FULL THREAD. PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY MORE OR IT WILL CRASH.

D107

Any evidence on the effect of earth core cooling?

If I remember from my school science, the earth's molten core is cooling. This has to have some effect on climate ultimately but I haven't heard stats on this. It's just one more dynamic to throw into the big mix. And of course the sun's output is probably not constant either or other galactic phenomena.

Great thread.

David

Dave DeFord_5

Who is Tennessee Center for Policy Research??

It is an organization the took in about $ 105,000 in 2005 and is apparently a one man operation run by a guy by the name of Jason A. Johnson. Other than that you can go to guidestar.org and get their 990 (Non-profit tax return). This is a great resource of any information you would like on non-profits. I have had a log-in there for a couple of years and you don't get any spam just an acknowlegement email and maybe something else you can unsubscribe from.

Maine Doug_52

Yeah I got that Brad,

I was trying to set up another cheek

Steamhead (in transit)

In an age of

speculation, innuendo and half-truth being peddled as news, it's important to know who's paying the bills of an organization like that. This reveals their agenda and bias, and allows us to judge their credibility.

The timing of this is also suspect. If Mr. Gore has indeed been running up such high utility bills for a while, why did these people wait until now to go public?

We've all read of "research" projects that were commissioned solely to promote the viewpoint of whoever in government or business was funding them. That invokes the de facto "golden rule", in which whoever has the gold makes the rules, and produces propaganda, not research-based results.

Even if they are not legally required to give this information, they should be willing to do so unless they have something to hide.

Dave, how would we find out who this Jason A. Johnson is and what he represents?

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

chapchap70_2

If we build windfarms, some birds may fly into the windmill arms. If I remember correctly, there is opposition to windfarms because... well just because.

Perry_3

Perhaps you are a little more suspicious than me...

I still try to give people the benifit of the doubt up front - espcecially if some simple research backs up their story...

Why the timing... We'll lets see... The movie came out last summer if I recall. I have not seen the movie. But, I have heard Al speak to the issue of energy conservation and global warming before.

So immagine if I had wanted to watch the movie just prior to the oscars... and wondered. How is Al actually doing with his energy use...

I can see that happening real easy (like I could have thougth the same thing). Now I don't live where Al lives - but someone who did may well know exactly who to call and how to request Al's utility records.

Now if it helps on where the money comes from.

Several Points:


1) That sometimes when raising money... You can get more money - and money from a wider variety of sources if the sponsorship list is not public. I have worked in two different non-profits (both relating to canoeing/kayaking) and know that you can often do far better by not publishing all.

2) If someone is so interested in how they are funded -- has anyone emailed them and asked? I am not sure how they would respond - they are not required to say; but may be more than willing to list their sponsors over the years.

A bit more information though...

Something I recall from my brief internet search on their organization was someone ranting because Exxon had funded a seemingly huge pile of money to the National Public Policy Center (or whatever it's name was) - and that the National Public Policy Center had given grants to various state orginizations - including the Tennessee orgainzation.

A follow-up poster on that blog responded to the rant by pointing out that Exxon had been donating to the National orginization for many many years... Listed the year and donation amount (my memory is $30,000 - $50,000 per year) and that yes the 15 or 20 years of donations did in fact add up to near a $million dollars - the number quoted in the rant about how biased the national orginzation was to the oil companies because they had accepted the Exxon money.

$30,000 to $50,000 per year does not go far in funding or staffing for any National orginization with an office in the Washinton DC area; much less an organization that can then make grants to various state organizations.

Anyway, based on the rant it appears that some of the money may come from the national orgainzation on public policy. I am unsure if there is a constant funding amount - or if it is just specific grants for specific things from time to time.

However, money aside: The key thing for me is looking at there works. This does not appear to be either a right wing or seriously left wing orgainzation. It does appear to be a largly centrist organization that is interested in largly promoting public policy issues to better Tennessee - and other states.

I was also quickly able to find a series of references to them going back some years and also find a document that the put out in 2002.

In the end though... there are times when I wonder if people will ever accept something. Not saying this is the case here ... but often claiming that "don't know enough" is just a sign of disaproval. No matter how much they can be told.. no matter how good it is.. the people will never believe... Isn't that what happens a lot on boiler or heating system sales. Really, how much do you have to know to accept something. Golly, they must have 15 or 20 current postion papers. Do they look like they makes sense - raise issues in a decent way... or just look like a wash from a specific political perspective.

Al is a local neighbor to them as well - which brings added scrutiny from the local organizations. I would question a lot more if some organization from the other side of the country brought this up.

Perry

Tim P._2

> One would think it would be about time to "walk

> the walk". Incredible....

William Faust

Bill

It's not just Gore who would be proud. You should recall that Cheney famously said that conservation was only a virtue.

William Faust

TN Ctr.

