LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:08 am Interesting (revealing?) that GW/CC came up not even once at last night's debate.

What it reveals is that CC was not on CNN's list of topics for last night.

Reading an industry pub today - came across an article on renewable power:

Duke Energy’s (DUK-NYSE) request for modification to air quality permits to allow adjustments in the operation of combined-cycle natural gas power plants in five counties in North Carolina has generated significant furor among proponents and opponents of solar power. The lead in many media articles highlights that solar power is actually causing more carbon emissions than if only natural gas power plants were used exclusively. How is it possible that solar power, which is reportedly one of the cleanest renewable fuels, could actually lead to higher CO2 emissions?
The issue is actually true, and supported by Duke Energy’s data. The issue, however, has been around for several years and was the subject of debate and study in Los Angeles.

What is making this case so interesting is that it is the first time, according to Steve Gorham, a policy advisor to the Heartland Institute who writes and lectures on energy, climate and pollution, that internal data such as this has been made public. He and others believe this data requires deep scrutiny by regulators and policymakers. Mr. Gorham referenced studies in Colorado and the Netherlands that concluded adding wind power to the electricity grid increased CO2 emissions. “This issue deserves a re-look, and it needs to be done fast,” Dan Kish, distinguished senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, said after reviewing Duke's data.

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:20 pm Reading an industry pub today - came across an article on renewable power:

Duke Energy’s (DUK-NYSE) request for modification to air quality permits to allow adjustments in the operation of combined-cycle natural gas power plants in five counties in North Carolina has generated significant furor among proponents and opponents of solar power. The lead in many media articles highlights that solar power is actually causing more carbon emissions than if only natural gas power plants were used exclusively. How is it possible that solar power, which is reportedly one of the cleanest renewable fuels, could actually lead to higher CO2 emissions?
The issue is actually true, and supported by Duke Energy’s data. The issue, however, has been around for several years and was the subject of debate and study in Los Angeles.

What is making this case so interesting is that it is the first time, according to Steve Gorham, a policy advisor to the Heartland Institute who writes and lectures on energy, climate and pollution, that internal data such as this has been made public. He and others believe this data requires deep scrutiny by regulators and policymakers. Mr. Gorham referenced studies in Colorado and the Netherlands that concluded adding wind power to the electricity grid increased CO2 emissions. “This issue deserves a re-look, and it needs to be done fast,” Dan Kish, distinguished senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, said after reviewing Duke's data.

So what is the physical mechanism in each case?

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:15 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:20 pm Reading an industry pub today - came across an article on renewable power:

Duke Energy’s (DUK-NYSE) request for modification to air quality permits to allow adjustments in the operation of combined-cycle natural gas power plants in five counties in North Carolina has generated significant furor among proponents and opponents of solar power. The lead in many media articles highlights that solar power is actually causing more carbon emissions than if only natural gas power plants were used exclusively. How is it possible that solar power, which is reportedly one of the cleanest renewable fuels, could actually lead to higher CO2 emissions?
The issue is actually true, and supported by Duke Energy’s data. The issue, however, has been around for several years and was the subject of debate and study in Los Angeles.

What is making this case so interesting is that it is the first time, according to Steve Gorham, a policy advisor to the Heartland Institute who writes and lectures on energy, climate and pollution, that internal data such as this has been made public. He and others believe this data requires deep scrutiny by regulators and policymakers. Mr. Gorham referenced studies in Colorado and the Netherlands that concluded adding wind power to the electricity grid increased CO2 emissions. “This issue deserves a re-look, and it needs to be done fast,” Dan Kish, distinguished senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, said after reviewing Duke's data.

So what is the physical mechanism in each case?

Found a reference - https://www.eenews.net/stories/1061015535

Basic conclusion - because the presence of solar causes more erratic operation of natural gas plants (usually small peak power plants) and make them operate in more inefficient modes, you add emissions over what you would have if the solar was not there - but only looking at the natural gas emissions. However, because when you use solar you remove the need to generate a certain fraction via fossil fuels, the overall emissions go down. Just not as much as you might have if you say turned off the peaker plant.

So the spin is higher emissions - but not higher overall emissions. Typical misunderstanding of which picture one is looking at - focused in on the CH4 plant, or the big picture.

