AGW Supporters always ignore this question

[Josh Cryer]

Actually, didn't Hitler take a lot of his views from Iranian culture? Or was that heresay? I know I read it somewhere. But this is the internet, after all.

And MSimon, oh I was just making a jab at you. The only thing that can be concluded here is that seedload's objection is not that big of a deal, and that the 20% difference is certainly bigger than he originally thought (though somewhat less than the emission change between the periods; Tom's suggestion could well be playing a part here, too).

[MSimon]

It actually surprises me that more of you engineering types aren't after the whole wind turbine business, it's one of the fastest growing green businesses in the world. I mean hell, just installing the things requires a crapload of engineering skill.

Well yeah. But most engineers are not crooks. Most have integrity. And wind requires backup for non-windy periods. Like they are having in Britain and on the Continent during this cold spell.

This is what is wrong with wind:

http://www.talentfactory.dk/en/tour/wres/weibull.htm

Now factor in that power out goes up as the cube of the wind speed.

this is also nice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Wind_energy

What does it all mean? Wind has a total capital cost of $2 to $4 a watt (nameplate rating) if you include backup. And you also have to pay for the fuel of the backup and the fuel infrastructure.

Costs are coming down. But they are no where near the costs of burning coal. But let us do a little BOE math.

Wind costs are currently running 4X coal. Say wind is 10% of the mix (as it is in some places in Europe).

(4 X .1) + ( .9 ) = 1.3X coal only prices for electricity. Whoosh. What was that sound? Jobs getting sucked in to China. Or India.

And you know - politicians in America are wary of driving more jobs off shore. Why? The Chinese are asking for bribes - not handing them out. And besides - eventually voters notice.

So unlike Al Gore I'm not willing to undermine the standard of living of the lower classes for my own personal profit. It would be corrupt to even suggest it. Capiche? I don't deal in that. I can tell you that I have lost at least one job in my career because I would not play ball with crooks. And the offer was a solid one. And I knew who was in on the gravy train. I could have sold out. Easy. If I was that kind of guy.

I'm all for bringing down the cost of AE through research. I'm not into raising my own standard of living through theft from the masses. I'm kind of communist that way. At least the professed ideals.

Once upon a time the left promised to raise the living standards of the masses through electricity etc. Now the promise is to lower them. That is not nice. And it is no leftists ideal I'm aware of (the practice of course is a different matter).

And did you ever think that all this anti-CO2 may just make you a tool of Big Wind and Big Solar? Or even Big Oil (Enron was paying Hansen for opinions favorable to them - they were Big in natural gas - and I know this is going to come as a shock but Hansen's current line is, "Coal bad, natural gas good". I wonder who is paying him now?)

The ginned up science may have nothing to do with saving the planet. It may just be a mind f*ck battle in an industrial war. Wouldn't be the first time.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/12/roots.html

That would make you a useful idiot. The kinder term is dupe.

[MSimon]

Tom,

People delude themselves easily. I think if some of the people who think Hitler is great knew more about him, he'd lose much of his charm.

Depends. He gets lionized among those who want to kill Jews. And there is a lot of that going around in the Arab world.

http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway ... /index.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/29july02/ ... 072902.asp

And the Palestinians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_A ... ied_Europe

[Josh Cryer]

MSimon, wind is just another technology, that once mass produced, will drop in cost. Look at the computer you're using now (wait, I believe you said you're using an ancient computer with Netscape; still), compare it to one built 10 years before it. The costs were astronomical.

This is true for wind, as the numbers I hear are between 5-10 cents per kWh. This is quite competitive with coal. This is compared to wind 20 years ago which was 4-5 times that.

Read the latest American Wind Power Association newsletter: http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/1 ... Watch.html

[MSimon]

MSimon, wind is just another technology, that once mass produced, will drop in cost.

Actually, I have studied the matter and that statement is false.

Mass production of LARGER turbines will lower the cost. But there is no incentive for that as the turbine companies are making good money at current sizes due to the subsidies.

Subsidies have perverse effects.

What we should be doing is paying for pilot production of 12 MW jobs. Once they are proved out (3 to 5 years in the field) mass production.

And then there is storage. Not near enough effort in that.

And you still have to provide enough storage for many days of no wind. That has not quite been worked out yet at an economical price. So without storage you have to provide back up generators that use fuel.

At current prices every dollar that goes into the green economy costs the real economy $2. Net loss $1.

So the wind and solar guys make out like bandits while the government robs the rest of us to pay for it. That doesn't sound like the socialist ideals I used to profess.

The old socialism - rob from the rich to give to the poor.
The new socialism - rob from the poor to give to the rich

The new socialism looks a lot like the old aristocracy.

My current theory is that you can't build a viable economy based on theft.

[CaptainBeowulf]

If wind gets cheap, it can make a useful supplementary power source. Heck, if the parts were cheap enough for it to be cost-effective, I`d probably stick a small turbine in my back yard and some solar panels on my roof and make my own power half the time.

But no amount of cost reductions can overcome the fact that the wind doesn`t always blow, and the sun doesn`t always shine. Wind and solar (except for space-based solar) can`t be core suppliers to our power grid.

Relying on wind and solar part of the time and then kicking in nuclear when you have a shortage doesn`t work either. It takes a long time to power up/cool down a fission nuke plant. During that time you either don`t have enough power in the grid, or too much.

If a fusion system like polywell works, hopefully we will have a nuke source that we can switch on/off quickly. To my understanding currently hydroelectric and coal are the only sources that we can control easily.