Steamhead, as usual, is on the money. The President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (Center), which was substantially correctly reported as a one-man show, was recycled from the American Enterprise Institute. The Center's agenda and the timing of its reporting of Gore's electricity usage should be obvious. These are orgs that suck up money from the oil majors. Full stop as the English would say.

William Faust

Of Men and Galaxies

Gentlemen, whether global warming is real, we're all screwed in the end unless cold fusion is real or an envelope can be engineered to successfully contain and control hot fusion. Have some fun at http://dieoff.org/. Hit all the links and make sure that that includes http://dieoff.org/page125.htm while you are there. And when you're ready to down a fifth of scotch whiskey to tame (or worsen) your depression after that, go to http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html. Indeed, why stop the pain!

Now for a really good quote:

It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only.

Cosmologist Sir Fred Hoyle
From a lecture series titled Of Men and Galaxies, given at the University of Washington

Okay, so what are you gonna do? Ghostbusters can't help in this instance. Have sex with your wife or significant other and fuggedaboudit? You'll be depressed again when your kids or grandchildren are conscripted to fight in the energy wars of which you have already seen the first skirmishes. Remember that Cheney (or was it Rumsfeld?) said that the War on Terror was not going to end in our lifetime? He was right.

Anyway, let's go attack Iran!

Singh_3

This is funny !!

No matter what your views!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QvNuJYniFU&mode=related&search=

Perry_3

If you don't like the message -- shoot the messanger...

No one has even attempted to claim that the information presented was false.

So when presented with information - what do people do:

If they like the information - they praise the group who brought it to them.

If they don't like the information they either:

1) Attack the information to demonstrait that it is not true ... or at least in serious question.

2) If they cannot attack the information - they attack the group who brought out the information to present them as not being credible. Of course - for the observant - that raises questions of those that attack the people attacking the messanger.

So lets get back on topic - what does the information mean?

First off: No one has attacked the information as not true or even potentially not credible.

It appears to me that all people have done who are upset is attack the organization who dug it up (and does it matter that a single person apparently dug it up: Facts are Facts - and Al's energy use is highly factual and not subject to different "scientific" disputs on if it exist and to what extent, or not).

I personally am quite disapointed in Al on this. He is not walking the walk. His response is even more distressing. If Al wanted carbon credits... Why didn't he go out and plant a bunch of tress himself (or organize a tree planting event - or something).

If Al had actually done anything constructive to reduce energy usage or improve the environment - he would have had credibility in spades...

So that is how I personally feel on it.

I suspect I am one of the few who actually did some research on the organization who reported this - they do not appear to be that unballanced to me in the position papers they have - and have had for a number of years (I'm not saying I agree with everything said in them - but they are a lot better than what a lot of organizations put out).

It is an inconvient truth... about Al's real values.

People's response to the information can also demonstrate an inconvient truth as well.

Oh, and is there ever a "good" time to publish information that is "an inconvient truth."

Not like the timing of Al's movie could possibly have anything to do with political timing.... Of course it did. No one is critisizing Al for that... are they? He could have done that movie years ago. Instead it was done at a time for maximum political advantage for Al if he were to re-enter the presidential race. No problem on my part with that.

However, inconvient truths - whatever they are - need to come out - and I am glad that this came out. It allows everyone to see a truth that was previously hidden.

Now each of us can consider how that truth fits with what we want to happen and with our personal values.

Most of us will have different reactions in the end to what this means to us and how we will act in the future.

That is what part of being an American is all about - there will be a diversity of opinion and beliefs on issues; and that is OK.

One final thought on timmnig: If this person/organization wanted to inflict the worst possible damage to Al's presidential campaign... I would have waited untill Al was the canidate - running on his "envrionmental" platform - and then released this information about 1 month prior to the presidential election.

I don't think Al has even declaired for a single primary yet... This actually gives him time to "adequately" respond if he wants to. It also gives him time on how to plan a presidential bid knowing that this information is out there.

I really don't think that there was a lot of politics played with the timing - not on a national political scale of things.

Who know's - maybe Al will get serious about the issue because of this. Now that would be a huge benifit; because even if he never runs for President or another political office - he could have a huge impact on the issue of sustainable buildings and minimizing environmental impacts. AKA as "Building Green"

Perry

Perry_3

Windfarms have there pros and cons... the biggest con being..

Wind energy is not steady, it ramps up and down with the blowing of the wind.

On hot summer days... the really sticky ones where everyone is using AC to the max... ever notice that the wind is not blowing much.

During the California energy crises a few years ago... with the hot weather... the California wind farms were producing 4% of there capacity (four percent) due to very little wind.

So, for windpower you need substaintial backup generation capability... Hmmm, how is that economical?

A more major problem is that this changing generation creats instability on the power grid. Electrical power demand is relatively stable and allows power plants to ramp up and down at reasonable rates.

If there is too much wind power and the wind changes to fast... the power grid becomes unstable and "trips out" for protection.

Canada and Germany have had regional power outages caused by the instability of wind power affecting their power grids.

Can you immagine the response of the people if a major US city had a blackout caused by the use of windpower... Perhaps the whole east coast again...

