Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[sendler2112]

Nobody here is denying that global temps are up 1C. And 3C in the Arctic. Nobody loves burning coal. But nobody loves looming unemployment and social upheaval in a country due to energy prices forcing an uncompetitive manufacturing segment. Because they prematurely decommissioned their otherwise fully functional coal plants because too many people were telling them that wind and solar could replace them at 1:1. Which it cannot. even at 4:1 when capacity factors are figured in. Due to intermittency. Which is even tougher to swallow when China is forecast to reduce it's coal consumption only a few percent over the next two decades and India will be burning 2x more coal in 2040.
.
.

.
.

 

[billvon]

But it doesnt really matter, once you know the records are now unreliable.

As an example, we are now at type I. We'll see if it changes.

 

[Hillhater]

But it doesnt really matter, once you know the records are now unreliable.

As an example, we are now at type I. We'll see if it changes.

?? How do you figure that bill ?... I have never said the climate is not changing ?
Once again you are displaying your eagerness to leap to conclusions.
I was merely pointing out that once you understand the data is unreliable, you can delete it from your reference sources.
Care to have a crack at the other "types" ....using your new found ( but shakey) powers of mindreading ?

 

[TheBeastie]

[The Australian BOM (Bureau Of Metrology) has been discretited several times recently for failing to represent the facts accurately, ( conveniently resulting in current temperatures appearing to be higher than previously recorded ?)
They have ommited extreme leow temp readings from some stations, revised (upwards) other recent minimum temperature readings, and as this last episode , deleted from their official records historical high temperature readings !...amoungst many other "errors" .

Are you really so credulous?

Anyone who has ever conducted any kind of technical or scientific measurements or statistical analysis (or process control) will understand immediately that these kind of claims of "fraud" (which have seemingly been levelled at nearly every meteorological or climate science organisation) are ridiculous.

Fraud ?.. I think the words i used were "sloppy" , "discretited", and "failing to represent fact accurately" ..
I dont think our BOM know what statistical analysis is, .
But you seem to agree that most similar organisations have the same sloppy approach to their role ?
They record single momentary peak temperature readings from electronic thermometers as accurate data, with no attempt at averaging over a valid time period, or compensation for "noise" and log it as a permanent record.
They also change those data points at will with no archive of the original data...not exactly scientific !

But it doesnt really matter, once you know the records are now unreliable.

There are constant news articles on BOM manipulating temperature data from the most respected newspapers in Australia go back a solid 4 years since 2014 from a quick google search.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bureau-of-meteorology-opens-cold-case-on-temperature-data/news-story/c3bac520af2e81fe05d106290028b783
Temperatures plunge after BoM orders fix
Recorded temperatures at the Bureau­ of Meteorology’s Thredbo Top automatic weather station have dropped below -10C in the past week, after action was taken to make the facility “fit for ­purpose”
Later independent monitoring of the Thredbo Top station by scientist Jennifer Marohasy showed a recording of -10.6C ­vanish from the record.

BoM initially claimed the adjustments were part of its quality control procedures. But bureau chief executive Andrew Johnson later told Environment Minister Josh­ Frydenberg that investigations had found a number of cold-weather stations were not “fit for purpose” and would be replaced.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/temperatures-plunge-after-bureau-orders-weather-station-fix/news-story/9230dd914ac532fa735700ffc7799203
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/climate-change-deniers-raise-the-heat-on-the-bureau-of-meteorology-20140909-10eedk.html

Deleting the coldest temperatures recorded as a "quality control system" is just baloney, they do this so they can come out at the end of the year and say the average temp is now warmer than the years before so climate doom is upon us all and we need more money etc.
The federal government has lost control of the BOM in a similar manner as they have lost control of the ABC, where they are essentially just a quasi-arm of the Greens political party in one way or the other.

So many Australian scientists are consistently proving to be incredibly dodgy people. This out just today!
Queensland chief scientist used corporate credit card for personal items
Suzanne Miller, who also worked as the chief executive officer of the Queensland Museum until she was hit with fraud charges last year, appeared briefly before a Brisbane magistrate this morning to face 31 fresh charges from the state’s corruption watchdog.

