Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:


I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,

It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.

LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.

A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg

Example: Kodiak, Alaska
--
Bill

Brought to you from Anchorage, Alaska

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0800, "Bill Bradshaw"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:


I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,

It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.

LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.

A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg

Example: Kodiak, Alaska

They are fortunate. 80% of their power is hydro. No CO2. That is, no
CO2 after they have built the dam.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On 20/09/2019 01:39, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0800, "Bill Bradshaw"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:


I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,

It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.

LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.

A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg

Example: Kodiak, Alaska

They are fortunate. 80% of their power is hydro. No CO2. That is, no
CO2 after they have built the dam.

That's the point. eye-roll emoji

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:38:06 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:39, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0800, "Bill Bradshaw"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:


I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,

It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.

LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.

A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg

Example: Kodiak, Alaska

They are fortunate. 80% of their power is hydro. No CO2. That is, no
CO2 after they have built the dam.

That's the point. eye-roll emoji

But you can't ignore the CO2 generated while the plant is being built.
Its like ignoring the purchase price of a car when calculating its
running costs.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:38:06 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:39, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0800, "Bill Bradshaw"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Example: Kodiak, Alaska
They are fortunate. 80% of their power is hydro. No CO2. That is, no
CO2 after they have built the dam.
That's the point. eye-roll emoji

But you can't ignore the CO2 generated while the plant is being built.
Its like ignoring the purchase price of a car when calculating its
running costs.


There is at least one hydroelectric project which is running
100 years after it was built. The CO2 component of the build,
is amortized over those 100 years (compared to any competing
generating technique). Now work out the CO2 per GWH.

Paul

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:03:06 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:38:06 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:39, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0800, "Bill Bradshaw"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Example: Kodiak, Alaska
They are fortunate. 80% of their power is hydro. No CO2. That is, no
CO2 after they have built the dam.
That's the point. eye-roll emoji

But you can't ignore the CO2 generated while the plant is being built.
Its like ignoring the purchase price of a car when calculating its
running costs.


There is at least one hydroelectric project which is running
100 years after it was built. The CO2 component of the build,
is amortized over those 100 years (compared to any competing
generating technique). Now work out the CO2 per GWH.

Hydro is fine but there is considerable CO2 produced while it is being
constructed. The filling of large man made lakes has considerable
adverse consequences, including for CO2. But the real kicker is that
there aren't sufficient potential lakes to fill the worlds need.


--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:03:06 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:38:06 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:39, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0800, "Bill Bradshaw"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Example: Kodiak, Alaska
They are fortunate. 80% of their power is hydro. No CO2. That is, no
CO2 after they have built the dam.
That's the point. eye-roll emoji
But you can't ignore the CO2 generated while the plant is being built.
Its like ignoring the purchase price of a car when calculating its
running costs.

There is at least one hydroelectric project which is running
100 years after it was built. The CO2 component of the build,
is amortized over those 100 years (compared to any competing
generating technique). Now work out the CO2 per GWH.

Hydro is fine but there is considerable CO2 produced while it is being
constructed. The filling of large man made lakes has considerable
adverse consequences, including for CO2. But the real kicker is that
there aren't sufficient potential lakes to fill the worlds need.

The lake forms naturally, when you dam up the river.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfo...ding-1.5246156

There is a potential for the food chain to concentrate the methylmercury.
It means fish caught on the river, might not (eventually) be safe to eat.
The level in fish could rise with time, so needs to be monitored.
So that people can be informed about "how much fish is safe to eat".

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/w...y-problem.html

If there are lakes nearby, you could always switch your fishing activity
to those. (Any lakes not killed off by acid rain. Lakes that are
naturally buffered by their geology, aren't a problem. I've seen
bodies of water killed by acid rain, and you can see all the way
to the bottom. The water is as clean as a swimming pool. You don't
see a thing alive in them. No water bugs. Nothing. Just water
and no fish. Someone at my university was tracking lake pH back
when I was in the computer center, so they had known about the
acid rain problem long ago (might have been fallout from
burning coal, as an example).

http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley...in2/index.html

In the above hydro project, they chose not to cap the reservoir lands.
Whatever that means. I don't know what you'd cap them with exactly.
You notice they clearcut the trees and just left them on site.
But you see, that hydro project was grossly
over budget, and all the politicians were "running scared". People
will pay a lot more on their power bills... for decades because
of this screwup. If the project planning had been done properly,
they would not have built it (the project would have "failed the
smell test"). The reasons that project was built, have nothing to
do with practicality, and everything to do with "hurt pride", when
a certain contract was negotiated, and the other party (overwhelmingly)
got the better part of the finances. This was a desperation project,
to "make their own hydro project", which is doing it for all the
wrong reasons. And making a ****ing mess in the process.