Currently - this grid stability issue is being actively studied real hard and the numbers I here are along the line that wind power cannot make up more than 10-15% of the power grid before it causes instability problems (although some people think it could get to 20% with some special controls fitted onto windmills).

We will have to wait and see what the analysis shows. But there are sections of Canada and Germany where you can no longer connect any additional wind generation - or where the utility disconnects the windpower under certain weather conditions.

Perry

Perry_3

If you follow the hard sciece of the CO2 cycle...

None of the scientist claim that we are close to understanding how it really works yet.

There are huge missing holes ... like how come burning all this coal and oil has not significantly increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere way beyond the increase noted.

C02, massive quantities of CO2, are going somewhere and not staying in the atmosphere. Current theories as of a couple of years ago revole arround ocean absorption. But no one knows...

It is true that we are in global warming. I don't know any scientist who dispute that. The question - under serious debate - is how much has man affected the global warming; and by what mechanism.

Perry

Steamhead (in transit)

For it to mean anything at all

we would need to know a LOT more- for example, what the details of Mr. Gore's house are, what power-consuming equipment he has (and how much of that was dedicated to things you and I might not need, such as heightened security) and was that the bill for just the one house or several separate buildings?

And how about other, similar customers in that area? Are they using the same, more or less energy? How about other public figures who might have similar types of home, security etc. that Mr. Gore does? There's no mention of them whatsoever, so there is nothing to compare Mr. Gore's usage to. Just a really big number with nothing to back it up.

We could research that ourselves, but you'd think the "Center" should have already done that. Why should we do their work? We certainly aren't getting paid to do so.

I've said this before on different subjects: Show me what the numbers actually represent! Don't just throw them out there- that's completely meaningless. I think it was Mark Twain who came up with the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics"........

Perry, we've had a bunch of "messengers" who have turned out to be completely untrustworthy. Bill's revelation of where the Center's CEO came from and who is funding him places him and his propaganda machine in that category. We all know Big Oil doesn't want us to conserve, so they attempt to discredit those of us who preach and practice conservation.

That's why I get suspicious of things like this.

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Perry_3

Brad:

I agee with you that just discussing CO2 as a greenhous gas without looking at the whole picture is valid; and something the "scare mongers" don't want to talk about.

It is also my position that Global Warming is indeed real; but, we don't know what is causing it and what effect mankind has had on it (and by what mechanism).

It is my opinion that we have probably done as much or more harm to the earth with filling in swamps and lowlands and clearing of forest for lumber than what we have done via air emmisions.

Modern society is only possible by the use of portable intense energy sources. That is how we got beyond the log cabin and animal power.

The question is can we use energy sources in a wise way? I am sure that we could spend years discussing the issue. A lot there. Individually, I believe we should all do what we can to reduce energy usage to better the future. I know that both you and I have spent extra $ just to do that with our boilers. I hope others can follow a similar path.

Perry

Steamhead (in transit)

And

frighteningly realistic.

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Paul_11

INFO ON WATER VAPOR

Brad,
I hope to see you at the NYC Big Ugly. Are you coming?

I read your posts with interest. I hope you don't think I want your money just because I do promote anthropogenic (man made) effets of global warming. Please don't filter me out.

I'm curious what do you think of this?

MYTH: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we're going to control a greenhouse gas, why don't we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)?
FACT: Although water vapor traps more heat than CO2, because of the relationships among CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2.
Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed.
The best way to lower temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011



Respectfully,

Paul B. Shay
pshay@arealgoodplumber.com
LMP 1307
LMFS 654B
OUR MISSION: TO PROVIDE WORLD CLASS PLUMBING, HEATING, AND SPRINKLER SERVICE TO EACH AND EVERY CLIENT WE SERVE, FAR EXCEEDING THEIR HIGHEST EXPECTATIONS!

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

mel rowe

I've enjoyed catching up with this thread. Just thought I'd add a link that I had read previously. More to think about. http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070218-100445-1207r.htm

RonWHC

Don't know who

funds the 503(C) folks who broke the story. But, I know who funds the global warming, climate change, kill our economy types. You & me. If the oil companies(?) can fund one side, why can't the enviros fund the other? Let's see their untaxed dollars out front. Rather than using your tax dollars & mine to advance THEIR agenda.

Perry_3

What the facts are - and what they are not..

I will accept without further research Bill's statement that: "The President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (Center).... came from the American Enterprise Institute."

Its the rest of the statements I wonder about.

A quick check reveals that the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has existed since 1943 and has a staff of about 175. Not to hard to see how someone could go start their own "business" instead of being in a bigger company.

Here is the link to the AEI information page:

http://www.aei.org/about/filter.all/default.asp

I find its section on integrity of research to be very interesting - and the section on that it will not accept funding from any organization for any purpose where the donating orginization is interested in a specific outcome.

Since the organization seems to be going strong I think the use of the word "recycled" would not be appropriate, as its not like AEI went out of business or is struggling.