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 3:37 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 2:15 pm

HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2019 1:20 pm Reading an industry pub today - came across an article on renewable power:

Duke Energy’s (DUK-NYSE) request for modification to air quality permits to allow adjustments in the operation of combined-cycle natural gas power plants in five counties in North Carolina has generated significant furor among proponents and opponents of solar power. The lead in many media articles highlights that solar power is actually causing more carbon emissions than if only natural gas power plants were used exclusively. How is it possible that solar power, which is reportedly one of the cleanest renewable fuels, could actually lead to higher CO2 emissions?
The issue is actually true, and supported by Duke Energy’s data. The issue, however, has been around for several years and was the subject of debate and study in Los Angeles.

What is making this case so interesting is that it is the first time, according to Steve Gorham, a policy advisor to the Heartland Institute who writes and lectures on energy, climate and pollution, that internal data such as this has been made public. He and others believe this data requires deep scrutiny by regulators and policymakers. Mr. Gorham referenced studies in Colorado and the Netherlands that concluded adding wind power to the electricity grid increased CO2 emissions. “This issue deserves a re-look, and it needs to be done fast,” Dan Kish, distinguished senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, said after reviewing Duke's data.

So what is the physical mechanism in each case?

Found a reference - https://www.eenews.net/stories/1061015535

Basic conclusion - because the presence of solar causes more erratic operation of natural gas plants (usually small peak power plants) and make them operate in more inefficient modes, you add emissions over what you would have if the solar was not there - but only looking at the natural gas emissions. However, because when you use solar you remove the need to generate a certain fraction via fossil fuels, the overall emissions go down. Just not as much as you might have if you say turned off the peaker plant.

So the spin is higher emissions - but not higher overall emissions. Typical misunderstanding of which picture one is looking at - focused in on the CH4 plant, or the big picture.

So the same for wind. Pretty sure there is an engineering solution to these problems.

Are we reading the same article?...

"Increased cycling for many types of fossil generators will affect the pollutant emissions," said Costa Samaras, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon. "Is that more emissions than just turning off solar and running gas all of the time? I doubt it."

"doubt" not "no".

That NOx emissions increase from running peaker plants is not new.

NOx is the really bad stuff by the way, at least plants consume CO2


this following bit about coal is dissembling... Coal is going away no matter what, the question is what is the best short/medium term replacement and then the long term.

"Minor changes in NOx rates in gas plants are trivial compared to not retiring inefficient coal plants," Kalland said. "If someone actually wanted to solve this problem, the easiest solution is to retire old coal plants."

We need to figure this out, but I continue to see project after project that is a boondoggle that only makes sense because the government is creating the economics IN SPITE of what the real science is saying about emissions and the overall impact on the environment.

And let me say that I believe the government has a role in supporting new technologies to help us solve these issues, I just also have had a front row seat to how that process is manipulated by 0.1%er's in a way that pushes aside well thought out science in a money-grab for big developers with well paid lobbyists .

A look at what some cities may look like in the late 21st century.

"According to a new Army report, Americans could face a horrifically grim future from climate change involving blackouts, disease, thirst, starvation and war. The study found that the US military itself might also collapse."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmk ... tagon-says

HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 9:59 am And let me say that I believe the government has a role in supporting new technologies to help us solve these issues, I just also have had a front row seat to how that process is manipulated by 0.1%er's in a way that pushes aside well thought out science in a money-grab for big developers with well paid lobbyists .

Yep.

Trinity wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:19 pm "According to a new Army report, Americans could face a horrifically grim future from climate change involving blackouts, disease, thirst, starvation and war. The study found that the US military itself might also collapse."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmk ... tagon-says

I hope the report was printed on Charmin. It can be distributed to latrines and heads throughout the military to be used for it's only practical purpose. I dont know dicky doo about this general except he should be made to pee in a cup and be given a thorough psych evaluation. This entire report stinks of month old road kill. I know the high up military folks are always bouncing around all sorts of hypotheticals. This is one report that should find its way to the circular file... ASAP

Trinity wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:19 pm "According to a new Army report, Americans could face a horrifically grim future from climate change involving blackouts, disease, thirst, starvation and war. The study found that the US military itself might also collapse."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmk ... tagon-says

Come on the military is just being alarmists.

Seriously the military has been at this for 30 years and do believe in CC. As the article points out, the military is looking at the problem a bit myopically. Overlooking what can be done outside of their mission and control, so theirs is really a worse case scenario. If you look at it dispassionately, the US is really in much better shape than most of the world. We are not immune, but will be one of the least effected over the next 100 years if nothing is done to mitigate the crisis. Low lying, high population density countries located close to the equator will be the most effected. The Indian subcontinent, southeast asia are screwed big time.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:47 pm

Trinity wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:19 pm "According to a new Army report, Americans could face a horrifically grim future from climate change involving blackouts, disease, thirst, starvation and war. The study found that the US military itself might also collapse."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmk ... tagon-says

I hope the report was printed on Charmin. It can be distributed to latrines and heads throughout the military to be used for it's only practical purpose. I dont know dicky doo about this general except he should be made to pee in a cup and be given a thorough psych evaluation. This entire report stinks of month old road kill. I know the high up military folks are always bouncing around all sorts of hypotheticals. This is one report that should find its way to the circular file... ASAP

So you don't think Miami or New Orleans have anything to worry about. Got it.