In July, the chief scientist, who earned $400,000 a year, was charged with fraud for dishonesty claiming $45,500 worth of health insurance and for forging an immigration letter.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/queensland-chief-scientist-used-corporate-credit-card-for-personal-items/news-story/8e391ca414e21bb213cae025b2d6a1bd
This government scientist who often went on greenhouse gas emission rants was on $400k a year just felt it wasn't enough and had to double dip the government credit card to buy a scooter, high-pressure cleaner and electronic drum kit etc.
This is a constant theme I find behind so much of the renewable energy industry and the scientists claiming where all doomed, they all just money-grubbing creeps, I just can't stress this enough.

This is Australias currently operating largest solar farm the Nyngan cost is A$440 million
https://goo.gl/maps/fRTZZYqzS6w
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyngan_Solar_Plant

So $355 Million US for 102MW nameplate capacity completed in July 2015 = $3.48 USD / W installed. Too bad they didn't post any real world ac production numbers for the year. Lets give them the max benefit of the doubt and assume a 25% capacity factor. This makes the price $13.92 USD/W installed. And of course it is totally intermittent every day.
.
I wish you guys would quit posting about pricing in the $1/W range. And also completely ignoring the capacity factor when comparing to pricing of other generation methods. I have nothing against distributed roof top solar PV. I insist that it should be code all over the world that from now on,all new construction of homes and buildings and streets should allow the major roof section to be oriented to the equator. I do have a big problem with all of the intentionally misleading info being parroted in the media regarding the price. Let's keep the discussion real so we can help make wise decisions.

Came out as 229,541MWh
229,541MWh_for_the_year / 8765_hours_in_a_year = 26MW average power output, for $440million AU, if you include the subsidies attached to it its probably a bit over $600million
http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/NGER/Pages/Published%20information/Electricity%20sector%20emissions%20and%20generation%20data/2015-16-greenhouse-and-energy-information-for-designated-generation-facilities---Facility-details.aspx?ListId=%7B26B8B82E-472F-41C1-8ECA-ACE839802482%7D&ItemID=70
http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/About/Accountability-and-reporting/administrative-reports/the-renewable-energy-target-2014-administrative-report/Case-study-Solar-success
Expects "233 000 megawatt hours of electricity annually"

All that for 26MW while Vietnam etc are building 6,000MW coal power-stations https://goo.gl/maps/BdG3Ax3LJPJ2 and no one ever is even remotely considering in government circles to ask 3rd world countries to do anything other than increasing the fossil fuel use.

This is whats truly amazing about renewables and how they play mind games on you, for people who decide and vote in politicians based on Facebook memes on renewables its just so easy to be epically manipulated.
If you take 6,000MW / 26MW = 230 times more power.
If you take $440million x 230_for_same_power_but_still_no_battery_to_make_it_useful = 101,200,000,000 (101billion dollars)
The funny thing is we all know storage is by far more expensive than renewable energy generation so 1 trillion dollars? If we are lucky? This is for a *single* power-station replacement.

One thing I wanted to add on the whole fraud thing is this Nyngan Solar Plant is significantly smaller in actual built size on the satellite view maps than what the Wikipedia and official AGL documents etc say.
The official documents say its 2.5km2 or 250 hectares or 620 acres but the actual solar farm from googlemaps shows about 250meters.
https://www.agl.com.au/-/media/AGL/About-AGL/Documents/How-We-Source-Energy/Solar-Community/Nyngan-Solar-Plant/Factsheets/2014/Nyngan-Fact-Sheet-v7.pdf?la=en
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyngan_Solar_Plant
I have used GoogleMaps and Google Earth and its just off by a massive amount, I never seen a solar farm off by so much from its claimed size, this is well over 10 times smaller its claimed size, using the measuring tools its about 40 times smaller at about 25,000m2 while there is 1,000,000m2 in a 1km2.
https://goo.gl/maps/hdv3ZbfisJB2

I would be great if someone could give a second opinion on this as its really weird, my only other logical conclusion is that googlemaps picture for the area is really out of date and this could be it. Bingmaps has no solar farm from sat view.
Just checked Applemaps and its empty. I actually just think none of the sat map pictures are up to date enough. Google probably just happened to grab a picture during early construction and thats all there is. I used to think these sat-pics were updated quite frequently but there not.

Update, I found the solar farm using the ESA sat data with a less user-friendly website interface, but ESA have up2date sat imagery. https://scihub.copernicus.eu/dhus/#/home
Here is the solar farm below, its built on the top half of the land and not the bottom half like I originally assumed. It takes up more like 4km2 than the 2.5km2 the officially claimed. That tiny square you see in googlemaps is more just some kind of inverter station or something of that nature that they first started work on at the beginning of the project.
Well I am glad I went to the next level to work that out, it was really bugging me. So NO fraud going on in terms of the actual thing being built..