AEI reports that its 2005 funding of $37.9 Million came from:

54% Individuals
17% Corporate Donations
15% Conferences and Sales
14% Foundation (Interest earnings from the AEI foundation)

I don't see the big influence of "oil money" here.

I suspect that many differnt kinds of corporations contribute to that 17%. I will even conceed that oil corporations probably contribute some of it.

But in a pinch I am sure they could do quite well without any corporate funding.

Having been personally involved with two national 501C3 orginazations and funding the % numbers the AEP puts up is typical. Individuals are often the greatest source of income.

I will admit that I have not taken the time to read some of the AEI position papers and research like I did for the Tennessee organization. So I will make no comment on where they fall in the political spectrum.

So unless someone can put up some verifiable facts - and take the time do a little research to find those facts; may we please stop attacking the messanger and focus on the message.

Now onto the comments that there are many details about Al's home and lifestyle requirments that we don't know about - thus we cannot make a real judgement. That is a much better question.

Of course, such things as necessary security for an ex VP can change energy usage. However, I am quite confident that if I was concerned with an issue - that appropriate actions could have been taken - regardless of cost - to implement things so there was evidence of that concern.

Prince Charles of England is the perfect example. He is really big on "Sustainable Agriculture, Organic Farming," and related issues. I have a sister who is real big on what he talks about (and attended a Prince Charles Sustainable Agriculture event in Europe). Myself, my eyes roll on some of his concepts (but not all of them). Yet, no one disputes that Prince Charles really believes in what he says. He has created organic farms to grow his own food (and all the food for his principal palace), and has done other things that are obvious to the public.

Now I don't have to know the details of the Princes house, how many servents live and eat there, the security concerns, and other things to see that Prince Charles took actions to make his house and other things comply within reason to his stated beliefs (there are of course limits to what he can do - but he has obviously done things within those limits).

In the case of the Gore house; there are a number of things that could have been done to almost any house that would proclaim to the world... I actually am doing something to reduce my energy usage or minimize my carbon impact. High efficiency heating, High efficiency hot water (or solar hot water). Solar electric, a windmill (even a small one), etc. Interested in reducing carbon impacts - orgainize tree planting and other actual enviromental cleanups (heck, I've helped organize a river cleanup).

My point is... there is no evidence of anything like that. If there was - don't you think Al would have rebutted with it? And yes I know he claimed to replace a few light bulbs with floorescents. Simple, cheap, and limited effectivness (and please no lecture on how much more efficient floresent bulbs are. In a few cases - yes; but, many household lights are not on that much: I have changed out many of mine years ago, but did not - and have no intention of changing out lights that are typically on only a few hours or less a month).

Perry

William Faust

The best part

in that WPost article was the quote from H. L. Mencken, "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it." That's doubtless where some, if not all, of Gore's interest lies. The second-best part was the author asking, "Who was burning the fossil fuels 400,000 years ago?" Didn't he stop to think that humans did not exist then?

Brad White

If I were in NYC I would be there, Paul

But I am in Boston. Wish I could join you, yes!

As to the effects of CO2 on global warming one has to take into account how effective it is at 100% concentration for an accurate comparison compared to another substance. From what I understand (I do not have the data at my fingertips) CO2 is so-so in the IR Reflectance category. It does reflect IR measureably but not dramatically compared to other substances. Now, take that 100% test-bed concentration and dilute it to less than 0.04% in the atmosphere and what happens to the effectiveness?

That water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas is not a myth but a fact. I cannot imagine any responsible organization would state something so verifiably refutable.


Argon is far superior hence it's use in filling dual and triple pane window interstices (in addition to low-E coatings). It is more expensive to isolate than CO2 but if CO2 were anywhere near as effective it would be used.

Well, actually Argon is much more stable and less reactive, as inert as a gas can get. CO2 breaks down, physically and by this time probably emotionally given the beating it is taking of late. Being a compound, CO2 is not forever, unlike Argon.

Natural occurance has Argon at about 1.4% by volume and less than 1% by mass of the atmosphere, about four times the concentration of CO2 (0.038% by volume and 0.06% by weight).

Water vapor is not an atmospheric component by definition (all psychrometrics exclude it by using the term "dry air"). But as a mass relationship and depending on RH and altitude, water vapor comprises between 5,000 and 8,000 parts per million in the atmosphere, far above the 380 PPM of CO2.


Atmospheric water vapor is not entirely a function of direct warming but of latent transfer and just plain osmosis. Just as water will evaporate from a dish at room temperature, heat is absorbed as a function of evaporation, convection brings into play adiabatic cooling, a veritable concert of heat exchange. As JJ pointed out, when condensed (clouds being comprised of water vapor in transition back to liquid form), the reflectance of all sorts of radiation back into space in fact stops the effects of the biggest contributor, el Sol.

So water vapor can amplify but also mitigate. It is a referee, a bank, a buffer tank and a heat transfer mechanism. That and a basic building block of life, it gets a medal in my book.

