(Or…, are renewables useless because of peak load issues?) From IPCC AR6 Working Group 3 report (page 6-24):
CSP stands for “concentrated solar power”.
Here are projections for full capital costs for 4 hour lithium battery for a utility:
Source: NREL (2021).
Power storage costs are declining over time (see discussion of other renewables power generation/storage/transmission costs here), so that over time we should renewables become more and more cost-effective (on a private cost basis – i.e., not even taking into account the externalities associated with use of fossil fuels).
“over time we should renewables become more and more cost-effective (on a private cost basis – i.e., not even taking into account the externalities associated with use of fossil fuels).”
I brought up externalities associated with the use of fossil fuels the last time CoRev declared renewables were always more expensive and his response was the usual accounting did not include the costs associated with negative externalities. Something tells me that this loud mouth dog chasing its own tail still does not get he made my point.
This is a real world example of what we used to call learning by doing:
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9780429492846-20/learning-international-trade-growth-note-michele-boldrin-jos%C3%A9-scheinkman
Learning-By-Doing, International Trade and Growth: A Note By Michele Boldrin, JosÉ A. Scheinkman
The Economy as an Evolving Complex System, 1988
ABSTRACT
In this chapter, the authors describe the bulk of their argument: in the presence of externalities generated by learning-by-doing mechanism and with differential products, free trade and competitive behavior tend to magnify small differences in the initial conditions. The remark that externalities may affect the dynamic evolution of comparative advantages was made by Krugman and Lucas. The research effort that underlies the simple model was motivated by a few undisputable facts. The authors present a general formalized version of the world economy and describe the dynamic process for expertise and the associated competitive growth path. They also present a simple linear model where such a dynamic is realized, albeit in a very extreme form. The authors provide an analysis of the conditions under which the general model produces the asymmetric outcomes people have in mind.
You have to forgive CoRev for never getting things like this as his motto in Unlearning by Barking!
when we forget or spent the money correcting other issues that went over budget and did not get tech manuals and test equipment the technicians trouble shooting broke systems do ‘swap tronics’ that is remove and replace expensive parts that often break being so handled….
the scarcity of knowledge about engineering complex entities that have to do an outcome over many years at a tolerable life cycle burden is absent in the ‘renewables debate’.
corev is not covering it all.
but neither is presenting unitary data of a couple of system features refuting him
If this is true why include it? “Here are projections for full capital costs for 4 hour lithium battery for a utility (so not relevant to solar PV per se):” Wind can be even worse than solar for extended lengths with reduced or significantly reduced power output.
CoRev: Actually, that was a mistake, I deleted that text. Depends what kind of PV system.
A point I would like to make, and I am aware I am far from the first to mention it, and it’s not terribly “insightful”, but I think something that often gets missed in conversation. How do you recycle or store lithium batteries (lithium battery waste) when they are no longer operational??~~and what are the externality costs? I am pro-renewables, but I think a more honest conversation would include this in popular and ordinary conversation rather than a minute minute mentioning in esoteric research papers.
This is an excellent question. Not endorsing his latest spin but Bruce Hall has attempted at least his answer. I have not read it yet so I will leave it to your better judgment as to whether it is honest or useful.
OK I have read the link Bruce provided. His little comment was a bit of a misrepresentation as usual. Read the link as well as this article it references:
https://www.mining.com/close-loop-lithium-ion-battery-recycling/
Menzie, 2slugs, Barkley MD etc. would you comment on this article: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/nov/a2.php Autocorrelation in CO2 and Temperature Time Series
“In my last post I plotted the NASA CO2 and the HadCRUT5 records from 1850 to 2020 and compared them. This was in response to a plot posted on twitter by Robert Rohde implying they correlated well. The two records appear to correlate because the resulting R2 is 0.87. The least square’s function used made the global temperature anomaly a function of the logarithm to the base 2 of the CO2 concentration (or ‘log2CO2’). This means the temperature change was assumed to be linear with the doubling of the CO2 concentration, a common assumption. The least squares (or ‘LS’) methodology assumes there is no error in the measurements of the CO2 concentration and all error resulting from the correlation (the residuals) resides in the HadCRUT5 global average surface temperature estimates.”
He does a Polynomial Fit and then finds:
“There is still a signal in the data. It is positive, suggesting that if the autocorrelation were truly removed with the 2nd order fit (we cannot say that statistically, but “what if”), there is still a small positive change in temperature, as CO2 increases. Remember, autocorrelation doesn’t say there is no correlation, it just invalidates the correlation statistics. If temperature is mostly dependent upon the previous year’s temperature, and we can successfully remove that influence, what remains is the real dependency of temperature on CO2. Unfortunately, we can never be sure we removed the autocorrelation and can only speculate that Figure 7 may be the true dependency between temperature and CO2.