Heard an interesting announcement yesterday that congress is forming a bipartisan committee to deal with climate change. Apparently they have found a number of republicans who believe in CC and are willing to come out of the closet.

This makes me so happy.

I, like AOC, have awakened frightened from sleep at 3:30 a.m. because I'm worried about the negative effects of climate change on the world.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 1:06 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:47 pm

Trinity wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:19 pm "According to a new Army report, Americans could face a horrifically grim future from climate change involving blackouts, disease, thirst, starvation and war. The study found that the US military itself might also collapse."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmk ... tagon-says

I hope the report was printed on Charmin. It can be distributed to latrines and heads throughout the military to be used for it's only practical purpose. I dont know dicky doo about this general except he should be made to pee in a cup and be given a thorough psych evaluation. This entire report stinks of month old road kill. I know the high up military folks are always bouncing around all sorts of hypotheticals. This is one report that should find its way to the circular file... ASAP

So you don't think Miami or New Orleans have anything to worry about. Got it.

I think they need to prepare for the zombie apocalypse first. That is clearly a more pressing threat.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:47 pm

Trinity wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 12:19 pm "According to a new Army report, Americans could face a horrifically grim future from climate change involving blackouts, disease, thirst, starvation and war. The study found that the US military itself might also collapse."

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mbmk ... tagon-says

I hope the report was printed on Charmin. It can be distributed to latrines and heads throughout the military to be used for it's only practical purpose. I dont know dicky doo about this general except he should be made to pee in a cup and be given a thorough psych evaluation. This entire report stinks of month old road kill. I know the high up military folks are always bouncing around all sorts of hypotheticals. This is one report that should find its way to the circular file... ASAP

Something that always makes me chuckle is I see billionaires buying beachfront property all around the world at as fast a rate as ever...they can't get enough of it! Even not-billionaires but liberal-politicians-who became-really-wealthy-through-politics-and-scream-about-global-warming-every-second buy beachfront property as soon as they can. And some of them definitely have more than 20 years left in the tank! (cough cough, Barack Obama anyone, ).

But, and hear me out, we are told endlessly by folks (who wouldn't last two moves on a chess board with the oceanfront-buying billionaires) that 'Miami is goin' under, folks, head for the hills!!!!'

I mean, seriously?

Lot of billionaires buying up beach front property in Bangladesh heh? How about the New Orleans 9th Ward there spanky?

It all depends on how affluent the neighborhood is. Just like everything else, affluence buffers one from downside consequences.

FEMA Flood Insurance Study

Cost of flood insurance is likely to Sink Miami before CC

Maybe the billionaires will buy up all property in Miami when everyone else is priced out by the cost of flood insurance.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:46 pm Lot of billionaires buying up beach front property in Bangladesh heh? How about the New Orleans 9th Ward there spanky?

If Bangladesh and New Orleans weren't third world countries, maybe the billionaires would buy there. Palm Beach and Chittagong have as much in common as Brad Pitt and you.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:57 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:46 pm Lot of billionaires buying up beach front property in Bangladesh heh? How about the New Orleans 9th Ward there spanky?

If Bangladesh and New Orleans weren't third world countries, maybe the billionaires would buy there. Palm Beach and Chittagong have as much in common as Brad Pitt and you.

So you get my point. Good. Billionaires aren't worried about climate change, because their money protects them, for the time being.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 3:00 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:57 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 2:46 pm Lot of billionaires buying up beach front property in Bangladesh heh? How about the New Orleans 9th Ward there spanky?

If Bangladesh and New Orleans weren't third world countries, maybe the billionaires would buy there. Palm Beach and Chittagong have as much in common as Brad Pitt and you.

So you get my point. Good. Billionaires aren't worried about climate change, because their money protects them, for the time being.

Weird then that billionaire Dems who are worried about global warming (or is it climate change, now? ) are also buying beachfront and waterfront property. Some might even invest in energy from time to time. I might even know one or two. Who knows!

https://urbanmilwaukee.com/2016/08/03/h ... ont-condo/
https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/b ... miami.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... as-exports