Satellite measurement of anything in terms of the earth's normal state is statistically without meaning. Depending on whom you ask the earth is between 6,000 and 4 billion years old. Satellites are as old as I am (born in 1957, the year Sputnik caused a diaper shortage in adults). We have, at best, a 50/6,000 or more likely 50/4 billion ratio of experience to history. Not dismissing it so much as holding it in perspective.


Tropospheric measurement by satellite is newer still. A baseline does not really exist, just what we know to date. Again, I have to ask perhaps rhetorically, "what is the earth's natural stable state?"

Now, if because we cannot control the amount of water vapor (or the weather for that matter) we feel compelled to focus on our production of an incremental bit player, CO2. And of that substance, we produce about 3 percent of what is there.

So to gang up on industrialized nations -and individuals- because we cannot control nature is, to me, like burning witches because the crops failed. Does not do a whole lot to solve the problem but makes those in power feel really good about themselves. Makes the witches kind of upset too.

Respectfully,

Brad

Perry_3

Good Point

Ron:

You are correct, we don't have a clue who funded this. While some have speculated that it is oil money... that is only speculation.

One person who made such a statement about a national organization (AEI) forgot to check the AEI website which list in general catagories where their funding comes from (see my "what the facts are... and what they are not" post). I don't see any possibility of major influence by big oil in that organization as corporate sponsorship only accounted for 17% of their funding.

I have not seen one piece of credible evidence that the oil companies - or in fact any organization or group - was involved with funding this group.

Even if it were true... (or any number or organizations) that does not change the fact on Al's energy usage in comparison to his public message on the subject.

Perry

JimH

wind/solar complement each other

Hi, Perry, I still haven't seen you address the fact that when the wind isn't blowing in the middle of summer, the solar electricity production is at it's
peak. Nor have I heard you address some of the energy storage mechanisms currently under study, such as compressed air storage in underground rock formations.

On the subject of grid stability, you should go to www.americansuperconductor.com to read about their SMES and D-VAR products. They are addressing grid stability issues relative to wind and their products are selling well.

-JimH

Tony Conner_2

However...

... unless the temp rises at the south pole, the Antarctic ice cap isn't gonna melt, right? I believe in many circles, this lack of temperature increase would have to be classified as an "inconvenient fact".

Perry_3

There is noting new here...

Compressed air storage is about 20 years old - and is used some places. However it is fairly inefficient - which is why its use has never expanded beyond a few places.

Yes people are still reserching it; but I've yet to hear anyone get over the efficiency issues (how much energy you loose compressing the air and putting it into storage, how much leakage, and the efficiency of the turbines that recover the energy).

Pumped hydro works better and their are a number of pumped hydro energy storage projects (typically pump up at night - and drain down during the peaks of the day). Of course - you need a suitably high hill or mountain with certain pre-existing features for pumped hydro to work.

While in theory solar electrical generation is a good match for peak usage in the summer.... It is extreemly expensive - and not very efficient. It also has the problm that while it does work when the wind does not blow... It dosn't work so well in the early morning, late afternoon, or at night. In fact, it only has about a 8 hour fairly effective time - assuming no clouds.

Your American Superconductor link does not work; but I found another one that did - apparently you must be a registerd user to use the link you provided.

www.amsuper.com

You are confusing the load trip out issue with a voltage regulation issue. The SEMS and D-Var products allow for proper voltage regulation of connected wind turbins. I have no doubt that if this is a really good system that it is selling well.

That is not what caused the utility grid trips in Canada and Germany. Those problems are more tied to how fast the wind generation changes - which is tied to how fast the wind changes. How many MW are you inputting to the system - how fast does it change and can the rest of the system keep up? Nothing to do with voltage regulation.


Perry

[Deleted User]

Misquote

Bill is misquoting Cheney. At the April 30, 2001 Annual Meeting of the Associated Press, the Vice President said:

"Now, conservation is an important part of the total effort. But to speak exclusively of conservation is to duck the tough issues. Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis all by itself for a sound, comprehensive energy policy. We also have to produce more. The American people have worked very hard to get where they are and the hardest working are the least likely to go around squandering energy or anything else that costs money. Our strategy will recognize that the present crisis does not represent a failing of the American people."

Perry_3

Power Storage Issues - and how it affects grid stability.

One of the more perplexing things about electrical power generation is that there is really no cost or efficiency effective way to store it.

Battery systems are extreemly expensive on a Watt Hour basis - and have efficiency issues. They are only used where the cost of the battery is incidental to the product - or where there is no real option to connect to a generation system.

What many people do not understand is that whenever you turn something on or off... That within moments a power plant somewhere has to adjust to match the new current draw.

The US has proven very effective at building a really robust generation, transmission, and distribution system that can absorb huge shocks to the system and stay online... But there are limits.