Discussion
The R2 that results from a LS fit of CO2 concentration and global average temperatures is artificially inflated because both CO2 and temperature are autocorrelated time series that increase with time. Thus, in this case, R2 is an inappropriate statistic. R2 assumes that each observation is independent and we find that 76% of each year’s average global temperature is determined by the previous year’s temperature, leaving little to be influenced by CO2. Further, 90% of each year’s CO2 measurement is determined by the previous year’s value.
I concluded that the best function for removing the autocorrelation was a 2nd order polynomial, but even when this trend is removed, the residuals are still autocorrelated and the null hypothesis that they were not had to be rejected….”
Most climate belief is based upon the temperature to CO2 correlation. This article says it may very well be spurious. Further confusion is raised by the Kaufmann paper, 2slugs’ example in the econometric vs anomaly trends. which concluded the correlation was CO2 to temperature. Kaufmann is not alone in this finding.
Your feed back would be appreciated.
The well known and documented properties of CO2 as a green house gas is not a “belief based on” correlation. It is an indisputable property of CO2 that has been verified again and again by simple experiments in physics laboratories. The climate models based on this physics found that a fairly large amount of heat had “disappeared” – and they scratched their heads until it was discovered that all of that global warming was hiding in midlevels of our oceans. Nobody in their right mind would build a model of a complicated multivariate system based on observed correlations between two parameters.
Ivan, I know you must believe what you wrote, but believing does not make truth. You claim: “The climate models based on this physics found that a fairly large amount of heat had “disappeared” – and they scratched their heads until it was discovered that all of that global warming was hiding in midlevels of our oceans. ”
Did they really? Taking the worst area of coverage of surface data, the oceans, then hiding the lost heat in midlevels of our oceans is possible, but also not necessarily believable. Then in the start of 2000s the surface temperature records showed a almost 2 decades pause in temperature increase. Voila, that pause was eliminated by finding again by finding that lost heat in the oceans. To help improve the ocean temperature data we launched the Argo buoy program. These new and fully tested buoys did not show the increase in ocean temperature as expected. So the buoy data was suspect, and the data ADJUSTED so that they thereafter showed rising temperatures. So finding disappeared heat in the ocean data seems to be a common trait, but also not necessarily believable.
You also claimed: ” Nobody in their right mind would build a model of a complicated multivariate system based on observed correlations between two parameters.”
Nor would anybody in their right mind base trillions of dollars policy, NET ZERO, on reducing and eliminating CO2 in the atmosphere. But the entire world is on this path.
“Ivan, I know you must believe what you wrote, but believing does not make truth. ”
well said, ghostbuster.
Would one not expect autocorrelation in a series which is rising on trend? The problem being investigated is human burning of hydrocarbons causing a rise in CO2 and a resultant rise in temperatures. Arguing that the rising trend makes assessment impossible is to argue that no investigation is possible. That’s simply wrong.
“…both CO2 and temperature are autocorrelated time series that increase with time.” Yes, exactly. And that’s the problem with burning hydrocarbon fuels.
At best, the author can argue that some researcher used the wrong analytical tool. That may or may not be true. All we know from the text you’ve posted is that the author has discovered that persistent trends demonstrate autocorrelation. Yeah, we know. If that’s all he has figured out, then his “analysis” is bogus, just meant to baffle non-specialists. He cannot honestly argue that two rising series cannot be investigated for correlation because they are both rising.
Ivan’s point is well taken. We know more than statistics. We know chemistry and physics. All three show a strong connection between hydrocarbon burning and rising temperatures. No objection to a single piece of research, even if valid, overturns the scientific consensus that human activity has caused a sharp and persisting increase in average temperatures.
Here’s what I’d like to know: Why do you need to ask about this? How can anyone who pretends to understand statistics not realize that finding autocorrelation in a time series is the commonest thing in the world. Autocorrelation doesn’t raise insurmountable issues for climate change or demographics or economics or any other area of research in which persistent trends are seen.
In short, the author has decided that causality is trumped by causuistry. The simple correlation shown in some tweet implied causation. The author ignores that implication only to substitute another – that rising temperature causes rising temperature and rising CO2 causes rising CO2. That’s silly.
MD claims: “The author ignores that implication only to substitute another – that rising temperature causes rising temperature and rising CO2 causes rising CO2. That’s silly.” Menzie and 2slugs laugh at my statistics understanding, and then you prove how much worse you are than me.