Just looking at the post below mine, ieefa.org? what a complete baloney website setup by the billion dollar "renewable subsidy miner corporations", these are funds set up just to mindlessly rape the subsidies of renewables and sure enough its important to fund baloney websites to fool the masses into handing over more money so they can continue "mining" subsidies.
http://ieefa.org/about/
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis receives its funding from philanthropic organizations. We gratefully acknowledge our funders, including the Rockefeller Family Fund, Energy Foundation, Mertz-Gilmore Foundation, Moxie Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Growald Family Fund, Flora Family Fund, Wallace Global Fund, and V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation.
They will have all sorts of claims but everyone knows wind and solar never gets built without taxpayers being brute forced from their money and it will always be that way, its just all evil.
Australia gave a Saudi tycoon $300million gain for building a baloney solar farm.

 

[jonescg]

Get a load of these hippies would you?
http://ieefa.org/2017-unsubsidized-renewables-won-cost-race/

 

[Punx0r]

Nobody here is denying that global temps are up 1C. And 3C in the Arctic. Nobody loves burning coal.

Hillhater and TheBeastie seem to on both counts.

"One government scientist caught in expenses fraud" = Climate science instantly disproved!

"Unreliable weather station equipment discovered and anomalous results removed" - Global conspiracy!

The federal government has lost control of the BOM in a similar manner as they have lost control of the ABC, where they are essentially just a quasi-arm of the Greens political party in one way or the other.

Oh, I see. Your views (rants) on RE are political. I wish you'd made this clear earlier.

 

[sendler2112]

Get a load of these hippies would you?
http://ieefa.org/2017-unsubsidized-renewables-won-cost-race/

This works out pretty close to the cap costs of the102 MW Nyngan solar farm at $355 USD which did a 25.7% CF annual production of 229,541 MWh. Mutiplied by a steady 30 years with no operating costs or repairs comes out to $51.55 USD/ MWh. Pretty cheap and useful for cooling if society can shift demand peak back toward noon with smart grids.

 

[sendler2112]

Cape Town SA is running out of water.
.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/africa/cape-town-water-crisis-trnd/index.html
.

 

[billvon]

I was merely pointing out that once you understand the data is unreliable, you can delete it from your reference sources.

Hmm. So since it was changed/updated, it is unreliable, and should be ignored.

In late 2017, NIST updated four constants - the Boltzmann Constant, the Planck Constant, electron charge and the Avogadro constant. Those four constants underlie almost all of modern physics. (To use your terms, they were "sloppy" they "failed to report the facts accurately" and are "discredited.") Which would be a wiser conclusion?

1) Physics is unreliable, and you should delete it from your reference sources
2) The new constants represent an improvement in accuracy, and physics still works

 

[TheBeastie]

Get a load of these hippies would you?
http://ieefa.org/2017-unsubsidized-renewables-won-cost-race/

This works out pretty close to the cap costs of the102 MW Nyngan solar farm at $355 USD which did a 25.7% CF annual production of 229,541 MWh. Mutiplied by a steady 30 years with no operating costs or repairs comes out to $51.55 USD/ MWh. Pretty cheap and useful for cooling if society can shift demand peak back toward noon with smart grids.
Cape Town SA is running out of water.
.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/24/africa/cape-town-water-crisis-trnd/index.html

It might look like good value if it wasn't for the fact you can't use it when you want.
But the heat kicks in at around 6pm inside peoples homes when the suns at the end.
Looking at South Australia today they have 1.6GW of wind installed but only getting a fraction of it. At 6pm SA is mostly just using up their local gas-fired generators and sucking down Victorian coal at around 600MW over the interstate grid to keep everyone cool.



With Cape Town running out of water its going to be an ongoing problem with huge populations. Melbourne and Sydney with populations around 5million each are some of the biggest cities in the world and the main reason why everyone's packed into these two locations is due to the fact these are the only two cities with a large amount of water. Unlike other countries that have water all over the place.
It never hit me how crazy Melbourne and Sydney are until I started looking at all these Europe people countries like Norway that have the same population but for their entire country, not just a city. The retarded thing about it all is Australians still wonder why property prices are so expensive but mainstream media just can't tell them the truth because its not politically correct or profitable, and people just don't look at the world via Wikipedia for comparison facts.