There are limits as to how fast the grid (the rest of the power plants and transmission lines) can respond to changes in supply or demand. Overload it in either direction and the safties will automatically trip an area. As the east cost is aware... this can - if a large enough area trip - easily trigger a rolling blackout where much of the country goes down (and we are luck that the blackout of 2003 - 2004ish was stopped before proceding far into the Midwest - or it could have taken down the entire US and Canada.

Canada and Germany experinced those limits within the last year and had small areas trip offline due to wind power generation. Imagine that you have 1000 MW of wind generation in an area. It is generating at about 300 MW based on current wind conditions (the average capacity factor of wind generation is 30%). A major stormfront is moving through and a stronger wind quickly blows up and the generation quickly raises to 900 MW (or even 1000 MW). Then a bit later it drops to 500 MW as the wind dies down, then to 100 with a lul in the storm, etc...

Can the grid absorb those swings in generation caused by the changes in weather... can other plants ramp down and up fast enough? If not - grid overload in one form or another. Trip...


Decades ago it was recognized that it would be really really desirable to be able to store substaintial amounts of energy for the power system somehow...

This would be usefull for both peak load supply and for tempering the changes in power supply or demand which would make the grid more stable.

The utilties in the US have had to build almost 100 billions of dollars of extra power plants just to handle peak loads during the days.

The utilities keep about 10% of the load at any time available as "spinning reserve" just to be able to handle a plant trip (if a 500 MW plant trips off line - and it happens - then 10 - 20 other power plants can instantly soak up 5 to 10% more generation. There is a lot of energy reserve in steam cycle power plants). That requires another bunch for "extra" power plant capacity.

Could you not just use the existing power plants and generate that power at night - store it somehow - and then use it for the peaks... Not only would you not have to spend billions building peaking plants - but you could earn more money on your existing power plants by using them more...

Lots of stratagies were looked at: Pumped Hydro is the only one that has worked. Pump water uphill at night - run it down through hydrogeneration during the day for the peaks. I think there are a couple dozen places in the mountains that do that.

Compressed air storage was looked at; and even tried on a small scale somewhere. It did not work well; to many efficiency loss.

I myself proposed a truely massive High Pressure - High Temperature steam pressure vessel that was filled with superheated steam during the night from existing boilers that would otherwise be operating at a low load - and then run through some turbine generators during the day. I note that many power stations have a line of older generating units that have been largly abandoned. Existing turbine generators, condensers, circ water systems exist that could have been fixed up. Usually these plants are abandoned due to cost associated with the boiler and boiler controls - and overall poor thermal cycle efficiency. Fixing up the turbine/generator/condenser end would not be that expensive and would have no extra polution concerns.

People though I was crazy to talk of 300 - 500 Ft diameter insulated pressure spheres... at 1000 PSI of superheated steam.

The US government was going to sink almost a billion dollars into supercooled electomagnitic storage experiments - which in theory show great promise. But that funding got cut when some technical difficulties of the day were identified (about 20 years ago: the research station was going to be near my hometown. I was excited and hoped to work at it and bring my utility experience - and I already had an "in" with the University Professors who would have been involved).

Perhaps with high temperature superconductors that idea is worth looking at again.

Just know that Power storage is not a new concept, and a lot of money has been spent looking at it because of how expensive it is to build and operate peaker generation systems - and how expensive it is to keep 10% of plant capacity as a spinning reserve.

I am aware that some people think this is a new concept to be used with "renewable" energy. Sorry, it is not.

Just thought you all would like to know.

Perry

Unknown

Perry, your idea about superheated steam storage does not seem so crazy. I was just reading the old textbook from 1923, Practical Heat, which was posted in the library here recently. On page 467, they describe the "fireless locomotive" which worked exactly on the principle of energy storage by means of superheated water and steam. It was basically a steam locomotive with an insulated storage tank instead of a boiler. The tank was partially filled with water and then charged with steam at 350 PSI until it would accept no more. The locomotive would then operate from 2 to 10 hours on the stored charge. Sounds just like what you were describing!

The book is really worth taking a look at. Excellent explanations of theoretical and practical principles with nice illustrations. Unlike a lot of subjects, thermodynamics really hasn't changed much in 100 years!

Steve Ebels_3

Perry

Do you know of any studies which have attempted to measure any change in the CO2 content of the ocean water?

As you said, enormous quantities of CO2 are being dumped into the atmosphere (billions of tons) and the amount of change measured does not account for all of it. So where's it going and what happens to it when it gets "there"?

Maybe it takes a lot less time to turn Carbon into oil than we think? That would throw a wrench into a lot of theories floating around.

Steve Ebels_3

Hybrids don't make sense to me.

Where's the logic in using electricity which is generated by imported oil and gas, in power plants that operate at maybe 40% efficiency, as opposed to just burning the fuel in the first place? Am I missing something?

Perry_3

Yes - several things... Also the hydrogen future

From a pure point of view right now you are correct that hybreds are normally running on electicity that is generated from burning coal and oil. What it accomplishes is the transfer of where the air emisions is going. I will conceed in some cases that actuall helps in the short term.

