

So a lot needs to be taken into account. Yes, it is primarily solar causing these topology imbalances in terms of power generation, but the focus now is on how to better transmit power across regions more efficiently to get it where it needs to be faster. You want to close up these irregularities in the grid as fast as possible. For example, if you have loads dipping in one area, you want to be able to stabilize the area with power from elsewhere - likely from hundreds, even thousands of miles away. Whereas back in the day everyone was sort of working independently, utilities are looking regionally and nationally to make transmission more efficient and faster. This is also where storage comes into play. Not only do the utilities need to be smarter with storage on their behalf, they need to plan for even residential customers to be installing these batteries over the next 20 years. With that, drops in loads won't mean that power is nowhere to be found when the customer actually needs it - it is now readily available. This doesn't mean that customer will no longer need the system, it just means the system needs to be available in a different way.

This really isn't a climate change situation. This is an old, deeply established business being shown in different lights and rarely are all the angles captured. I can't really speak for Australia, but seems plainly clear to me that they have an aging infrastructure that is incapable of adapting to industry trends and customer demands. And solar is but a small piece of that.

User avatar
budo
Posts: 327
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am
Location: The world

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by budo » Tue May 08, 2018 3:55 pm

The biggest problem of global warming is CO2 in the ocean, which increases the level of mercury and kills off corals. Fish are the ultimate human food, if you look at history all nations that are beside a coast with access to fish have been the most successful with the highest quality of life and longest lifespans. These days if you want quality DHA (omega 3) you have to eat the smallest fish because they have the least mercury, this is a sign of things getting worse. The co2 in the ocean is mostly man made, and this is how nature will deal with the human overpopulation problem. Wheat, grains and sugar have only been consumed by humans for around 10,000 years, which is nothing compared to the millions of years humans have been eating fish. Iceland and Japan are the biggest consumers of seafood in the world per capita, and have the longest life spans and healthiest populations. Once the fish populations are drastically reduced, we are in big trouble.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Wed May 09, 2018 10:11 pm

budo wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 3:55 pm
The biggest problem of global warming is CO2 in the ocean, which increases the level of mercury and kills off corals. Fish are the ultimate human food, if you look at history all nations that are beside a coast with access to fish have been the most successful with the highest quality of life and longest lifespans. These days if you want quality DHA (omega 3) you have to eat the smallest fish because they have the least mercury, this is a sign of things getting worse. The co2 in the ocean is mostly man made, and this is how nature will deal with the human overpopulation problem. Wheat, grains and sugar have only been consumed by humans for around 10,000 years, which is nothing compared to the millions of years humans have been eating fish. Iceland and Japan are the biggest consumers of seafood in the world per capita, and have the longest life spans and healthiest populations. Once the fish populations are drastically reduced, we are in big trouble.
Hi, Budo, and thanks for your post. I've got to disagree with parts of it but I think that's because you tried to squeeze too many ideas into too few words.

Yes, increased CO2 in the ocean as a result of human activity is going to be a big problem. It acidifies the water and harms corals and other creatures. However, increased water temperatures are at least as harmful to corals as acidification, causing the mass coral bleaching and death we've seen in the last few years.
The connection between CO2 and mercury in the oceans is indirect. Increased CO2 doesn't cause increased mercury but both are due to human activity.

Looking for the source of your statement I found a 2014 study by Carl Lomborg which tried to measure mercury in the oceans and work out how much of it was due to our impact. The best report on it that I found was https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08 ... ve-tripled. The core of it is this -
Consuming contaminated seafood is the single leading source of mercury exposure for people, says Carl Lamborg, an oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. But monitoring mercury levels in the oceans has proven a challenge for researchers because the metal is present only in tiny concentrations in seawater, and gathering samples from different oceans requires time and resources.

So an international team led by Lamborg embarked on cruises to the Atlantic, Pacific, Southern, and Arctic oceans and spent 8 years collecting water samples at various depths. The cruises were conducted under the international GEOTRACES program, which sends ships around the globe to map the distribution of key trace elements in the oceans.

Sifting through data gathered from the cruises, Lamborg and his colleagues observed that unpolluted waters, such as waters more than 1000 meters deep in the Pacific Ocean, contain a fixed ratio of mercury to phosphate, a better studied substance. The team used this ratio as a benchmark to identify and compare levels of mercury pollution caused by human activities across water samples from different oceans.
In fact, a lot of the mercury we emit comes from the burning of coal, which also produces a lot of the CO2. The headline of this other report on Lomborg's work - https://www.desmogblog.com/2014/08/11/f ... eans-study - emphasises it: "Fossil Fuels Raising Mercury Levels in Oceans".

As for which fish to eat, the key is to avoid the top predators because mercury is concentrated as it moves up the food chain - just like lots of other poisons, actually. (More detail here - https://www.nrdc.org/stories/mercury-guide)

Depletion of our fish stocks is, again, a slightly separate problem but still a serious one. The main cause (so far!) is over-fishing rather than global warming or mercury - see https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... t-un-warns

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Fri May 11, 2018 3:13 am

Another significant step towards decarbonising -
For seven years, a handful of homebuilders offered solar as an optional item to buyers willing to pay extra to go green.