So this isn't one of our finer projects. This won't go into any
text books about project management. More like a book
entitled "Beavis and Butthead build a Dam".

But it really is an amazing project, because there is now a
power transmission line that runs under the ocean, and it has bidirectional
power transmission capability. And that part of the
project allows more powering options. for example, if the
cable were to break on the northern end, the line can be
reversed on the southern end. Something like that.
At least one of those lines is HVDC, which is perhaps more
resistant to solar flares.

http://www.emeranl.com/site/media/em...eml-map-sm.gif

And don't ask me under what conditions the Churchill Falls
connection is used. That would be a function of the spot price
from that site. It might be there for reliability reasons or
something.

But that's how your country ends up at "60% hydroelectric". One
stupid project after another :-) It's good work if you're
a cement truck driver. Or you own a pair of hip waders.

Paul

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 01:45:37 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:03:06 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:38:06 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:39, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0800, "Bill Bradshaw"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Example: Kodiak, Alaska
They are fortunate. 80% of their power is hydro. No CO2. That is, no
CO2 after they have built the dam.
That's the point. eye-roll emoji
But you can't ignore the CO2 generated while the plant is being built.
Its like ignoring the purchase price of a car when calculating its
running costs.

There is at least one hydroelectric project which is running
100 years after it was built. The CO2 component of the build,
is amortized over those 100 years (compared to any competing
generating technique). Now work out the CO2 per GWH.

Hydro is fine but there is considerable CO2 produced while it is being
constructed. The filling of large man made lakes has considerable
adverse consequences, including for CO2. But the real kicker is that
there aren't sufficient potential lakes to fill the worlds need.

The lake forms naturally, when you dam up the river.

But what about the consequences of submerging a forest?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfo...ding-1.5246156

There is a potential for the food chain to concentrate the methylmercury.
It means fish caught on the river, might not (eventually) be safe to eat.
The level in fish could rise with time, so needs to be monitored.
So that people can be informed about "how much fish is safe to eat".

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/w...y-problem.html

If there are lakes nearby, you could always switch your fishing activity
to those. (Any lakes not killed off by acid rain. Lakes that are
naturally buffered by their geology, aren't a problem. I've seen
bodies of water killed by acid rain, and you can see all the way
to the bottom. The water is as clean as a swimming pool. You don't
see a thing alive in them. No water bugs. Nothing. Just water
and no fish. Someone at my university was tracking lake pH back
when I was in the computer center, so they had known about the
acid rain problem long ago (might have been fallout from
burning coal, as an example).

http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley...in2/index.html

In the above hydro project, they chose not to cap the reservoir lands.
Whatever that means. I don't know what you'd cap them with exactly.
You notice they clearcut the trees and just left them on site.
But you see, that hydro project was grossly
over budget, and all the politicians were "running scared". People
will pay a lot more on their power bills... for decades because
of this screwup. If the project planning had been done properly,
they would not have built it (the project would have "failed the
smell test"). The reasons that project was built, have nothing to
do with practicality, and everything to do with "hurt pride", when
a certain contract was negotiated, and the other party (overwhelmingly)
got the better part of the finances. This was a desperation project,
to "make their own hydro project", which is doing it for all the
wrong reasons. And making a ****ing mess in the process.

So this isn't one of our finer projects. This won't go into any
text books about project management. More like a book
entitled "Beavis and Butthead build a Dam".

But it really is an amazing project, because there is now a
power transmission line that runs under the ocean, and it has bidirectional
power transmission capability. And that part of the
project allows more powering options. for example, if the
cable were to break on the northern end, the line can be
reversed on the southern end. Something like that.
At least one of those lines is HVDC, which is perhaps more
resistant to solar flares.

http://www.emeranl.com/site/media/em...eml-map-sm.gif

And don't ask me under what conditions the Churchill Falls
connection is used. That would be a function of the spot price
from that site. It might be there for reliability reasons or
something.

But that's how your country ends up at "60% hydroelectric". One
stupid project after another :-) It's good work if you're
a cement truck driver. Or you own a pair of hip waders.