 

[sendler2112]

It might look like good value if it wasn't for the fact you can't use it when you want.
But the heat kicks in at around 6pm inside peoples homes when the suns at the end.
Looking at South Australia today they have 1.6GW of wind installed but only getting a fraction of it. At 6pm SA is mostly just using up their local gas-fired generators and sucking down Victorian coal at around 600MW over the interstate grid to keep everyone cool.

At least Australia has strong sun and dry climate. You would need another 800MW of solar at $2.8 Billion USD/ 3.45B AUD to offset the 600MW of coal imports. And then buildings can learn to over cool during the peak sun and coast as the solar gets weak. Cooling from a desert sun is the one thing solar pv is pretty good at. Another 1GW of solar on top of that would level the gas peak and help extend it until we come up with something better to reliably get through the nights.
.
Your state uses 3GW. Mine uses 30GW in summer with reletively poor reliability of sun and greater than 6m/s wind in only a few locations.

 

[Punx0r]

It does makes sense to use technology and energy sources where they are make the most sense.

Thermal storage for individual buildings (heating or cooling) would be good practice. Even without going to such systems there's probably lot of things that can be done to reduce the need for heating and cooling. A lot of buildings are flimsy and badly insulated, thrown up quickly for maximum profit but leaving the owner/tenant with a lifetime of high energy bills. Basic architectural techniques ought to be used more, e.g. shading or maximising solar gain, maximising convection to maintain comfortable temperatures in hot environments. Wind towers managed this centuries ago in desert environments and IIRC are seeing a limited comeback in some urban developments.

 

[Hillhater]

I was merely pointing out that once you understand the data is unreliable, you can delete it from your reference sources.

Hmm. So since it was changed/updated, it is unreliable, and should be ignored.

In late 2017, NIST updated four constants - the Boltzmann Constant, the Planck Constant, electron charge and the Avogadro constant. Those four constants underlie almost all of modern physics. (To use your terms, they were "sloppy" they "failed to report the facts accurately" and are "discredited.") Which would be a wiser conclusion?

1) Physics is unreliable, and you should delete it from your reference sources
2) The new constants represent an improvement in accuracy, and physics still works

You are really dropping the ball now bill.
I am talking about recorded historical temperature records,...not basic Physical theorys and constants.
One is a record of facts , yours are international standards, which i am sure would have been discussed at some depth amoungst all interested parties and relavent authorities before changes were agreed.
Further, i am also sure the original values were recorded together with the reasoning for the changes.
So, no i am not concerned with any of those changes.
But None of that happened with the BOM alterations to the data records, .They retrospectively changed records with no explanation, and no attempt to retain the original data, and they also changed measuring equipment and even locations, but continue to compare results from those different recording methods.
They even installed measuring equipment incapable of registering the range of temperatures (sub-zero), often encountered in those locations.....even failing to notice that the minimum temp recorded was always the same -10.4deg !
..... I call that unprofessional, unscientific, sloppy and effectively discredits the BOM as a source of reliable data.

 

[billvon]

I am talking about recorded historical temperature records,...not basic Physical theorys and constants.

You are saying that since climate records were readjusted based on new information, they are unreliable. If that's true, then since physical constants were also readjusted based on new information, they are unreliable as well.

Or you are hypocritical, of course.

One is a record of facts , yours are international standards, which i am sure would have been discussed at some depth amoungst all interested parties and relavent authorities before changes were agreed.

Both the climate record and the physical constant changes underwent such rigor.

They retrospectively changed records with no explanation, and no attempt to retain the original data, and they also changed measuring equipment and even locations, but continue to compare results from those different recording methods.

This is the classic argument from ignorance. "I cannot understand why they were changed, therefore they are unreliable." Yet you apply that argument to climate records but not basic physical constants - which should change less than measurements made on unreliable equipment.

I'm going with hypocritical at this point. Climate change denial is something of a religious belief - your belief requires you to dispute any change/result/information that weakens your religion, and support any change/result/information that strengthens it. In a few weeks I am sure you will come across an article claiming "there's no such thing as climate change!" with far shakier data - and you will support it wholeheartedly.

 

[Hillhater]

Bill. ,
You can go with hypocritical, or whatever suits your beliefs,
...I will continue to chose my reference sources carefully.

 

[Punx0r]

Cherry-pick more like...