Power engineers feel free to elaborate on/qualify/correct my interpretation.

[CaptainBeowulf]

MSimon, nice articles and links on your blog there. I don't agree with every aspect of the arguments posed in the articles, but it's not natural to always be in complete agreement - I agree with the overall interpretation.

Orson Scott Card is one of my favorite sci-fi authors. Nice to see him doing history/strategic analysis. In terms of historians, I suspect you're a Victor Davis Hanson reader too?

I'll stop here, as I vaguely recall someone posting several months ago (back when I lurked before joining) that new members shouldn't feed the MSimon

[MSimon]

I'll stop here, as I vaguely recall someone posting several months ago (back when I lurked before joining) that new members shouldn't feed the MSimon

So true. I'm the resident troll. And the moderator (at this site janitor is probably a better term).

I'm well known for being arrogant and honest. And occasionally mistaken.

[Josh Cryer]

Wind blows in the morning and evenings (and throughout the night), solar works during the day. They're complimentary technologies.

Long term we will want energy sources that aren't so politically on shaky grounds. Thorium, Boron (yay Polywell), or renewable sources like wind and solar.

Thorium isn't looking likely due to the technology being so tied to nuclear fission and having to have to deal with all of the complications related to that (non-poliferation, etc).

We don't yet know about Boron, but if Polywell pans out we may be able to get the laws rewritten, or at least, marginal exceptions made (Thorium itself deserves exceptions since it is significantly safer and poses a much less threat, but I don't think it is as 'easy' to convince the politicians over as Polywell would be). Think medium-large sized corps making the parts for a full sized Polywell and installing one in each municipality of the country.

In the end, though, wind and solar can replace our grid in a slow transitional way. Over 4-5 decades. Rather than going "oh, we'll invest in such and such in a big way," the guys in charge are just saying "we'll subsidize the cost until it's competitive." It's the difference between revolutionizing our grid (like Polywell could do) and transitioning the grid. It is happening... it's just going to take a long ass time.

Oh and MSimon, "12 MW wind turbines" don't exist. The larger they get the more you get into the realm of superconductors and other crazy exotic materials. I think it's really odd of you to suggest that they don't "build bigger" because the subsidies are a sweet spot. The tax incentives, I think you'd think are not a big deal. And the loan guarantees are just designed to get people to invest. Other than that, I don't see what "subsidies" have to do with anything. The main drawback is materials, not anything subversive.

[Luzr]

If a fusion system like polywell works, hopefully we will have a nuke source that we can switch on/off quickly.

But it that case, we will not need wind/solar anymore....

[alexjrgreen]

Wind has a total capital cost of $2 to $4 a watt (nameplate rating) if you include backup. And you also have to pay for the fuel of the backup and the fuel infrastructure.

Costs are coming down. But they are no where near the costs of burning coal.

What do you make of this: Secret Energy Turbine?

[IntLibber]

MSimon, wind is just another technology, that once mass produced, will drop in cost. Look at the computer you're using now (wait, I believe you said you're using an ancient computer with Netscape; still), compare it to one built 10 years before it. The costs were astronomical.

This is true for wind, as the numbers I hear are between 5-10 cents per kWh. This is quite competitive with coal. This is compared to wind 20 years ago which was 4-5 times that.

Read the latest American Wind Power Association newsletter: http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/1 ... Watch.html

Wind is not some new fangled tech, its been around in its modern form for 40 years. And yeah, it can be inexpensive for the power it produces, but the problem is that it only produces part of the time, erratically, so most wind installations, again, have to be backed up by some other power source that also requires investment as well.

[seedload]

I'll note that once clonan sufficiently answered the question (that indeed, there is a significant trend if you look at the data properly), the thread went way off of its original topic.

Sufficiently? Significant trend?

Sorry, I disagree. The difference accounts for about 0.25 degrees C of warming. The warming was a little greater during the last 64 years, mostly due to differences in the cooling periods (a blip down in temperature around 1900), and not significantly different during the warming periods. In your mind, that is a trend? Obvious indication of CO2 causing warming? Enough said is your position?

A skeptic could easily point out that:
- Temperature change from 1880 to 1944 - 0.3 degrees C
- Temperature change from 1944 to 2008 - 0.3 degrees C.
Enough said?

Sorry, just saying there you have it is not enough for me.

<EDIT> I should also point out that clonan, who you say sufficiently answered my question, also theorized that the trends were because CO2 levels were dropping between the end of WWII to about 1980. This is your source of a sufficent answer?

regards

[seedload]

NO, CO2 levels have gone up the whole time. Ever increasingly so.

Please provide if you have them...

GISS data. Note that prior to 1959, this is proxy data.

[seedload]

Noting that the temperature profile seems similar during the 64 years from 1880-1944 and from 1944-2008 due to apparent oscillation in temperature, I thought of and interesting comparison to make.

What if you subtract the temperatures from prior to 1944 from the temperatures post 1945. (1945 minus 1880, 1946 minus 1881, etc)?

This should point out the differences in the shape and maybe yield the 'trend' we care about. How are temperatures behaving differently in the last 64 years compared to how they were behaving in the prior 64 years? The results are kinda interesting.

The difference between temperatures now and 64 years prior is indeed increasing - but that increase appears linear. That is unexpected.

Similarly, you could do the same thing with CO2 to see if there is an apparent coorelation between CO2 change and temperature trend changes. The calculated correlation is 0.68.