Paul

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:03:06 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:38:06 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:39, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0800, "Bill Bradshaw"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Example: Kodiak, Alaska
They are fortunate. 80% of their power is hydro. No CO2. That is, no
CO2 after they have built the dam.
That's the point. eye-roll emoji

But you can't ignore the CO2 generated while the plant is being built.
Its like ignoring the purchase price of a car when calculating its
running costs.


There is at least one hydroelectric project which is running
100 years after it was built. The CO2 component of the build,
is amortized over those 100 years (compared to any competing
generating technique). Now work out the CO2 per GWH.

Hydro is fine but there is considerable CO2 produced while it is being
constructed. The filling of large man made lakes has considerable
adverse consequences, including for CO2. But the real kicker is that
there aren't sufficient potential lakes to fill the worlds need.

Maybe that's why nobody pretends that *any* method - i.e. including
hydro - is the one and only solution!? Only you seem to argue the
fallacy, that if a solution doesn't solve all problems, it's not a
solution.

Hydro is *a* solution, not *the* solution. And like any and all
solutions, it's only a *partial* solution.

N.B. Our country - The Netherlands - is totally flat. For some reason
I think hydro isn't going to save our bacon.

On 2019-09-21 10:36 a.m., Frank Slootweg wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:03:06 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:38:06 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:39, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0800, "Bill Bradshaw"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Example: Kodiak, Alaska
They are fortunate. 80% of their power is hydro. No CO2. That is, no
CO2 after they have built the dam.
That's the point. eye-roll emoji

But you can't ignore the CO2 generated while the plant is being built.
Its like ignoring the purchase price of a car when calculating its
running costs.


There is at least one hydroelectric project which is running
100 years after it was built. The CO2 component of the build,
is amortized over those 100 years (compared to any competing
generating technique). Now work out the CO2 per GWH.

Hydro is fine but there is considerable CO2 produced while it is being
constructed. The filling of large man made lakes has considerable
adverse consequences, including for CO2. But the real kicker is that
there aren't sufficient potential lakes to fill the worlds need.

Maybe that's why nobody pretends that *any* method - i.e. including
hydro - is the one and only solution!? Only you seem to argue the
fallacy, that if a solution doesn't solve all problems, it's not a
solution.

Hydro is *a* solution, not *the* solution. And like any and all
solutions, it's only a *partial* solution.

N.B. Our country - The Netherlands - is totally flat. For some reason
I think hydro isn't going to save our bacon.


On the lighter side, How many hamsters running in their wheels belted to
their teeny, tiny generators would it take to power an Electric Arc
furnace which is drawing 44,000 amps at 750 volts 3 phase AC? :-)

Rene

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-21 10:36 a.m., Frank Slootweg wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:03:06 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:38:06 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:39, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0800, "Bill Bradshaw"

wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced
that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with
only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Example: Kodiak, Alaska
They are fortunate. 80% of their power is hydro. No CO2. That is, no
CO2 after they have built the dam.
That's the point. eye-roll emoji

But you can't ignore the CO2 generated while the plant is being built.
Its like ignoring the purchase price of a car when calculating its
running costs.


There is at least one hydroelectric project which is running
100 years after it was built. The CO2 component of the build,
is amortized over those 100 years (compared to any competing
generating technique). Now work out the CO2 per GWH.

Hydro is fine but there is considerable CO2 produced while it is being
constructed. The filling of large man made lakes has considerable
adverse consequences, including for CO2. But the real kicker is that
there aren't sufficient potential lakes to fill the worlds need.

Maybe that's why nobody pretends that *any* method - i.e. including
hydro - is the one and only solution!? Only you seem to argue the
fallacy, that if a solution doesn't solve all problems, it's not a
solution.

Hydro is *a* solution, not *the* solution. And like any and all
solutions, it's only a *partial* solution.

N.B. Our country - The Netherlands - is totally flat. For some reason
I think hydro isn't going to save our bacon.


On the lighter side, How many hamsters running in their wheels belted to
their teeny, tiny generators would it take to power an Electric Arc
furnace which is drawing 44,000 amps at 750 volts 3 phase AC? :-)

Rene


Churchill Falls

Installed capacity 5,428 MW
Capacity factor 73.6%

so it has 4000MW to offer.

The load in this case is 33MW.