There is a reasonable explanation for each of your objections to the climate data being "corrected" and this should be the default assumption. Not that there's a conspiracy or everyone is crooked or utterly incompetent, in line with the general principles of metrology and probability. But I guess that doesn't support your beliefs, so...

 

[Hillhater]

There is a reasonable explanation for each of your objections to the climate data being "corrected"

Really ?....then please let us know what they are ....and reference the source that gives those explanations.

 

[Punx0r]

No. You're the one levelling accusations of fraud/conspiracy/incompetence - the burden of proof is on you.

It's like conspiracy theorists who believe it's up to everyone else to carefully disprove each of their myriad imagined objections to the "MSM story". Even if you waste your life away doing, it doesn't matter, they just move the goalposts and carrying on believing whatever they want.

 

[billvon]

No. You're the one levelling accusations of fraud/conspiracy/incompetence - the burden of proof is on you.

Agreed. It's like the Apollo hoaxers who don't believe we landed on the Moon. They will bring up something they don't understand, like why there are no stars in the pictures on the Moon's surface. Then when you explain why, they say "PROVE IT! Or admit that those photographs really are unreliable and inaccurate!"

 

[Hillhater]

No. You're the one levelling accusations of fraud/conspiracy/incompetence - the burden of proof is on you.

:x Rubbish !..your word games wont work on me
I stated what happened..and gave examples
You stated there were "reasonable explanations"... implying that you knew what they were,...but gave none ?
But you think i need to proove there were no explanations ?...proove something doesnt exist ?
That is some weird distorted logic !
......hence the "burden of proof" lies squarely with you to state those explanations.

But guys , you are stuck on arguing details, trying to fit people into your mental pigeon holes of types and belief, whilst avoiding the bigger picture.
Lets see how this all plays out.
Which countries can make Wind and Solar effective in reducing global warming, electricity prices, etc etc
Please give examples if you find any .

 

[Hillhater]

.......

 

[wineboyrider]

The Beastie :It never hit me how crazy Melbourne and Sydney are until I started looking at all these Europe people countries like Norway that have the same population but for their entire country, not just a city. The retarded thing about it all is Australians still wonder why property prices are so expensive but mainstream media just can't tell them the truth because its not politically correct or profitable, and people just don't look at the world via Wikipedia for comparison facts.

The desert southwest USA has the same problems. Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and California are running out of water. The only difference really is we have oil and gas and coal!

 

[GeriatricGeoffrey]

The Beastie :It never hit me how crazy Melbourne and Sydney are until I started looking at all these Europe people countries like Norway that have the same population but for their entire country, not just a city. The retarded thing about it all is Australians still wonder why property prices are so expensive but mainstream media just can't tell them the truth because its not politically correct or profitable, and people just don't look at the world via Wikipedia for comparison facts.

The desert southwest USA has the same problems. Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and California are running out of water. The only difference really is we have oil and gas and coal!

We can thank all the water subsidies for "farmers" -- primarily in rural California -- for that.

 

[Punx0r]

:x Rubbish !..your word games wont work on me
I stated what happened..and gave examples
You stated there were "reasonable explanations"... implying that you knew what they were,...but gave none ?
But you think i need to proove there were no explanations ?...proove something doesnt exist ?
That is some weird distorted logic !
......hence the "burden of proof" lies squarely with you to state those explanations.

When someone has specialist knowledge or training on something you don't understand, your default assumption should be they know what they're doing and there are reasonable explanations for what they do. If nothing else this is based on basic probability - it is the most likely scenario to be true.

If someone with the right credentials and full knowledge of the particular situation choses, to say, remove outlier data points from a trend following an investigation in to the accuracy of the equipment/process/operators that recorded them, then there is probably a good, justifiable reason to do so (and a rudimentary knowledge or measurement principles of data analysis would back this up). However, if it doesn't happen to sound right to your ear, then if you want people to pay attention to you then you need to come up with a good explanation why. Maybe you have the right credentials to opine from a position of authority, maybe you have applied statistical analysis or principles of measurement or even just sound logic to conclude the original decisions and actions were in error. Just saying "Well, I don't buy it" from your armchair doesn't cut it as proper criticism.

 

[billvon]

The desert southwest USA has the same problems. Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and California are running out of water.

Yep. And as it gets warmer, that's just going to get worse. San Diego just opened its first desalinator; it now supplies 7% of San Diego's water. Look for more of these as the water dries up.