Bishop Hill Climate cuttings 53
May 31, 2011 Climate: Cuttings A mini-edition of climate cuttings while I'm up to my neck in other things:
George Monbiot is singing the praises of wind power. I'm intrigued to know the sources for his figures.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the momentum of the shale gas is looking unstoppable.
Climate Realists takes a look at an old paper by, among others, Mann and Schmidt on the subject of the solar influence on climate.
"Sceptics" was deemed too polite, so "deniers" was introduced. "Cranks" enjoys favour from time to time. Now, the epithet-du-jour from the climate PR people is climate "truthers". I can't imagine what it's like to spend your whole career thinking up rude names for people.
And lastly, a fascinating article looking at the similarities, or not, between the proxies in one of Mann's temperature reconstructions.
Reader Comments (105)
Is this an invitation to post new descriptive terms for the AGW brigade, or is such behaviour still considered provocative, as opposed to retaliation by parody?
Hmmm I think the new term for the AGW faithful should be
'heaters '
And every home should have one nailed to the wall !!
P.s I wish there had been a warning that the link that it went to the Grandion!! as they don't make water hot enough to rid my eyes of the horror!!
I tend to use the term Gaia worshippers.
climate truthers is correct (minus the scare quotes).
"George Monbiot is singing the praises of wind power. I'm intrigued to know the sources for his figures."
- Andrew Montford
Have you actually taken the time to read the article Andrew? It clearly states that it is fully referenced on his website and provides a link. If you're talking about the Welsh turbines operating at over a quarter of capacity, these are government figures. I think it puts them close to, if not above, the operating capacity for Sizewell nuclear power station last year.
ZDB: the figure of 26% Monbiot quotes is for 2004; the figure of 19% Glyn Davies quotes is from "The Renewable Energy Foundation['s] ... most recent figures", presumably a little more recent?
To whom it may concern
I'm started a new journal. It's called the 'Journal of Palaeopiezometry' and I'm calling for contributions for the first issue which will deal with the problem of cherry picking statistics and using selective quotes. Articles on the scientific method would also be accepted. You don't have to have a Ph.D to contribute. We will also have a section on using palaeopiezometry as part of a career and are seeking examples of people who studied this subject but went onto other things, especially if they didn't become scientists themselves.
Contributions and suggestions welcome.
www.journalofpalaeopiezometry.com
Interesting juxtaposition there:
I like the word "warn" near the word "cheap", from an `energy chief'.
Zed,
The only thing renewable about wind is that when it stops, sooner or later, it will start again. In the gaps there has to be something else. The more mills that are erected, the greater need for fast reacting back-up. Pursuing wind and carbon targets causes the only alternative - non CO2 nuclear to be the answer. So, as you have to build nuclear plants as back-ups to the mills to rid the country of coal/gas generation, why bother with the mills at all?
Only asking.
Why would companies create a glut that will destroy their profits? From what I can see the shale gas players have pulled back and are now trying to sell themselves as shale liquids companies. The reason is obvious; the price of gas is too low to cover the costs. The reason for that is even more obvious; the net energy return is negative for most shale formations and for every good well there are a number of wells that produces a loss.
I find Gaia Rapturists a fitting descriptive term.
Coined by Aussie journalist Tim Blair I believe.
Pleased to see your indignation at rude name calling, Andrew. Presumably "Carbon-crazed Cate" slipped through the irony filter.
Another 'Cutting Commentary' from Salon???
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/31/linbd_fossil_fuels/index.html
Peter Brown
That must be something like Muphry's law, mustn't it? I take your point, although I think I do pretty well compared to many in the debate.
No sweat Andrew. There's no question, you generally keep it polite.
May 31, 2011 at 2:58 PM | Zed’sDeadHead
“Have you actually taken the time to read the article Andrew? It clearly states that it is fully referenced on his website and provides a link. If you're talking about the Welsh turbines operating at over a quarter of capacity, these are government figures. I think it puts them close to, if not above, the operating capacity for Sizewell nuclear power station last year.”
Well if they are “government figures” they MUST be right. Just like the “government figures” showing that in the coldest December for a generation, wind generation across the UK was “close to, if not above” bugger all.
And so far as Sizewell B is concerned, 2010 was a uniquely bad year (that’s why you cherry picked it, of course). Out of action for four months, they still reliably produced 4.7 TWhrs for the other eight months. But 26% (more like 19% in reality) of 800 MW for a year amounts to 1.8 TWhrs. Well yes, very “close to, if not above Sizewell.
In your strange topsy turvey world.
Re Monbiot
Astonishing.
Hundreds of words, the wrong figures (see Oxbridge P @ 3:49pm) and not a single acknowledgement that wind is not capable of baseload, load-following or peak as it is a non-despatchable technology.
I'm not too sure that Monbiot has a firm grip of the essential problem. It is not just that wind is a low density energy technology and needs all those horrible pylons (no George, there's no chance that there will be budget for burying the cables). It's not just that it doesn't generate much power and uses a hell of a lot of landscape up in the process.
It's that it is intermittent, variable and unpredictable.
Ask anyone who knows about electricity generation. Any grid engineer. And I mean any grid engineer and they will confirm this.
And the cost of connecting this disparate forest of windmills to the grid, not to mention the billions that must be spent on pumped hydro to back it up (unless we stick with gas for spinning reserves and get FA CO2 emissions reductions) is never factored into the grossly misleading cost per unit quoted by the likes of Monbiot.
What isn't BS is downright misleading.
WTF is wrong with everybody (not here, obviously) when it comes to seeing that renewables are a sideshow? An expensive illusion, conjured by Romantic environmentalists who are reflexively and wrongly opposed to nuclear? Which they have absolutely no understanding of at all.
In breaking news:-
http://www.nce.co.uk/opinion/mark-hansford/sustainable-aspirations-are-undermined-by-compromise/8615227.blog
"The UK has already tried – and failed – to deliver truly sustainable, zero-carbon communities. The ICE cites Bedzed, a 100 home development in the London borough of Sutton as “a sustainable, attractive and affordable housing community in south east England”. Unfortunately the developer is more honest, and confesses that it is not.
Bedzed failure
A review of the scheme carried out in 2007 concluded that the ecological footprint of the “average” Bedzed resident is 4.67 global hectares, equivalent to needing 2.6 planets of resources if everyone in the world lived like this. A keen resident, who made significant efforts to reduce their impact, could achieve an ecological footprint of three global hectares, or 1.7 planets.
“While this is a significant decrease in ecological footprint compared to the UK average, it is still not sustainable,” it concludes.
Which is pretty damning, given the efforts that went in to the scheme."
ZedBeds fail again.
http://www.eirgrid.com/media/Tepco%20Report%20Summary%20North%20South.pdf
Here's a report on some issues related to cables. They can be very costly indeed and can introduce voltage control and resonance issues into power systems. Large offshore wind farms may need dc cables instead with dc to ac converter stations onshore - more expense. IMHO offshore wind makes no sense at all
@May 31, 2011 at 8:27 PM | BBD
Thanks for some common sense and understanding BBD.
For those who thought (at last!) that Moonbat had seen the light when he realised that his greenie chums had conned him about nuclear, this latest piece of his tomfoolery should be compulsory (if nauseating) reading.
Although I'm with Dick Lindzen in doubting that cAGW is even a plausible hypothesis, there is at least some scope for some folks believing that CO2 emissions MIGHT produce a tiny (and probably beneficial) amount of warming.
But BigWind is scam pure and simple. The figures are there to be seen. It isn't even slightly difficult. Even a politician ought to be able to grasp it.
@BBD: I looked up 'non-despatchable technology' on the web and found this helpful page on Wikipedia:
DougieJ
Wikipedia hits the spot:
When you have a relatively inefficient and non-despatchable generation technology and a highly plausible set of scenarios which show rising demand for electricity (think electrification of heating and transport) there will be no spare capacity.
The assumption is that there will be enough to charge up pumped hydro as a hedge against intermittency and variability - but the conversion losses are 30%.
So the likely real-world outcome is that there will never be quite enough capacity to go around. Demand shortfalls and depleted pumped storage reserves will result. The same brute logic fells the notion that grid interconnectors are going to solve the regional shortfalls. There won't be enough capacity to share between regions.
As I've said before, it's painfully reminiscent of the schematics for perpetual motion machines. There's never enough energy to go around.
Hence the urgent need for more fairy dust.
"Sceptics" was deemed too polite, so "deniers" was introduced.
Have you just made that up or are you able to quote some kind of source for that sentiment? Here's a link to an article that discusses the difference.
On the subject of rudeness, a lot of commenters posted scurrilous accusations about the honesty of Dr Oreskes , these allegations relied on an unproven theory . Mr Montford are you going to remove the scurrilous posts?
If zebedee had cherry-picked a different year for Sizewell B, she could have obtained a load factor of 100%. Why did she not cherry-pick that year I wonder?
Hengist
Are you still trying to assert, against the mass of evidence supplied to you, that the Mediaeval Warm Period was limited to the Northern Hemisphere? People like Oreskes and you are the "denialists" here.
In his article Monbiot wrote:
"Nor do you hear a word about the destruction of the ecosystems of upland Wales (and England and Scotland) by sheep grazing."
How many centuries have sheep been grazing on Welsh hillsides? How much longer can Wales survive (and the upland areas of England and Scotland) survive the activities of sheep? Instead of bombing Libya perhaps David Cameron should declare war on British sheep. We might actually win!
"If zebedee had cherry-picked a different year for Sizewell B, she could have obtained a load factor of 100%. Why did she not cherry-pick that year I wonder?"
May 31, 2011 at 10:14 PM | Phillip Bratby
Clueless as ever Philip, no nuclear power station runs 24/7 for a year, they have regular upkeep and rod exchange etc.
I note you're still using nicknames as well, like a nasty school child.
Zed
Don't rise to it.
Your thoughts on May 31, 2011 at 9:25 PM?
BBD
Same as ever, energy savings at the consumption end, multi renewables to give some level of production consistency, sadly, some nuclear, and a willingness to accept it's going to hurt. And, I know it sounds like a cop out, but it's past my bedtime, good night.
Well Zed, yes it is good to check the actual data.
Indeed, Sizewell B typically operates in the mid to high 80's (2007 at 98.5).
Of course, you yourself might have done yourself a favor by checking the facts before writing:
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.ophis.htm?country=GB&site=SIZEWELL%20B&refno=24&opyear=2020
Oh no!!!!! Global warming threatens fish that inspired 'Finding Nemo'
Those cuddly wuddly ever so cute clownfish (metaphor for the saintly greens) are going to go deaf due to CO2 increases and acidity... then those mean ugly barracudas (metaphor for big oil/deniers etc.) are going to eat them cause they cannot hear them coming.The tragedy.
We must act now!!! I see a film plot: Nemo with Salt and Vinegar... no subtitles just sign language
------
Interesting: if you are so certain of CAGW, so sure that we are all denier b*stards, why the need to hedge you bets? Steve Connor as a "serious" Science Correspondent leading up to Bonn...
Now I understand... it is CAGW/CO2 Acidity for Sun readers... so my "cuddly wuddly" guess was not far off...
Nemo is ‘turning deaf’ in acid sea
Too many syllables I fear though...
@May 31, 2011 at 11:28 PM | Zed'sDeadHead
"I note you're still using nicknames as well, like a nasty school child."
Well, my hunch is that the behaviour of "nasty school child[ren]" is at least something of which you have some knowledge and experience. Unlike energy.
And Zed'sDeadHead is your real baptismal name then?
Hmmmmm. Unusual!
"the momentum of the shale gas is looking unstoppable."
oops.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/01/blackpool-earthquake-tremors-gas-drilling
As per, no sense of relative scale.
I hate to sound dismissive, but as we've been through this in moderate detail already, I have no choice:
You just don't get it, do you?
Frosty
Why don't you take your Peak Doom and shove it?
Thx
Or put another way, why do you have so much invested in denying even the possibility that shale gas will be a benefit to the species wrt our little energy problem?
I despair of you. As I do of everyone determined to be part of the problem, rather than the solution.
Jun 1, 2011 at 8:27 AM | BBD
" I despair of you. As I do of everyone determined to be part of the problem, rather than the solution.
On a happier note, here is a solution to overcome one of the problems (ie when the wind stops) at subsidy farms:
"The Infrastructure Planning Commission
Atlantic Array Windfarm (up to 1500 MW output)
see http://tinyurl.com/4yflcvq"
When, as they surely will, grant a permit for this subsidy farm, one of the conditions should be that there shall be a 4 x 400MW Open Cycle Gas Turbine power station adjacent to the onshore sub-station.
A further condition should be that at least 3 of the 4 units shall be synchronised to the grid 24/7, operating at the minimum stable power setting.
A further condition should be that the power station has has the capability of load/frequency following such the National Grid controllers can then regard this monster as a despatchable load centre.
Chin up.
Curses, if you want to look at the IPC stuff, do not copy the " at the end of the tiny url.
Sorry.
Brownedoff
Or we could just stop fiddling around with pointless ideologically-motivated renewables and get on with building the 100-odd nuclear reactors urgently required to sort out the onrushing energy crisis in this country.
If the bloody great shrubbery of greenie eco-think can be cleared in time, that is.
It's 'funny' how the very same Guardian-reading pillocks who sneer at Republican idiots in the US have no awareness whatsoever that they are doing exactly the same thing when it comes to obstructing nuclear.
Zed
To assist you in visualising the scale of the problem, see here (from David MacKay's Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air.)
Prof. MacKay, writing on the Science Council for Global Initiatives website has this to say (emphasis added):
Now, do you think that MacKay is seriously advocating a national wind farm with the area of Wales? Or is he pointing to the fundamental absurdity of the idea?
It's interesting watching MacKay becoming increasingly pro-nuclear.
But then, he gets it.
Anyone concerned by shrilling about earthquakes from the anti-solution doom-mongers amongst us need not be.
It's just hyped-up media rubbish, as per. For example, consider the headline of this piece in the Independent - and then read down to the not-so-scary facts...
Gosh, wow. A ton of TNT deep underground. Well, that's shale gas off the energy map then.
I thought Monbiot had a "Road to Damascus" moment on nuclear recently. Has that worn off?
Jun 1, 2011 at 9:22 AM | BBD
What I had in mind is that, if a 24/7 generator was a condition of a permit for all intermittent generation, then the flow of applications would dry up immediately following the first such conditional permit.
I am thinking of submitting this proposal to the IPC.
There is absolutely no chance of the limp members of the HoC doing the right thing - i.e. repealing CCA 2008, so we have to start at the other end - developers' wallets.
WRT nuclear, I have a horrible feeling that UK nuclear new build will not come to pass for a long time - uncertainty of regulation, high cost of money, higher and higher cost of raw materials, lack of skilled labour in sufficient numbers and so on.
The real test of my pessimistic outlook will occur at the beginning of 2012, which is when Hinkley C should commence construction on-site if EDF are to fulfil Huhne's "promise" to the HoC on Thursday, 24 March 2011:
Huhne told the house that "the coalition Government's plans clearly envisage an important role for nuclear. We aim to bring the first new nuclear on stream for 2018"
Note the "we aim".
What the slippery gentleman forgot to mention was that this first new nuclear is a paltry 1.6 GW, with the balance of another 1.6 GW taking another 18 months.
By the end of 2018, Oldbury, Wylfa, Hinley Point B, Hunterston B and Dungeness B (10 out of 19 reactors) will be closed for ever - total loss of over 4 GW of capacity. Eighteen months later Hartlepool and Heysham 1 will have closed - another 2.3 GW lost.
So, by the time 3.2 GW of new comes on stream (if we are lucky), over 6.3 GW will have been lost.
Also, have a look at http://stophinkley.org/ and note the presence of Dr. Caroline Lucas MP as a sponsor.
Brownedoff
Yes. Agreed. (And yes, I know about CL championing Stop Hinckley; she is the quintessential know-nothing energy fantasist).
I worry too. The astonishingly mad decision in Germany paves the way for stealthy delaying tactics by the anti-nuke brigade here (and we know where Huhne stands on this).
We really are collectively at the mercy of ideologues who are anti-technology (including nuclear, of course), and want to make us pay (see Zed above 'it's going to hurt').
But it doesn't have to. We are being set up. The energy problem can be tackled with Gen III (and soon IV) nuclear plant and there will be enough clean electricity for all. Except the CLs of this world want us to suffer because... oh, because they're all stupid and mad, I suppose.
Witness the anti-democratic stranglehold the greens have on energy policy.
Zed, the use of nicknames is well established in Anglo-Saxon culture, so, two questions for you;
1 why do international sports stars, particularly Cricket players on the same teames and thus presumably friendly with one another, use nicknames?
2 If wind is so effective for powering turbines, why do absolutely no commercial shipping lines use sailing ships?
"Clueless as ever Philip.."
"like a nasty school child"
Howcome it's always us and never you? Pots and kettles, Zed.
@Oxbridge P: The source for Glynn Williams 19% (http://www.ref.org.uk/roc-generators/) actually shows that Monbiot's 26% is a perfectly reasonable average load. However BBD's " intermittent, variable and unpredictable" is right to the point. Also from the Renewable Energy Foundation website was a note concluding: "Such figures confirm theoretical arguments that regardless of the size of the wind fleet the
United Kingdom will never be able to reduce its conventional generation fleet below peak load
plus a margin of approximately 10%.". The source for that is: "Low Wind Power Output in 2010: An Information Note" (at http://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/217/ref%20on%202010%20wind%20performance%2002%2002%2011.pdf)
Or put another way, why do you have so much invested in denying even the possibility that shale gas will be a benefit to the species wrt our little energy problem?
I can't speak for others but my problem with shale gas comes from the actual real world data. From all of the information the energy return on the energy invested is negative. This is why the early shale players are bleeding so much red ink and why many of them are selling themselves off or trying to promote themselves as shale liquid companies.
I have found it in life that just wishing and hoping is not enough. To really solve problems we have to be rational and to be able and willing to see reality as it is. So far, reality tells us that shale gas is not a solution to our problems. We need something with a much better return.
Britain could, for example, get 60 kWh per day per person by building wind farms with an area equal to Wales (which would deliver on average 20 kWh per day per person) and a hundred more nuclear power stations (which would deliver 40 kWh per day per person).
First, there is no way to make that many turbines without driving the cost of certain specialty elements through the stratosphere. Second, when you add up all of the energy that goes into producing, distributing, and maintaining wind power infrastructure you find that the energy that is produced is insufficient to cover the original investment. Third, wind production has a very high environmental cost. It kills birds and bats and interferes with the balance that keeps insect populations down. That means that many farmers will have to use more pesticides to protect their crops, not exactly what the greens intended.