I don't think Churchill Falls would notice you
switching that on and off. Whereas at the substation level
there would likely be an effect on the distribution system.

Hoover Dam, a very nice high-head setup, is

Installed capacity 2,080 MW
Capacity factor 23%

Still wouldn't stop it in its tracks. You might hear a
"click" when you connect the load.

One of our nuke setups. Four reactors.

Units operational 4 × 878 MW
Make and model 4 × CANDU 850
Nameplate capacity 3512 MW
Capacity factor 63.22% (2017)
82.90% (lifetime)

You could make lots of steel, I would think, from
all those crushed Hondas. No worries.

This is why we have time-of-day billing and charge
3X as much for electricity during "peak" time, so you
can run those 33MW loads. The billing system makes sure
the little people don't "waste it". It's really very
clever, as at one time, there might have been a need
to import electricity to make up the balance, but now,
the system can handle the daily load OK, as the load
curve has had the "fat" kicked out of it. I don't
run the AC here, during peak. It remains switched off.
Now, my ****ing water bill costs more than my
electricity... Grrr.

Paul

On 2019-09-21 4:39 p.m., Paul wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-21 10:36 a.m., Frank Slootweg wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:03:06 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:38:06 +0100, Chris
wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:39, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0800, "Bill Bradshaw"

wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
Â*Â* I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not
convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

Â*Â* So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy
sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with
only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy."Â* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Example:Â* Kodiak, Alaska
They are fortunate. 80% of their power is hydro. No CO2. That
is, no
CO2 after they have built the dam.
That's the point. eye-roll emoji

But you can't ignore the CO2 generated while the plant is being
built.
Its like ignoring the purchase price of a car when calculating its
running costs.


There is at least one hydroelectric project which is running
100 years after it was built. The CO2 component of the build,
is amortized over those 100 years (compared to any competing
generating technique). Now work out the CO2 per GWH.

Hydro is fine but there is considerable CO2 produced while it is being
constructed. The filling of large man made lakes has considerable
adverse consequences, including for CO2. But the real kicker is that
there aren't sufficient potential lakes to fill the worlds need.

Â*Â* Maybe that's why nobody pretends that *any* method - i.e. including
hydro - is the one and only solution!? Only you seem to argue the
fallacy, that if a solution doesn't solve all problems, it's not a
solution.

Â*Â* Hydro is *a* solution, not *the* solution. And like any and all
solutions, it's only a *partial* solution.

Â*Â* N.B. Our country - The Netherlands - is totally flat. For some reason
I think hydro isn't going to save our bacon.


On the lighter side, How many hamsters running in their wheels belted
to their teeny, tiny generators would it take to power an Electric Arc
furnace which is drawing 44,000 amps at 750 volts 3 phase AC?Â* :-)

Rene


Churchill Falls

Â*Â* Installed capacityÂ*Â* 5,428 MW
Â*Â* Capacity factorÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 73.6%

so it has 4000MW to offer.

The load in this case is 33MW.

I don't think Churchill Falls would notice you
switching that on and off. Whereas at the substation level
there would likely be an effect on the distribution system.

Hoover Dam, a very nice high-head setup, is

Â*Â* Installed capacityÂ*Â* 2,080 MW
Â*Â* Capacity factorÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 23%

Still wouldn't stop it in its tracks. You might hear a
"click" when you connect the load.

One of our nuke setups. Four reactors.

Â*Â* Units operationalÂ*Â*Â* 4 × 878 MW
Â*Â* Make and modelÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 4 × CANDU 850
Â*Â* Nameplate capacityÂ*Â* 3512 MW
Â*Â* Capacity factorÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â* 63.22% (2017)
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 82.90% (lifetime)

You could make lots of steel, I would think, from
all those crushed Hondas. No worries.

This is why we have time-of-day billing and charge
3X as much for electricity during "peak" time, so you
can run those 33MW loads. The billing system makes sure
the little people don't "waste it". It's really very
clever, as at one time, there might have been a need
to import electricity to make up the balance, but now,
the system can handle the daily load OK, as the load
curve has had the "fat" kicked out of it. I don't
run the AC here, during peak. It remains switched off.
Now, my ****ing water bill costs more than my
electricity... Grrr.

Â*Â* Paul

My water is included and unlimited, BUT is not free as my neighbor says.
My AC is 12000 BTU and I run it as little as possible eve though my
hydro here is reasonable at 8 cents per KWH.
I give up on the hamsters, cost too much to feed them. :-)

Rene

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 21 Sep 2019 15:36:40 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:03:06 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:38:06 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:39, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0800, "Bill Bradshaw"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Example: Kodiak, Alaska
They are fortunate. 80% of their power is hydro. No CO2. That is, no
CO2 after they have built the dam.
That's the point. eye-roll emoji

But you can't ignore the CO2 generated while the plant is being built.
Its like ignoring the purchase price of a car when calculating its
running costs.


There is at least one hydroelectric project which is running
100 years after it was built. The CO2 component of the build,
is amortized over those 100 years (compared to any competing
generating technique). Now work out the CO2 per GWH.

Hydro is fine but there is considerable CO2 produced while it is being
constructed. The filling of large man made lakes has considerable
adverse consequences, including for CO2. But the real kicker is that
there aren't sufficient potential lakes to fill the worlds need.

Maybe that's why nobody pretends that *any* method - i.e. including
hydro - is the one and only solution!? Only you seem to argue the
fallacy, that if a solution doesn't solve all problems, it's not a
solution.

What I have argued is that wind and solar are not sufficient
solutions. They are not even very good solutions. we should be looking
elsewhere.

As any and all others, wind and solar and indeed only partial
solutions. They obviously don't solve the energy *storage* problem, so
they need other additional solutions to keep the grid in balance. IMO,
these additional solutions are strongly lacking, at least in our
country.

FYI, our country is very heavy into windfarms, mostly at sea. We're
currently building the largest windfarm in the world.

FWIW, I don't support the heavy reliance on windfarms at the level
we're doing. IMO, there's way too little attention to the side effects
of windfarms, including - sometimes devastating - health effects from
(very) low frequency 'sound' (not so much in our country, but in others
with more solid ground).

And also with solar, people are often ignoring the side effects and
disadvantages.

Hydro is *a* solution, not *the* solution. And like any and all
solutions, it's only a *partial* solution.

N.B. Our country - The Netherlands - is totally flat. For some reason
I think hydro isn't going to save our bacon.

You are basically logical and straight thinking people. I'm picking
you will be among the first to adopt the new generation of nuclear
reactors for power.

Very unlikely. We currently have very limited nuclear power (compared
to some other European countries) and there's no commercial nor
political interest to increase it.

So what *do* we do?

rant

We talk - not act - about a zillion different solutions. Each time
only mentioning the benefits and keeping quiet about the drawbacks. And,
for example, let poor sods who believe us - silly buggers -, invest tens
of thousands of Euros of their money into solutions which can't work -
heat pumps - so their energy bill goes up 100% and they can sit in the
cold.

/rant

On 22 Sep 2019 09:28:03 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 21 Sep 2019 15:36:40 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:03:06 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:38:06 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:39, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0800, "Bill Bradshaw"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Example: Kodiak, Alaska
They are fortunate. 80% of their power is hydro. No CO2. That is, no
CO2 after they have built the dam.
That's the point. eye-roll emoji

But you can't ignore the CO2 generated while the plant is being built.
Its like ignoring the purchase price of a car when calculating its
running costs.


There is at least one hydroelectric project which is running
100 years after it was built. The CO2 component of the build,
is amortized over those 100 years (compared to any competing
generating technique). Now work out the CO2 per GWH.

Hydro is fine but there is considerable CO2 produced while it is being
constructed. The filling of large man made lakes has considerable
adverse consequences, including for CO2. But the real kicker is that
there aren't sufficient potential lakes to fill the worlds need.

Maybe that's why nobody pretends that *any* method - i.e. including
hydro - is the one and only solution!? Only you seem to argue the
fallacy, that if a solution doesn't solve all problems, it's not a
solution.

What I have argued is that wind and solar are not sufficient
solutions. They are not even very good solutions. we should be looking
elsewhere.

As any and all others, wind and solar and indeed only partial
solutions. They obviously don't solve the energy *storage* problem, so
they need other additional solutions to keep the grid in balance. IMO,
these additional solutions are strongly lacking, at least in our
country.

FYI, our country is very heavy into windfarms, mostly at sea. We're
currently building the largest windfarm in the world.

FWIW, I don't support the heavy reliance on windfarms at the level
we're doing. IMO, there's way too little attention to the side effects
of windfarms, including - sometimes devastating - health effects from
(very) low frequency 'sound' (not so much in our country, but in others
with more solid ground).

And also with solar, people are often ignoring the side effects and
disadvantages.

Hydro is *a* solution, not *the* solution. And like any and all
solutions, it's only a *partial* solution.

N.B. Our country - The Netherlands - is totally flat. For some reason
I think hydro isn't going to save our bacon.

You are basically logical and straight thinking people. I'm picking
you will be among the first to adopt the new generation of nuclear
reactors for power.

Very unlikely. We currently have very limited nuclear power (compared
to some other European countries) and there's no commercial nor
political interest to increase it.

So what *do* we do?

rant

We talk - not act - about a zillion different solutions. Each time
only mentioning the benefits and keeping quiet about the drawbacks. And,
for example, let poor sods who believe us - silly buggers -, invest tens
of thousands of Euros of their money into solutions which can't work -
heat pumps - so their energy bill goes up 100% and they can sit in the
cold.

/rant

And eventually you will have to accept one of the remaining
alternatives. Either that or go back to about 1820.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 22 Sep 2019 09:28:03 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On 21 Sep 2019 15:36:40 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:03:06 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:38:06 +0100, Chris wrote:

On 20/09/2019 01:39, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0800, "Bill Bradshaw"
wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
wrote:

On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:
I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not convinced that
we have the capability to really know what's happening or why.
But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from
late November to March when I was young, and in recent years
the ponds rarely even freeze over.

So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might
contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side?
What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy sources,
It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power.
LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with only wind
and solar power. Just an example.
A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland.

"Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable
energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg
Example: Kodiak, Alaska
They are fortunate. 80% of their power is hydro. No CO2. That is, no
CO2 after they have built the dam.
That's the point. eye-roll emoji

But you can't ignore the CO2 generated while the plant is being built.
Its like ignoring the purchase price of a car when calculating its
running costs.


There is at least one hydroelectric project which is running
100 years after it was built. The CO2 component of the build,
is amortized over those 100 years (compared to any competing
generating technique). Now work out the CO2 per GWH.

Hydro is fine but there is considerable CO2 produced while it is being
constructed. The filling of large man made lakes has considerable
adverse consequences, including for CO2. But the real kicker is that
there aren't sufficient potential lakes to fill the worlds need.

Maybe that's why nobody pretends that *any* method - i.e. including
hydro - is the one and only solution!? Only you seem to argue the
fallacy, that if a solution doesn't solve all problems, it's not a
solution.

What I have argued is that wind and solar are not sufficient
solutions. They are not even very good solutions. we should be looking
elsewhere.

As any and all others, wind and solar and indeed only partial
solutions. They obviously don't solve the energy *storage* problem, so
they need other additional solutions to keep the grid in balance. IMO,
these additional solutions are strongly lacking, at least in our
country.

FYI, our country is very heavy into windfarms, mostly at sea. We're
currently building the largest windfarm in the world.

FWIW, I don't support the heavy reliance on windfarms at the level
we're doing. IMO, there's way too little attention to the side effects
of windfarms, including - sometimes devastating - health effects from
(very) low frequency 'sound' (not so much in our country, but in others
with more solid ground).

And also with solar, people are often ignoring the side effects and
disadvantages.

Hydro is *a* solution, not *the* solution. And like any and all
solutions, it's only a *partial* solution.

N.B. Our country - The Netherlands - is totally flat. For some reason
I think hydro isn't going to save our bacon.

You are basically logical and straight thinking people. I'm picking
you will be among the first to adopt the new generation of nuclear
reactors for power.

Very unlikely. We currently have very limited nuclear power (compared
to some other European countries) and there's no commercial nor
political interest to increase it.

So what *do* we do?

rant

We talk - not act - about a zillion different solutions. Each time
only mentioning the benefits and keeping quiet about the drawbacks. And,
for example, let poor sods who believe us - silly buggers -, invest tens
of thousands of Euros of their money into solutions which can't work -
heat pumps - so their energy bill goes up 100% and they can sit in the
cold.

/rant

And eventually you will have to accept one of the remaining
alternatives. Either that or go back to about 1820.

Nope. We (plural) will have to accept *several* of the remaining
alternatives! That's the whole point! People who think there is a single
alternative which solves all of the problems for every situation and all
people, have their head in the sand (or in another dark place).

One of those solutions might even be heat pumps, but also it won't be
for everybody.