Another advantage is that putting a bunch on hybreds on the road now will provide valuble long term engineering studies on what works and what dosn't. How long will they last... How reliable are they... are totally unanswered quesitons. That way in 10-15 years from now we can have really good hybred vehicles (or other alternate energy vehicles).

The key thing missing is more nuclear power generation to power those hybreds. In that fashion a hybred makes more sense.

I am convinced that the far future will be hydrogen based for several reasons. It will be hydrogen generated using the output of nuclear plants. If we started a crash building program now it would take 20 years before we would be able to be in the position to transfer a good chunk of our transportation infastructure to hydrogen based.

Perry

William Faust

Wind and Solar

This msg. is from Big Oil:

Solar and wind power will never be able to replace more than a tiny bit of the oil that we burn. There is no energy density to it and it can't be used for transportation.

And this msg. rips off LATOC:

100% of California's 13,000 wind turbines at 100% capacity (normally 30%) would generate the electricity of a 555 megawatt gas power plant. Now look at the total U.S. installed wind energy capacity of 6,361 MW. Assume again 100% output - that equals six coal plants. See - it doesn't work. Wind is meaningless.

Solar is even more of a loser. Global installed solar in 2004 was about 2,000 MW. That's equal to two coal plants. That assumes operation at 100% capacity, but the normal operating capacity is 20%. That's 40% of ONE coal plant. Fuggedaboudit.

To replace 10% of U.S. oil consumption, the aggregate output of solar and wind would have to be increased 2,200%. That is not going to happen in our collective lifetimes. But for the optimistic, let's conceptualize that 2,200% target in solar alone. That means covering an area roughly equal to Arizona with solar cells - the entire freaking state. My parents live there and won't like that one bit. Maybe they can move to Nevada.

Two-thirds of our fuel consumption is for transportation and 90% of that comes from oil. We are not going to run cars, trucks, buses, trains, jets, ships...on wind and solar. Not possible.

2003 U.S. energy consumption was 98 quadrillion BTU's which included .171 quadrillion from solar and wind. Meaningless.

Having peaked, we are on the downside of the oil depletion bell curve and the only solution is some brilliant scientists and engineers who can slap their foreheads in one of those "I could have had a V-8!" moments and come up with an energy solution to rival everything to date. The planet is covered with water. Where is Tesla when we need him?

We will see the effective end of the age of oil in our lifetimes in any event.

The biggest issue that we'll face if no good substitute for oil and gas is found (remember that demand will keep rising while supply tapers off) is that hundreds of millions will starve although it won't happen all at once. The carrying capacity of the planet without oil and gas (pre-Industrial Revolution) is estimated at between 2 to 2.5 billion. I think we tipped the scales at 6 billion recently. An apple can be quantified in terms of how much oil it takes to produce it. We'll produce less apples as we slide down the right side of the bell curve. No way around it.

That fearsome agricultural implication may be induced early by economic collapse. If there isn't enough oil, doesn't that de facto mean a serious economic downturn? Of course. There would be a lot less economic output. So all the bankers' loans will be in jeopardy because there will be less profits, the lenders will lend less and they will call more loans...and industry will not invest because they can't raise capital and they will not hire but will instead lay off and start selling assets for their shareholders who want cash to salvage their own personal lifestyles...but there will be few buyers because...no one has jobs. That's when the riots start. God I love this Malthusian stuff.

That's when the Alpha Centarians attack, terminate us and seed the planet with DNA like they did earlier. They're really pissed at us because we killed off their dinosaurs shortly after the world was created 6,000 years ago. The Creationists were right!

Now have a nice day!

Perry_3

If memory is correce .. on of the problem is...

I'm not sure that there is good historic data on dissolved CO2 in ocean & lake water.

There is also evidence of CO2 storage at the bottom of some of the oceans as well.

I am a bit out of date on the latest scientific status. What I need to do - and something I have periodically done in the past - is drop into a good research library for a weekend and catch up on the various journals that I kinda intermittently follow. I have had a tendancy to drop in on some of the libraries of UW Madison (Badgers) where I went to college. That's currently in the range of a 3 hour drive.

I haven't spent any weekends in Madison since last summer; althoug I do visit a fair amount because my parents live there; are not doing so well, and I run the "parents fund" for the family. I was actualy there yesturday; but those trips rarely have a lot of time for other things.

Perry

Steve Ebels_3

Discussions like this...........

Are why I love the Wall. Where else can you go and find so much info, from so many intelligent people, who generally remain civil in their discussion even though differing views are represented.

As far as my own views are concerned:

I believe that Al Gore is indeed a hypocrite.

I believe that anyone who does not personally take steps to reduce energy consumption while still bellowing about saving the planet is a hypocrite also.

I believe that energy consumption is taken for granted too much here in the USA and people falsely think life as we know it here will always continue.

I believe that the earth's climate is indeed warming.