The term is related not caused. Do you actually believe that tomorrows temperature is NOT related to today’s.
If so, maybe you can calculate how solar can fulfill peak demand. No one else has been able.
“The term is related not caused.”
Gee – you can copy and paste words you do not understand. Of course you are just spinning utter nonsense in the face of people explaining clearly to you why your babble is utter nonsense. Econned is right – you need to move onto something more enlightening than talking to a rock.
Barking Bierka – the Disgusting NYC Jerk again shows his lack of logic and understanding. My point was:
“The term is related not caused. Do you actually believe that tomorrows temperature is NOT related to today’s. (Well do you????)
If so, maybe you can calculate how solar can fulfill peak demand. No one else has been able.” And how’s that list of externalities coming? Or that list of successful Biden policies? Or the refutation of my claim of solar not ever meeting meeting peak demand?
Those should be simple answers for some one smarter than a rock. But, yet nothing from you or anybody else.
MD claims: “He cannot honestly argue that two rising series cannot be investigated for correlation because they are both rising. ” Are they both rising, really?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2014/trend/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/from:2014/offset:-0.05/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.5/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:1978/trend
And we have this long pause data until it was wiped out by finding warming data in the oceans: https://agw-alarmism.blogspot.com/2017/09/for-those-who-disbelieve-hiatus-even.html
Then we had the Kaufmann paper, https://agw-alarmism.blogspot.com/2017/09/for-those-who-disbelieve-hiatus-even.html
which 2slugs was so kind to provide, and concluded: ” The regression results also indicate that increases in surface temperature since 1870 have changed the flow of carbon dioxide to and from the atmosphere in a way that increases its atmospheric concentration. ”
Not in lock step which means correlation is questionable or if correlated which is the driver?
Asking questions is what makes science. Not asking questions and believing blindly makes a religion.
CoVid, CoVid, CoVid,
You don’t “ask questions” out of curiosity or scientific interest. If you did, some of your questions would be premised on research which confirms the scientific consensus, the consensus that climate change is real, that it is dangerous, and hat it is caused by human action. Your pretense to scientific interest is a standard trick among climate change denier and other “junk science” gone.
You “asked questions” about a guy who took the opportunity of a tweet to grit out a bunch of misleading data analysis in order to suggest that research into the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature cannot be done. A tweet, for goodness sake. We are way past the point at which the correlation between atmospheric CO2 accumulation and rising temperatures can be dismissed with a bit of misleading math.
And how do you respond when I point out how bad you little data buddy has bevaved? You go straight for “yeah, what about…” Whataboutism is just another trick in the deniers tool kit. Change the subject. And if someone debunks the new “what about” links? You’ll do the same trick again. And the trot out another canned lecture on how science requires asking questions. Science requires asking honest questions. Charlatans and con artists ask misleading questions.
As you have done.
MD, are you actually questioning this: “Asking questions is what makes science. Not asking questions and believing blindly makes a religion.
by citing this: “some of your questions would be premised on research which confirms the scientific consensus,…” Consensus is not science. It may be, but in climate change consensus still is not science.
Consensus climate science has got us this war on fossil fuels. This war has got us some significant portion of today’s inflation.. Even the WSJ agrees.
CoRev loves to link to this AGW-alarmism blog. It seems to be run by a climate change denier who is duimber and more loud mouth than even CoRev. I googled this name and up popped a list of your usual MAGA hat wearing crazies. CoRev’s kind of people!
CoRev,
Find a new hobby.
this may be the first time you have actually called out one of the trolls on this site. what was the final straw that broke the camel’s back?
baffling,
I’m not sure I understand because I’ve certainly called out trolls on this site… for example you and Menzie multiple times among others.
Econned, too late. Been interested too long.
CoRev Ivan and Macroduck have already done a good job of critiquing the analysis you presented, but I’ll add a few other things. Nothing like piling on!
(1) Notice that the model is set up as two contemporaneous variables; i.e., the left-and- right hand variables are assumed to operate only at time “t” with no possible autocorrelations across other time periods. All causes and effects operate instantaneously and then disappear entirely with the next time period. This is just a crazy specification. If there’s one thing we know about CO2 and temperature data, it’s that both show persistence, so obviously there’s going to be autocorrelation in each time series. And if there’s autocorrelation in each time series, then why wouldn’t you expect to see autocorrelation in the residuals of the regression? At the very least the regression screams for some lagged variables, which is what the low DW statistic is really telling you.