Now, California is on the verge of making solar standard on virtually every new home built in the Golden State.

The California Energy Commission is scheduled to vote Wednesday, May 9, on new energy standards mandating most new homes have solar panels starting in 2020.

If approved as expected, solar installations on new homes will skyrocket.

Just 15 percent to 20 percent of new single-family homes built include solar, according to Bob Raymer, technical director for the California Building Industry Association.

“California is about to take a quantum leap in energy standards,” Raymer said. “No other state in the nation mandates solar, and we are about to take that leap.”

The proposed new rules would deviate slightly from another much-heralded objective: Requiring all new homes be “net-zero,” meaning they would produce enough solar power to offset all electricity and natural gas consumed over the course of a year.

New thinking has made that goal obsolete, state officials say. True “zero-net-energy” homes still rely on the electric power grid at night, they explained, a time when more generating plants come online using fossil fuels to generate power.

“Zero net energy isn’t enough,” said Andrew McAllister, one of five state energy commissioners voting on the new homebuilding standards. “If we pursue (zero net energy) as a comprehensive policy, we’d be making investments that would be somewhat out of touch with our long-term goals.” ...
:reading: https://www.ocregister.com/2018/05/04/c ... new-homes/

:twothumbsup:
Kim

paul
Posts: 1188
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 11:27 pm
Location: Vietnam

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by paul » Fri May 11, 2018 3:36 am

Solar panels mandatory in California:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ble-energy

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Fri May 11, 2018 6:05 am

paul wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 3:36 am
Solar panels mandatory in California:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ble-energy
Snap! :smile:
I just posted a different report on the same topic.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4975
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Kim OHara » Sat May 12, 2018 6:27 am

More strange weather -
Autumn temperatures set new record as Perth soars above 32C

The previous [autumn] record for Perth was set on May 9, 1962, when the city recorded exactly 30C.

The temperature is well above the May average maximum of 22.3C ...

Perth's warm week is in stark contrast to the weather on the other side of the country, with low pressure system bringing wind, snow and icy temperatures to most of south-east Australia.

Hobart is mopping up after the worst storm to hit southern Tasmania in years.

Cars floated down Hobart CBD streets and homes and businesses were evacuated as flash-flooding hit the city following record rainfall.

While Melbourne did not experience the same weather extremes seen in parts of Tasmania, more rain fell in 24 hours to 9:00am on Friday morning than in the entire month of April.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-12/s ... th/9754952

Extreme weather is one of the fingerprints of climate change. Although we usually can't say "this event is due to climate change," we can often show that it was made more likely by climate change.

:namaste:
Kim

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

Solar Panel Requirements -- Another Hidden Subsidy

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun May 13, 2018 4:31 am

paul wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 3:36 am
Solar panels mandatory in California:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ble-energy
It' effectively another sneaky way California subsidizes solar panels while being able to deny the state does it.
It's also a regressive tax that helps wealthier citizens and puts a hidden tax on the poor because, after 2020 (assuming the law goes into effect) it will add to the new cost of homes and apartments.

California homes are more already expensive than those in every other state except Hawaii. in 2017, just 28 percent of Californians could afford a middle-class home. Five years ago well over half (56 percent) could.
California Rents are the highest in the nation and rising — 49 percent in San Francisco and 25 percent in Los Angeles since January 2011. Most of the country’s most expensive rental markets are in California. Deaths of homeless people on the street are rising.

The high price of housing is choking-off half of all economic growth nationally while it is causing California to lose $140 billion annually in economic output.

Homeownership still matters. People who own homes have 36 to 45 times more wealth than people who rent.
-- http://shellenberger.org/housing/
It's said that the poor will bear the heaviest cost of climate change.

Why are hidden subsidies important?
A source neutral carbon tax puts a price on carbon without favoring any technology.
  • This law even favors solar panels on homes over "solar farms" and other commercial installations regardless of which solution makes more sense.
  • Subsidies favor one technology over others which puts governments in the position of picking winners and losers. This law creates a stealth subsidy. It makes comparing the actual costs of technologies more difficult.
  • The new requirement is both a stealth tax and a stealth subsidy. Plausible deniability.
  • It potentially makes passing a general carbon tax more difficult.
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Sun May 13, 2018 5:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: Global Warming: Recent Data

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun May 13, 2018 4:41 am

Headline: UK's Barclays Bank hit by solar scandal
Some buyers were misled into thinking rooftop panels would ‘pay for themselves’
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/busi ... -70fmt0d2w
Barclays Bank has become embroiled in a fresh mis-selling scandal after the ombudsman found evidence that some households were misled into taking out loans to put solar panels on their roof.

The Financial Ombudsman Service said it had seen a significant increase in complaints from households who were typically told the panels would “pay for themselves” and could cut their bills.

In fact, households often found that the loan repayments exceeded the income and savings they made from the panels and some were left thousands of pounds worse off as a result.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests