Bishop Hill Green costs you more
Dec 28, 2011 Energy: costs Energy: gas The Guardian is highlighting DECC's energy costs calculator, a system developed by its chief scientific adviser, Prof David Mackay. The outlook, it appears is bleak.
Every person in Britain will need to pay about £5,000 a year between now and 2050 on rebuilding and using the nation's entire energy system, according to government figures. But the cost of developing clean and sustainable electricity, heating and transport will be very similar to replacing today's ageing and polluting power stations, the analysis finds.
The calculator itself is here. I'm not sure I'm reading it correctly, but it looks to me as if you have to have carbon capture and storage if you want to have gas-fired energy generation. If that's correct then I think it's fair to say that the calculator is a waste of time.
Bishop Hill
The No Hot Air site, which I believe is much better informed on these matters than I, has more on MacKay's handling of the shale gas question.
(H/T J Heath in the comments)
Reader Comments (249)
Mooloo
Do you include DECC amongst the wallies? They say:
Fiugure 2 looks remarkably like Trenberth!
As some reports suggest that attempts at entering shale gas prices into the DECC calculator have failed then indeed Green costs you more, not only financially but in jobs. Ignoring shale ignores the jobs created directly in its extraction and distribution but also by lowering the cost of energy which improves competitiveness and increases employment. The U.S. example from an IHS study;
Shale Gas Supports More Than 600,000 American Jobs Today; by 2015, Shale Gas Predicted to Support Nearly 870,000 Jobs and Contribute $118.2 Billion to GDP.
Mooloo: I was trained in classical thermodynamics by one of the greats. The concept of thermodynamic work is key to all science.
The climate models are based on a flawed concept which is that you can use the S-B equation on its own for an emitter to calculate the net radiative energy. Thus the supposed 'hot spot' is identified as radiating spherically energy due to its temperature and emissivity, and half this heads back to the Earth.
All I am saying is that coming in the opposite direction from the inside of a sphere of slightly larger radius is exactly the same energy in the opposite direction. With no temperature difference, this cancels out all the original S-B energy.
It's a very simple concept which people in climate science appear to have completely missed, probably because Trenberth wasn't taught these very basic scientific principles, nor are any of the softer science students being taught the same.
It is the most basic analysis that has been fouled up. The new information i received last night that the back radiation measured experimentally has little if any deviation from a black body spectrum proves the case experimentally. The only thing I don't know is the acceptance angle of the detector, another of the key issues that climate science fail to understand, apparently.
This science has been cocked up spectacularly,.
mydogsgotnonose
Speaking as a Kiwi, saying this to Mooloo: "I was trained in classical thermodynamics by one of the greats," is basically asking for a punch in the face. You're likely speaking authoritatively but can you keep your hubris in your pants, mate? Just a word to the wise.
Of course, if anyone wants to cross swords on Art History, particularly that of the Vienna Secession, I should point out that I was trained by 'One of The Greats' ;-)
Gixxerboy: If you do not understand the reason I made that statement, you are no scientist. This is not a personal issue. it is an issue of the understanding of the most basic aspect of science and a failure of the majority in a very expensive science to do their job,
If people do not understand the Laws of Radiation and the statistical thermodynamics underlying them, pparticularly the works of Hottell at MIT in the 1950s as he developed the concepts of gas emissivity, they have no right to comment on this heat transfer.
Aarhenius made a basic mistake and this is being used as a form of almost legal precedence by scientific charlatans to distort science. This concept of 'back radiation', which underlies the CAGW hoax, is anti-science and there is now experimental proof** showing it to be false.
**In an earlier post I point out a personal contribution from an experimentalist who has shown the back radiation 2 m above the ground is blackbody, particularly under clouds. This, if replicated, is the experimental nail in the coffin of the Aarhenius hypothesis.
mydogsgotnonose
I am indeed no scientist. As I tried to point out, I'm an Art History grad (Lit Major, actually). I gave up science with an 'A' at A-Level Physics (when they were not exactly giving them away) and settled into the Humanities (and the arms of many female undergraduates). I'm now a writer and semi-journalist with a sideline in motorsport.
So I struggle to keep up with the complex maths and physics. I care to think I understand logic, though.
I'm delighted that someone with your knowledge of the physical dynamics is commenting here. My comment was intended to be light-hearted in defence of Mooloo, simply because he's a fellow Kiwi. We share, shall we say, a certain scepticism towards Poms (or Aussies or anyone else for that matter) and calls to their own authority.
It is interesting to see you and Mooloo argue because I have a lot to learn. One lesson I've long appreciated is that keeping debate polite and respectful, even if it seems exasperating, is always better than the alternative.
"Happy New Year when it comes people. It is going to be the year climate deniers are finally exposed."
As a general rule it's best to go to bed having made up. Sure it must be frustrating for you that there are a number of people on here, myself included, who view the nation that we can rely on wind power to provide substantial electricity. And I believe I understand where the arguments are coming from, most of us, including BBD appear to be engineers, or more likely retired engineers, and a given in all engineering decisions is cost. Ask a scientist, or indeed a research engineer, whether something is feasible and unless it's totally off the wall they'll tell you it is, because they will look at the functionality, and al things are possible. Ask a development engineer, and more often than not s/he'll say it's not possible because s/he'll be taking into account the costs of developing, deploying and operating the technology.
The Royal Academy of Engineering has a report online that deals with the costs in p/kWh show that, coal, nuclear, ccgt and ocgt are between 2.2 and 3 p/kWh while onshore wind and offshore wind are 5.4 and 7.2 p/kWh respectively.
So the production of electricity from wind power is in excess of twice the cost of the production from other conventional sources excluding shale gas, which we must assume come in lowest of all. As you appear to be a committed Green ("deniers" indeed) we cannot expect you to take into account the social costs of your policies, but they will be massive in terms of the rising cost of electricity and the concomitant fuel poverty, and loss of competitiveness of British manufacturing, the rise in transporty costs and all the other costs that will rise as a result of basing our energy policies on the advice of a bunch of Eco-fanatics, but the politicians will, because they'll be put on the streets when the electorAte wake up to the fact that out energy policies are being implemented without regard to costs.
OK Gixxeroy. Let me tell you from my perspective what's happening. I come from the generation which was intensively selected for scientific training. That training was thorough and preceded computing. So, we can and do work accurately from first principles.
20 years' ago I believed in Hansen and Trenberth's climate science because there was a mystery about why the earth heated so rapidly at the end of an ice age. As I have worked in renewables and CCS for 40 years, I was an activist of the practical kind, creating companies one of which is now the World's largest producer of solar cells.
After Climategate, I decided to analyse the science professionally. I found three major scientific mistakes. Also in 1997, after it was found that CO2 rose after T, there had been a decline into outright non-science. I won't bore you with the details but I have created the correct science which with no GHGs explains the end of ice age warming and much modern warming [from the Arctic melt phase]. CO2-AGW is very low; there is no doubt about it now I know 'back radiation' is black body: a key observation.
But we have organisations and scientists supporting fake science for political reasons. That is a breach of the scientific code of conduct. The carbon traders, Mafia and big energy companies are intent on raping my country using corrupt science to justify an immense reduction of living standards so they can get rich whilst allowing CO2 to rise inexorably elsewhere..
They will not be able to use the excuse of fake science of the kind that MacKay and many others seem to support without understanding why it is so wrong. These people have to choose - be honest or resign their position. The alternative is that they condone the likes of CRU which admits to teaching science students propaganda.
Imagine if your discipline taught a Marxist version of Art History instead of the truth thus destroying honour and scholarship for cheap political shots. In science we are dealing with a new Lysenkoism and it will cease.
Geronimo: the cost of offshore wind is 15-21 p/kWhr [Parsons-Brinkerhoff 2010, more now]
Gixxerboy. If people have a particular expertise, then I think they should declare it. It would be nice for people to be able to back up their claims by giving their real names, but not everyone is in a position to do so. And that is very distressing in a country where we used to think we had a free society. I think mydogsgotnonose used to post using his real identity, but he obviously has some strong reason for no longer doing so.
re Scottish Renewables December 29 at 9.32 am
A small point perhaps but some corrections to the above message:-
Glen Doe Hydro-power scheme is not pumped storage.
Foyers, based on a reconfiguration of a British Aluminium power station built in 1898, was opened in 1969. It was not Scotland's firt PS scheme: that honour lies with Scottish Power's Cruachan Scheme opened in 1965.
Subsequent comments from "Scottish Renewables" might need to be re-read in the light of these obvious errors.
Michael Jackson. I don't believe you have anything to apologise for over Brent Spar. Yes, there was a helicopter crash:
But the main argument, as far as I can determine, was to do with its disposal as discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spar and SR was not specific enough about his use of it as a reference ('cos he didn't offer one, as usual).Very informative thread though. Happy New Year to you all.
Philip
I admire what you are doing, especially named. I'd love to 'come out' completely ( I do a fair bit tagged to me) but as we all know there is a machine out there intent on crushing dissent. Rest assured, I'm gently suggesting people read more widely and make up their own minds. I run a business, engage with and gain income from many high-profile authorities. But good on ya for what you do. BTW I am not in the same country but the same dogma tends to pertain.
mydogsgotnonose
Mate, I love your story. Please continue to post on this. More importantly, why don't you get your analyses published? You clearly have some expertise here. Stand it up to scrutiny. Yes, we all know the dubious qualities of peer review, but if you are so sure of these things you owe it to all of us to test them and get them published. Hey, I could even have a word with my fishing buddy Chris de Freitas (eh, BBD?;-)
Oh, and a Marxist version of Art History? Do me a favour. That was the only version accepted when I went through Uni. Sucked it up, pretended, got a First. Did I believe it? I once posted here about the 4am 're-education' I received courtesy of campus Socialist Worker Student Organisation and British Communist Party 'enthusiasts'. Their vanguard ended up in A&E.
Do what you can.
Scots Renewables
I'm still waiting on that answer about the proportion of base-load that Glendoe and Foyers contribute to the UK grid. Don Pab has quantified the whole of Loch Ness as 700 MW; emckeng suggests Glendoe isn't pumped storage.
Can you confirm how much base-load generation is represented by pumped storage (PS) within the Ness Hydro scheme?
Since big Ness (I'm also personally familiar with it pal - caught a 5lb brown trout there as a wee boy) represents one of the largest controlled bodies of water in the world, we should be able to judge the feasibility of pumped storage as a contribution to renewables.
BTW is Glendoe working again?
Snotrocket
My apology to SR was in the context of deaths in connection with the North Sea. I had forgotten that Brent Spar was also involved in a helicopter accident which cost lives and assumed his reference to Brent Spar was to its disposal.
Since SR does appear to have some knowledge of the subject — even though he has the ubiquitous warmist habit of treating all who don't agree with him like cretins — I should have been a little less hasty in challenging him.
"A soft answer turneth away wrath" as the Book says! And the occasional admission of one's own failings never comes amiss in the long run.
And a prosperous 2012 to you!
Any chance the Crown Prosecuton Service could be persuaded to finally prosecute Chris Huhne - which would give Call Me Dave an opportunity to rehash the government's energy policies along realistic lines..?
Perhaps they could make it their New Year Resolution...
Returning to the 2050 scenario. The Climate change Act reduction in CO2 emissions seems barely possible using existing technologies. If we go fully nuclear and reduce industrial output by 30%, have highly insulated homes, reduce heating and lighting, reduce road transport massively (which might be a good thing) we can nearly make it.
The upshot seems to be that we would have to bust a gut to achieve a goal set by a bunch of politicians who have not thought through the economics of their action.
The calculator is a fine bit of work as it enables debate to occur about the options available. Interestingly, the use of renewables does not have a dramatic reduction in CO2 output unlike nuclear baseload generation. Frankly, most of these options are pretty unpalatable due to the lack of energy planning over the last 20 years.
Mydogsgotnonose:
Your posting at 10:10 (whoa! That's a very unfortunate timing! The 10:10 video with its veiled threat of violence took this Great Debate to a new level) summed up nicely the perversion of science for political ends. Gixxerboy has exhorted you to publish. If you truly do have a grasp of precisely where the physics of AGW is flawed, and if you have the literary skill to put your message over, then I would add my voice to his. Blimey, they're discussing the veracity of Boyle's Law over on WUWT; if you have the firepower to elevate this debate then do so, mate.
Philip B touched on your reasons for anonymity on this site. May I enquire: have the greenshirts resorted to seriously underhand tactics and managed to subdue you somewhat? Many of us make our comments from behind a veil. For my part, being Mister Nobody, I have the luxury of using my own name.
Further on this subject of identity, I looked up Scots Renewables, expecting to find him travelling first class on the gravy train; unless I'm mistaken he's just a hard working web developer trying to make a living. No smoking gun that I could find. He appears to believe that windmills reduce CO2, and CO2 is, like, a well bad gas, man, and when Ben Nevis sinks beneath the warm waves then the deniers will all be very sorry. As far as I can see he's not evil, just wrong.
mydogsgotnonose
Yes, but as usual, you didn't provide a reference.
Any luck with those cloud/phytoplankton effect studies yet?
And gixxer is right (as usual): you should publish. I urged you to do this months ago when you were called alistair. You should crack on; this is a serious matter.
Whoever thinsk that skeptics have been hiding and infiltrating and conspiring to hurt the brave AGW believers and hobble their work to bring Earth to the age of managed climate and that they will be finally exposed in 2012 needs to run tot he pharmacy muy pronto and pck up their long forgotten psychiatric meds refill.
The only game changer in 2012 will be if FOIA releases CG v3.0.
The steady erosion of AGW consensus regarding the CO2 apocalypse is not going to stop. It may be hurried by a enough journalists finally following the CG story and noticing the obvious failures of every AGW policy idea, but it will continue with or without the so far lazy journalists.
The believers will get more and more shrill, which means their volume while increasing, will become decreasingly credible.
So best wishes to all for a wonderful 2012.
BBD,
I am impressed by your embracing of nuclear power. We are largely in agreement on that issue, if I have read you correctly.
Happy New Year.
Brent Hargreaves and BBD: there was a great mystery to solve. It's solved.
Dog no nose:
That's very delphic of you! If you're saying that climatography can be exposed as pseudoscientific hogwash with a deft flick of your physicist's rapier (pauses for breath) then share the good news, buddy!
Like you I once believed in global warming, and began researching an engineering solution. I found some UK/US research into the properties of a mineral called Lizardite (Mg3Si2O5(OH)4)
which, in nature, slowly reacts with atmospheric CO2. After raiding Lizard Point for a supply, I began trials: pulverising the mineral and tumbling it in a CO2-rich reactor.
The rough plan was to set up a pilot plant sequestering a couple of tonnes of bottled CO2 per week, selling the by-product (pulverised Magnesite) as a green building material, then scaling up. But the Offsetting Industry is too shrewd to give away their ill-gotten gains to anything as grubby as an engineering solution; my garden-shed project became too expensive a hobby and I stopped.
Now older and wiser, I see that the global warming industry is Chaucer's Miller's Tale writ large. The DECC's intention to lead the population on a fool's errand (with Huhne in the role of Absalom) is no joke. These wicked people intend reduce much of the population to energy poverty. How can they be stopped?
All I am saying is that coming in the opposite direction from the inside of a sphere of slightly larger radius is exactly the same energy in the opposite direction. With no temperature difference, this cancels out all the original S-B energy.
But there is a temperature difference. The earth is hot and space is cold. Heat will flow towards the cold.
We know the earth loses heat every night. Quite quickly actually. If it is clear night it loses if faster than if it is cloudy. So blocking the flow will act to slow the cooling. Insulation, effectively.
A still clear night loses heat faster than a windy cloudy night, so it's not just convection and equivalents operating. (On a larger scale I think that convection is mighty important, far exceeding CO2's effect, but there must also be a radiation mechanism operating too.)
And if CO2 slows the radiation, then it slows the cooling. (Philip Bratby: this is what they mean when they say "warms the earth" – bad terminology for sure).
So mydogsgotnonose: does the earth radiate heat into space? Yes or no.
Will anything that slows that flow of radiation effect the rate at which heat is lost? Yes or no.
If CO2 absorbs radiation however transiently, and extends its path length, will that not slow the flow of radiation into space? Yes or no.
I'm not saying that you can't explain your answers. I just want to see which part of that we disagree on, so a yes or no first.
However, if you give me explanations involving no temperature gradient or where the system is at equilibrium I will terminate this discussion. There clearly is a temperature gradient and there clearly is not a system in equilibrium. We can agree that for an equilibrium system with no temperature gradient then clearly there is no effect of back radiation. But that system is not the earth, so I don't care about it and I am confused as to why you would think it important.
Mooloo
Ask him for some references, while you are at it.
I wonder if 'mdgnn' may not quite have a coherent hypothesis.
mydogsgotnonose
The other day, I came accross this.
http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf
Is this the experiment that you refer to?
If not the attached paper may interest you and please provide a full reference/link to the experiment to which you refer.
Dec 30, 2011 at 2:32 PM | BBD
//////////////////////////////////////////
See my post above timed at Dec 31, 2011 at 12:16 AM
Richard Verney
Much as I admire the pragmatic approach of this Nasif Nahle - measuring power in part of the electromagnetic spectrum one evening last September - I'd say that the man and his measurements are deeply suspect.
He awards himself the title of professor, but appears to have been unemployed since 1977. I know that there's a quality assurance problem with the claims of scaremongers like Hansen, but we'll never nail the warmists' fallacies by bringing equal-and-opposite idiots like Nahle to the witness stand.
Happy New Year everyone
Dec 31, 2011 at 6:42 AM | Brent Hargreaves
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Thanks your comments. I am not endorsing that paper I was merely enquiring with mydogsgotnonose whether that was the paper that he was referring to an dif not then asking him for his reference.
I know nothing of Nasif Nahle and whilst I think that his observation is of interest, I would want to see the experiment repeated at many various locations and on many different times and conducted under tighter scientific scrutiny. It is however, an example of the type of experimenting and obtaining observational data that ought to be being conducted in this field but which is sadly not being conducted since scientist prefer using computer models and loading these models with their own assumed assumptions as to what is going on and/or how the climate should be driven.
May I too wish everyone a Happy New Year
BBD, references baldiblah drool,drool:
If the universities and their disengenious conniving faux politicians would allocate the same amount of money to sceptical climate studies as to , say, Z-Jay courses, let alone all the worthless humanities trite, there would no shortage of publications to refer to.
all the fourier arrhenious waffle of 150y ago is about how water (clouds) in the atmosphere form an insulating mantle and keep the atmosphere 10degrees warmer. It does not say too much how trace gas CO2 would be so catastrophic.
One of the peculiar things about CO2 is how reversible it is : there are huge sinks of COe from atmosphere back into the oceans and into plantlife. these sinks dwarf the anual CO2 output of humanity. If humanity would reduce CO2 for some reason (fusion, e-cat, algae, thorium or any other solution in the wings NOT JEt , NOT ITER as these are socialist freeloading overtime generating organs) then after 10-20years we are back to CO2 level of 1900.
so what is the urgency about if not to provide Al Gore with yet another mansion by the not rising ocean?
phinnie
New Year's resolution suggestion: take your meds.
BBD
your drivel with all the publications references and demands for them is just that: drivel.
It lacks insight and reeks of rather pathetic kowtowing to the establishment , basically.
It's one better than ranting, Phinnie.
I don't need references BBD. I'm asking for clarification about our points of difference.
While I think mydogsgotnonose is wrong on this, don't for a moment imagine I'm on your side. I think that back radiation is the least of our worries. I do, however, think it actually exists.
BBD
what I particularly disliked in this thread was your fascist-old-women betraying style in disclosing some people's names again , where you know they do not want this otherwise they would not have changed posting id.
[snip -unnecessary. BH]
mb 1 better than ranting but not too high on the scale either
what is ranting in pointing out your writing is only names dropping , senselessly referring to reports or the lack thereof, and telling us there-is-warming-you-know..Fourier ooooh
Ah, well. I guess Hogmanay doesn't always bring out the best in everyone. :-)
Answer to mooloo, 11.08 pm
You are tight, there is a temperature gradient. In that case the net heat transfer is SB1-SB2 where 1 us the hotter.
The experimental proof of this was earlier in 2011 whena Dutch student using a radiometer shinned up an 800 foot high radio mast at night and plotted Up-Down vs height: it showed an exponentially decaying form, Beer's law. So once the atmosphere is higher than the absorption depth of the IR from the Earth, the main heat transfer mode is convection, radiation is near zero. Where the atmosphere becomes this so the IR optical depth falls, you get radiation to space taking over.
These elementary principles of heat transport have bee overlooked by climate science. Furthermore, the IR theory has been cocked up because there is little thermalisation. You can't have radiant heat being beamed down from a 'hot spot'. There is energy but it is exactly offset by part of the energy gping up, a deeply significant quantum phenomenon few think abot but whoch i have stidied experimentally.
The naivety of climate science turning into quite nasty dogmatism as expressed by 'we won't let anyone publish the truth', is fraud on a massive scale. The subject has to be led by professioanl scientists who do allow contrary opinion.
[snip - bad manners]
The university is up for a massive rationalisation stroke, btw.
Instead of them being a tax efficient conduit for big companies R&D(thereby having an unjust advantage over small companies) , we should have far less professors and assistants and industry "research", and far more money allocated to studying from home, by the whole population not just the 18-25 fornicating lot, and to a better use of vocational experimental equipment (think chemistry physics mechanics labs open 24/365 on a rent basis whereby large companies pay more not less)
the humanities lot is not even worth discussing. Jay-Z studies.. lol
Tax paid for publications are about 1million % oversubscribed: your customer , the taxpayer, does not read the stuff you publish. It is too much , too biased, too faulty, too politicised not enough feedback compared to internet forums.
the best thing that can happen with it is to convert it overnight to open access publishing (author pays)
and close down tax leeches like Elsevier and their 5000 "journals".
Hello?? internet ?? sure you have a couple of journals on it.. does not look like it.
So once the atmosphere is higher than the absorption depth of the IR from the Earth, the main heat transfer mode is convection, radiation is near zero.
Well we agree there.
In an atmosphere constantly in motion, with CO2 absorption near saturation, the transfer of heat to the upper atmosphere (where it can then radiate out) is always likely to be overwhelmingly by convection.
But that is different to "no back radiation".
The way you phrase it sometimes in posts gives that impression that slowed heat transfer by back radiation is a physical impossibility. That confuses people, and gives warmth to the numpties to go off on their rants about heat not being able to radiate from cold to hot, and wastes everyone's time.
My dear mooloo, your adherence to the back radiation concept is touching but indicative of seriously flawed understanding of physics.
Imagine a vacuum containing two parallel, infinite identical plates at the same temperature with perfectly insulated faces pointing away from each other. Put a radiometer between them so it measures radiant flux perpendicular to one plate. Then rotate the radiometer by 180°. Subtract the first signal from the second and you get zero as must be the case at constant temperature equilibrium.
Now repeat the experiment with one plate initially at a higher temperature. The net signal will be higher in the direction hotter to colder and according to accepted heat transfer theory will decay exponentially to zero with time as the two plates equilibrate in temperature.
Yet according to climate science, the 'back radiation', colder to hotter, heats up the hotter plate thus creating heat energy and increasing its temperature hence maintaining a temperature difference. Because the enclosure is perfectly insulated, the temperature of the plates never equilibrate and will in time become infinite.
If you can explain a different outcome, I'd be grateful if you would tell the rest of the scientific and engineering community just why we have got it wrong and climate science has uniquely amongst the scientific disciplines found a way to develop a perpetual motion heat engine.
[Clearly oxymoronic climate science gets out of this inconvenient paradox by accepting there is convective heat transfer but if you'd seen the creative ways that CACC/UCS trolls and fellow travellers try and claim all the energy from the earth's surface is radiative you too would realise that we are dealing with mass hysteria, not science.]
lol
that's Fourier actually, that is.
convection underlying principle (diffusion and advection) is also from hot to cold and not vice versa.
so if the warmists use convection as a figleaf it must be they also throughly cook the numbers, there, as well.
I wonder which BBD references will annihilate heat transfert theory :)
On wonders how the GCMs take into account heat transfert equations..
Probably same way as entropy and fase transition energy transferts:
by putting in some heuristic formula with a couple of parameters which they can tweak at wish so Ayatollah Gore can make an alarming report and buy himself a new mansion by the non rising seas