(2) Both time series are nonstationary. The question is whether one, both or neither of the time series is a deterministic trend or a stochastic trend. It’s like that entire discussion we had went right over your head. If both are deterministic trends, then where’s the trend variable in the regression? If one is deterministic and the other stochastic, then the model is just junk because you cannot regress variables with a different order of integration. And if both variables show a stochastic trend and of the same order of integration, then an entirely different approach ought to spring to mind…I’m thinking of a dog on a leash leading a staggering drunk home. Hint: a model that corrects errors.
(3) The time series he uses ignores important regime changes. For example, for many of those years we pumped a lot of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, which counteracts a lot of the warming coming from CO2. As a result, the effects of C02 on older temperature data is dampened, which makes the kind of simple regression this guy used worthless.
2slugs, “(1) Notice that the model is set up as two contemporaneous variables; i.e., the left-and- right hand variables are assumed to operate only at time “t” with no possible autocorrelations across other time periods.”
This makes no sense unless you know of other measured data sources outside the time “t” presented. I am referring to this figure: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/nov/a2_Figure%201.png
I tried to anticipate your point 2) with https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2014/trend/plot/esrl-co2/normalise/from:2014/offset:-0.05/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.5/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:1978/trend
Your point 3) is just more gibberish. Adding a third variable adds no value to the correlation or not argument.
CoRev Ugh!!! You completely misunderstand. It’s this Andy May’s model that assumes the variables re contemporaneous!!! That’s how he specified his model. Geesh. And speaking of specifications, his decision to use a semi-log model is really weird. I’m not sure he understands how to interpret the regression results from a semi-log model.
As to the woodfortrees thingy….please look at the model parameters. Nowhere does he test for whether the time series is I(0) trend stationary or I(1) trend stationary. Again…Ugh! Why can’t you make an effort to understand the difference between an I(0) data set and an I(1) data set?
Your comment about adding a third variable is clueless. Failing to account for a regime change creates omitted variable bias…and that is one source of autocorrelation.
Look, you’re just way out of your depth here. I suspect you hunt-and-peck your way through fossil fuel friendly websites until you find something that sounds a little mathy. Something that might impress the rubes. But Andy May’s analysis is amateur stuff at best. And the fact that you were apparently impressed with it tells us a lot about your understanding of time series analysis.
2slugs, Ugh more gibberish, except for “I(0) trend stationary or I(1) trend stationary. Again…Ugh!”???
CoRev: Why ugh on I(0) vs. I(1). Seems central to the issue.
Menzie, I’m probably over my head again. My apologies to 2slugs.
2slugs, I now understand the weakness of your argument re: the model structure. You obviously did nor read the article nor its references. His response was constrained by his response to the original twitter article by Dr Robert Rohde. It’s not Andy May’s model but a different visualization of Rohde’s.
Why do you constantly complain about how temperatures are calculated in climates science? Take it up with them. You seem to blindly believe their claims at other times or maybe just when the support your beliefs. Maybe you are just confused by anomalies as is Menzie?
Next time you take out your ole disdain wand make sure you look at where both ends are pointing. Too many times you making the wrong argument to the wrong person. Even then you are often wrong.
You said that so much better than I did, and some other stuff, too. May I hold your cape, sir?
CoRev This took me like ten minutes to throw together. It’s not something that I take seriously for lots of reasons, but my point here is to show the importance of accounting for regime changes in time series data. When you include lots of years that have been spliced together and cover many regime changes you risk ending up with garbage. If you restrict the time series to the time when CO2 emissions actually started to matter and ignore the times when the effects of those CO2 emissions were swamped by other factors, then you get a very different picture. And if you’ll click on this link you will see that very different picture:
http://missionaryworkamongsavages.blogspot.com/2022/07/showing-relationship-between-co2-and.html
Again, I am not recommending this model. I’m only highlighting why someone shouldn’t just mechanically run regressions without actually understanding what they’re doing. This is just a toy model with lots of problems of its own. But as bad as it is, it’s a helluva lot better than the mess you linked to.
2slugs, I commend you on creating your own blog page to show your results. Why not talk to Andy May?
CoRev: Why talk to a guy who’s estimating polynomials on time on a data series that hardly look trend stationary.
Prof. Chinn, why not help the guy out by showing how it could be better done. His data and code are referenced at the end of the article.
CoRev: Because I’ve explained in a variety of places how I would approach dealing with integrated and cointegrated series, sometimes on this blog, sometimes in general (well, noneconomist) audience context. Heck, I’ve explained it to you. And yet, you’ve never even attempted to understand any of the tests/methodologies as far as I can tell.