I believe that we really have no clue as to why.

I believe that the issue being discussed should be conservation because that action will address the problem of both global warming (if it is man made) and to an extent, terrorism, which is probably more of a real threat to our existence.

How's that for an example of some narrow minded, country boy, Midwestern black and white values type thinking?

William Faust

Hydrogen future is a loser

GM made two fuel cell cars called the LTV or something close to that name. Probably with government assistance. Each one cost $1 million. Fuel cells today last about 200 hours. Not a very practical platform. GM destroyed them. There is a conspiracy type film out there on the subject.

If the President says, "Enough of the War for Energy, uh I mean on Terra and Al Qaeda types. I say let's factorialize us a mess of hydrogenated fuely type cars." That will require 4.2 to 10.5 billion grams of platinum. Okay, so we get a bunch of that stuff and even figure out some halfway decent storage technology so that the hydrogen won't whiff away out of its containers. Let's even use Harry Potter's wand to materialize all of the pipeline and re-fueling infrastructure (that will cost hundreds of trilions of dollars). Now we're set. Are we forgetting anything?


Yup. Cracking hydrogen via electrolysis consumes more energy than it produces. The problem is that pesky hydrogen-oxygen bond.

Now, Bush might say, "We'll manufacturnicate us a mess of nukular plants and the government will incentivize." Well,
uranium demand already currently grossly exceeds supply. Think that scenario is going to get any better as oil becomes scarcer (by first becoming incredibly more expensive)?

Plus, none of us are going to pull our cars into service stations to have their nukular reactor rods replaced. Those guys don't even wash windows anymore let alone understand your language if the service station is on the East Coast.

So you say to all of the above, "I do not like Green Eggs and Ham!" (because you don't want to talk about the real issue). Okay, let's wave Harry's wand again to solve all of those problems.

Uh oh, we still need 10,000 large nukular plants to replace oil and gas. That's $3 to 5 billion per plant. Is that $30 to $50 trillion? We should turn to someone who can understand the magnitude of those numbers. I suggest Donald Rumsfeld because he has that kind of experience. On 9/10/01, he announced that the Pentagon couldn't account for a mere $2.4 trillion. The mess of accountants who were working for him to find out where those dollar went were unfortunately working in the very wing that a jetliner crashed into on 9/11 - the very next day. Talk about bad luck. Anyway, Rumsfeld could tell you that $30 to $50 trillion will buy a lot of planes and tactical nukular bombs (for Iran) and that $2.4 trillion is a lousy downpayment.

Rumsfeld could also tell you that it will require a wave of Harry's wand to put some of the nukular stuff into cars, boats, trucks and airplanes - remember the service station attendants who don't like to do the rods?

Implicit in all of the foregoing is that Harry's wand simply does NOT find oil and it will take a lot of oil over the course of the several decades required to build these nukular plants during which time we will be...fighting a War for Energy, uh Terror.

Now have a nice day!

Cosmo_3

Brad is a smart cookie

You are right on the money and I could not have said it better.

First of all Politics should not enter the arena of environmentalism. Politicians are interested in staying politicians. Al Gore, and all the rest only know what they are told. Unless Al Gore has a PHD in environmental research that he earned and didn't get awarded to him for being a silver spoon baby...next. If I am wrong then I will apologize for that comment. I do not know for sure.

As I said before, I am all for conserving our resources, cleaning up our pollution, living within our means, cleaning up the mess that our progress has caused our natural habitat. We should really concentrate on that instead of becoming alchemists and creating impossible goals. We can't stop global warming, or make it much worse.

Lets all do what we can to clean up our act and save what we can of our green spaces. Our beautiful undeveloped areas. Save, and reintroduce our swamps, and wetlands. Force everybody with a carbon emitting device to make sure it burns as clean as possible. Enforce current laws. Stop talking and start doing......

Just don't take my money and tell me your going to use it to stop global warming.

Because none of us can, and to think we can actually change it is in my opinion nonsense. I will defer all the global warming followers to Brad's posts here in this thread.

Take my money to give tax credits to companies who are working on cleaner technologies to get me to work, and make my family comfortable? Yes.

Become good stewards of our land and stop polluting? Yes

Take my money in the name of global warming? give me a break.


Cosmo

Cosmo_3

I like it!

Cosmo

Singh_3

Steve

I concur with everything,

But I would also add:

Our current administration does not reconize Global Warmings ,
has one of the worst records on the environment, and looks to
ANWAR as an answer, yet tells us "America is addicted to oil" all the while
the Texas white house has the tightest envelope possible, is only 4000 square feet compared to what it could be, is passive solar, has a greywater system and a geothermal HVAC system, is also a hypocrite.

But they did re-install solar panels in 2002 at the white house, after they were taken off under Reagan, but Carter originally put them on.
Gore has been doing this for a long time , in the '90s he wrote a book called Ozone Man, he was made fun of then . While VP many envromental policies were inacted under him , including banning CFC's. He got careless this time.