CoRev: You are citing a webpage written by a guy who is doing what I would tell my undergraduate stats students (so not even my Masters’ students) not to do? Fitting polynomials in trends and then looking at residuals? If the guy is citing “one type of spurious correlation”, the least he could do is consider what most people (econometricians) think of when hearing that term — that is regressing one I(1) process on another I(1) process.
I don’t know who you’re trying to convince by citing a guy who got a BS in geology in 1974, and who clearly has only a rudimentary understanding of time series analysis.
This really is quite a hilarious development, but so typical our lead goal post mover, CoRev, who keeps trying toke over this blog with his wild demands.
So, here he was, when not getting zero by dividing by zero, insisting that several threads here were about solar energy in Texass, home of the oil and gas industry in the US but also the state suffering the worst electricity outages, fancy that, insisting that nobody could talk about wind or other renewables, but must somehow address his endlessly repeated claims about time of day patterns of peak electricity demand and solar energy production.
So, not only was it pointed out to him that storage can happen with solar energy, so his ongoing rants about this look just plain dumb, but Menzie goes and puts up a post about such storage, which is indeed a complicated issue. So how does CoRev respond to this slam dunk on all his demanding and stupid ranting, now shown to be especially irrelevant and strupid? Change the subject and bring in a new goal post, of course!@@
And, of course, it came with demands that everybody drop what they were doing and writing and thinking about and deal with his new goal post, in this case an abysmally invompetent and stupid blog post by Andy May, claiming to poke holes in climate science, a man who is not a climatologist despite having published some books on the topic, with, as Menzie notes, a 1974 BS in geology and a history as a petrophysicist working for industry prior to retiring in 2016 to make himself into a climate science denying blogger. He does have 7 refereed journal arriclts with 144 citations, but none on climatology. They are all about pore sizes in oil pools, what he actually worked on.
I am not going to comment on the quality of the time series analysis in this idiotic post given that Menzie along with some others, notably 2slugbaits, have made clear the problems with this silliness. So, here we have CoRev, trying to distract everyone from making a complete fool of himself on the whole solar energy in Texas issue, and he falls flat on his face, dragging in this worthless nonsense from this non-climatologist.
Running society on 100% renewable energy is easy to do – unless you get distracted by wanting to let the private sector do it without subsidies or mandates.
If a community use an average of 100GW of energy per year – that is the amount of energy they need to produce every year (you would probably plan for a little more to be on the safe side). Dealing with fluctuations in use over hours, days, weeks, years, and decades; is not a production issue – it’s an energy storage issue. When use is below average you store energy, when its above, you take energy out of storage. You are good as long as your average production is a little above the average use.
It really doesn’t matter whether the community produce its 100GW of energy by hydrocarbon or renewable sources. However, they do need to be able to store energy to deal with fluctuations in use and production.
For hydrocarbons the storage issue is easier. Leave it in the ground or pump it up to cope with fluctuations at the annual & decade scale. Fluctuations on shorter time scales can be dealt with by big storage tanks.
Storage for renewable energy is a little more complicated. It involves conversion of produced energy into stored, and then reversal to make that stored energy available again. Excess renewable energy can be reversibly stored in batteries, as heat, as hydrogen or as kinetic energy. Those processes currently have energy loss above what is seen with storing hydrocarbons. So, the 100GW community will have to produce more than 100GW of renewable energy to compensate for loss during the storage and recovery processes. No big deal, very doable.
If we ignore current direct and indirect subsidies as well as environmental and political damage/risks – the production of energy from wind and solar cost about the same as natural gas and less than oil/coal. However, storage cost for renewable is considerably higher than for non-liquified natural gas. So, the current commercial calculation in US is to increase renewable capacity only to the point where it begins to require substantial storage. However, that is only because we allow the hydrocarbon industry to push their true political and environmental cost onto society at large.
In the 100GW community running 100% on renewable (solar and wind) the predictable short term fluctuations would be covered by batteries. Predictable short-medium term fluctuations would be cover by heat storage. All unpredictable as well as predictable long term fluctuations would be covered by green hydrogen and kinetic energy storage systems. There are no technical roadblocks for construction of such a community – only financial – and only because of the huge indirect subsidies we are giving the hydrocarbon industrial complex by giving them a pass on the immense damage they do to our planet.
well stated. there is an assault by the fossil fuel industry on the research and development of energy storage systems. this does not get publicized in the media, but there is a concerted effort to minimize this research. why? because fossil fuel industry understands that as soon as an economical and deployable energy storage system is developed, the fossil fuel industry is toast. wind and solar have overcome the industry resistance with time, and are economical and deployable. there should be no resistance to developing the final stage of energy storage, and yet you see over and over again people coming up with myriad excuses to squash energy storage approaches. it will nevertheless occur, just like renewable technology has overcome resistance and been deployed successfully. its just that we are delaying, and there is a price to pay for that delay. every single one of corev’s complaints about intermittency disappear as energy storage systems improve. and we are pretty close to a deployable solution. hence you see the drama some try to create, rather than simply embrace what the future holds. unfortunately we are dealing with psychology. those that are resisting are doing so because to to embrace renewables admits that they were wrong. and they cannot do that.
so there have been some comments against hydrogen, depending upon whether it is green or blue. as I have said before, in the near term let the blue have its day, if that results in the infrastructure being built out. because if hydrogen becomes one of the energy storage solutions, that improves renewables position. renewable overcapacity is no longer a problem, but a benefit, when energy storage has a viable solution. we are close.
How do those projections compare to natural gas peaking plant cost? Also is 4 hour storage enough to ensure grid reliability?
Kirk: Read the rest of the document that I linked to. There were projections for 2 and 6 hours as well.
OK, Professor, my beef with your approach is a technical one: I have to assume that (e.g. in Texas) there are days without meaningful sun shine, therefore, I would use historical weather data (3-4 decades) to define length and extend of theses gaps in power supply (kW) in which a back-up is needed. This back-up is most likely provide by open NG turbines in the US context. This backup creates fixed costs independent of full load hours.
The next step is IMHO then the economical optimization against this back-up, more precise against the hours such backup is run per year (energy, kWh), here batteries with different capacities are used to reduce full load hours of the back-up NG turbines.
Menzie, is 2 and 6 hours of storage enough to ensure grid reliability? Not for solar and often enough not for wind. We use fossil fueled generators to fulfill the reliability issue. Reliability problems are exacerbated when the fossil fueled generators or even the batteries are undersized to fulfill the need at the upper extreme.
Given enough money anything may be possible, but that doesn’t mean everything is sensible or affordable.
My position for many comments here is that adding intermittent renewables adds unreliability to electric grids, adding renewables adds costs to the grids, adding reliability to any intermittent sources adds costs to the grids. Adding batteries to a grid is an example of all three costs enhancers.
Ok so 6 hours is similar in cost per kWh. Im still trying to wrap m head around how even the low projection at $100 per kWh in 2050 is a reasonable cost, I pay 14 cents per kWh. It’s orders of magnitude too expensive. Also, batteries don’t add capacity’s hey just move it around, how does this solve the problem of unprecidented demand during extreme weather events?
“Also, batteries don’t add capacity’s hey just move it around, how does this solve the problem of unprecidented demand during extreme weather events?”
that may be true under longer time frames. but it is not true under shorter time frames. if you are talking about a few hours, your instantaneous capacity can be much greater than simply the renewable source alone.
I agree I could see it working for hot days when the high peak is a few hours late afternoon/evening, not sure it would be much help in the big freeze they had last winter.
Also for that cost per kwh, do we need to factor in the number of recharges or something, those numbers are crazy high for batteries.
you may not want to use the same solution for short term stability as longer term stability. batteries work well in the short term. if the duration is longer, then other solutions such as hydrogen or water storage would probably be a better and more economical approach. as people continue to buy EV and power walls, you will get a distributed battery that will also help in the process. this creates a more complex system, so you cannot operate the grid the way ercot tries to do now. but it also creates redundancy and resiliency in your grid, with multiple solutions. the electric grid for the next 100 years really should not look like the grid of the past 100 years.
Last thing I’ll say is if batteries are cost competitive with conventional peaking plants you could also utilize them with conventional combined cycle plants for example, reduce cost /need of running peaking generators, and eliminate the indeterminacy issue of renewables as I’m sure there are times they are down for more than 6 hours. Not saying it needs 100% one or the other but I’m not convinced batteries will solve the variable nature of renewables but may help increase utilization.
Baffled, more gibberish.
Kirk wrote:
1) I’m not convinced batteries will solve the variable nature of renewables but may help increase utilization.
2) do we need to factor in the number of recharges or something, those numbers are crazy high for batteries.
These two highly relevant technical aspects are the reason for my recent suggestions
” I would use historical weather data (3-4 decades) to define length and extend of theses gaps in power supply (kW) in which a back-up is needed…. the economical optimization against this back-up, more precise against the hours such backup is run per year (energy, kWh), here batteries with different capacities are used to reduce full load hours of the back-up NG turbines.”
kirk, batteries are simply one element of the solution. that is why there are many different solutions being investigated-hydrogen, water gravity systems, etc). depending upon the scale, one solution will be better than another. things become more complicated, but also more interesting, once you consider the possibility of a distributed battery backup system composed of power walls and EV batteries hooked up to the grid. it requires a much smarter grid than we have today. but a distributed battery system (and production system, if you consider solar cells) completely changes how you operate a grid. this is why i say you need to consider the power grid of tomorrow, and ignore the limitations of the current grid based on old technology.
Cost, more cost and then even more cost. To solve what problem? Which is proposed to solve another problem.
All of these problem solving proposals are being presented in a world where their implementations are being measured in inflation and even war.
Sometimes all that can be done is shake your head and wait for the elections.
CoRev,
Funny you bring up elections. Increasingly it looks like Gov. Abbott’s mismanagement of the electricity grid in Texas, the worst managed state system in the nation, is going to play a role in the gubernatorial elections there. I would be that probably he will be able to hold off Beto, but recent polls have shown the gap closing and with Beto using these electricity grid problems as a stick to bash Abbott.
The elections may go just the opposite way from what you think they will. People will NOT be reelecting Abbott because somehow Beto was responsible for Texas using solar power with that somehow being responsible for the recent problems. That you would somehow imply that is another sign of how just completely out of it you are.
Barkley, more desperate gibberish. Without a link to the poll any conclusion is just personal opinion.
As for ERCOT: “On Tuesday, four out-of-state members of ERCOT’s board—including the chair and vice chair—announced their resignations. Gov. Greg Abbott welcomed the resignations, saying, “ERCOT leadership made assurances that Texas’ power infrastructure was prepared for the winter storm, but those assurances proved to be devastatingly false.”
But what is ERCOT, and who is responsible for overseeing them?…”
and
“The role of oversight of the council comes from two entities—the Texas Legislature and the Public Utility Commission. The Legislature is scheduled to hold hearings later this week to investigate ERCOT and what factors led to the outages last week.
Meanwhile, the Public Utility Commission consists of three members, all appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott and confirmed by the Texas Senate.” https://texasscorecard.com/state/as-board-members-resign-who-is-responsible-for-overseeing-ercot/
Abbott is not on the ERCOT board and can only influence membership.
ercot is run by conservative texas republicans. that group has appointed all members of the ercot board. the success and failure of ercot is a direct result of texas republicans, and has been so for decades.
The role of oversight of the council comes from two entities—the Texas Legislature and the Public Utility Commission. The Legislature is scheduled to hold hearings later this week to investigate ERCOT and what factors led to the outages last week. Meanwhile, the Public Utility Commission consists of three members, all appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott and confirmed by the Texas Senate…In other words, as Abbott and state lawmakers point fingers at ERCOT for mismanagement, they share responsibility for failing to oversee the council before last week’s failures.
This was taken from your own link. Maybe you and Bruce Hall should actually READ the links you provide for a change.
Barking Bierka – the Disgusting NYC Jerk shows off his reading and comprehension skills even again. Claiming: “This was taken from your own link. Maybe you and Bruce Hall should actually READ the links you provide for a change.”
My reference: “Meanwhile, the Public Utility Commission consists of three members, all appointed by Gov. Greg Abbott and confirmed by the Texas Senate.” https://texasscorecard.com/state/as-board-members-resign-who-is-responsible-for-overseeing-ercot/”
Just ignore that sentence preceding the link. Apparently I didn’t read it before copying presenting it here.
For heavens sake stop confusing weather with climate, and read and comprehend comments before respomding.
CoRev,
You really like to use the word “gibberish” when you are completely lacking anything coherent to say, don’t you?
Just checked. Two months ago Abbott had a double digit lead over O’Rourke. Latest poll was two weeks ago, July 6, Texas Tribune found the lead shrunk to only 6%. Also, Abbott’s unfavorables have reached a new high of 44%. Saw a story from yesterday that O’Rourke has closed the gap on fundraising also.
So, why is Abbott losing popularity, which he unequivocally is, if, as I said, apparently still narrowly in the lead? Well, there are two other factors: the abortion issue and the Uvalde shooting matter. But pretty clearly he is hurting on the energy front, and the fact that he is firing people connected to Ercot is a sign that he is desperate and scrambling on the matter.
Again, sorry, but Abbott is not going to be riding to victory over O’Rourke by declaring that electricity grid problems in Texas are O’Rourke’s fault for advocating the expanded use of renewable sources. Sorry, but if you think so, well, we have already seen you declare that dividing by zero produces zero without somehow admitting you are wrong, and now also failing to admit that the highest temperature ever recorded on the island of Britain happened yesterday rather than back in 1911.
Whew! Full-out gibberish!
Barkley, Whew! Full-out DESPERATE gibberish! Closing to 6% might be a positive, depending on the source of the poll. Which for some reason you have not shown. Only in Democrat states is -6% a win.
This comment is hilarious: ” But pretty clearly he is hurting on the energy front, and the fact that he is firing people connected to Ercot is a sign that he is desperate and scrambling on the matter.” I guess, you would prefer that those failing ERCOT managers stay in their positions. After URI, 4 ERCOT managers voluntarily resigned. All 4 were NOT Texas residents. IIRC at least one was European.
So let me repeat: Whew! Full-out DESPERATE gibberish!
The 2-6 hour storage is meant to deal with daily fluctuations in use – especially when solar is a large part of the energy production. Its about a predictable delay between daily peak production of solar and peak use (which is about 2-3 hours). Reliability against unpredictable events is a different issue not meant to be addressed by short term battery storage. For that you would use green hydrogen (in a 100% green energy system) or natural gas.
Agreed, however green hydrogen is almost non existent. Almost all hydrogen is made from natural gas in a process the releases carbon dioxide. The technology to do this at scale and in an economic fashion are not currently available.
… not even taking into account the externalities associated with use of fossil fuels).
Lithium ion batteries externalities:
• huge amounts of water needed to mine and process lithium
• land laid bare from lithium mining
• nickel mining
• cobalt mining
A 2017 study showed that 90% of lead-acid batteries were recycled while 5% of lithium ion batteries were recycle… poisonous landfill?
Also… https://www.engineering.com/story/will-your-electric-car-save-the-world-or-wreck-it
I guess you forgot to follow this link:
https://www.mining.com/close-loop-lithium-ion-battery-recycling/
It notes that 95% of lithium batteries can be recycled if we try. Come on Bruce – we have talked about this before. Try reading the entire article before providing us with your rather dishonest summaries.
so now we are concerned about environmental impacts? is this a general concern, or just focused on impacts from batteries?
Baffled, “so now we are concerned about environmental impacts?” That’s always been the case from the conservative side, but too often ignored on the liberal side. Another externality not considered in LCOE of electricity.
so we will include the environmental costs associated with fossil fuels? you are on board with that corev?
Baffled, if that’s what floats your boat, OK. Remember there are positive externalities also. A hint: what value is a life, comfort in your house, all the products created from fossil fuels, faster more efficient travel, improved roads, this list almost endless, but the most ignored is reduced CO2 from burning natural gas?
What part of the improved CO2 is even considered?
Of course you applauded the fact these metrics omitted the cost of negatively externalities. Another way to spin it for the Koch Brothers.
How about the positive externalities?
“How about the positive externalities?”
Seriously? Oh that’s right. You go out to your garage around 6PM to inhale the exhaust from your car until the sum goes down. Your thinking those are positive externalities likely explains the stupidity of your typical comment!
You don’t seem to know what an externality is. When you buy heating and cooling services, the comfort they provide is the goal of the purchase. They are not positive externalities. Same for faster travel, same for all the stuff you listed.
Once again, you have gotten economics dead wrong. Your habit of saying any old thing to muddy the discussion is – how often are you gonna make me point this out – straight from the “fake science” playbook.
The consistency with which you line up one one side of every debate, misuse data and concepts and simply declare that your team is best (the conservative side has always been concerned for the environment, liberals haven’t????) is pretty clear evidence that you don’t give a rodent’s furry backside about the truth. Lying liars.
MD, if you don’t like the breakdown we can compare the gross generalities, environmental externalities and standard of living externalities.
For some reason you appear frightened of having your beliefs challenged. Do questions actually threaten you? Because that’s how your responses come across.
CoRev Obviously you do not understand the concept of an externality. I can’t tell exactly what you think the definition of an externality is, but it’s pretty clear you don’t know. So maybe this link will help you better understand:
https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/uvicmicroeconomics/chapter/5-1-externalities/#:~:text=An%20externality%20occurs%20when%20an,impact%20on%20the%20third%20party.
This is an econ blog. You have an obligation to at least make an effort to understand the terms.
2slugs, why is it when liberals talk about climate and energy externalities the almost always ignore social benefit and only want to talk about social costs?
Your reference makes this clear:
“When looking for the social surplus maximizing equilibrium, we want to select the quantity where marginal social benefit = marginal social cost. Diagrammatically, this will happen where MSB intersects MSC. The quantity where this occurs will always maximize social surplus.”
That’s the reason I moved to a broader description of externalities comparing “environmental externalities and standard of living externalities.”
Since this article is about batteries used to fulfill the intermittency problem of renewables, we can do the externalities analysis, but we also need to do the same analysis for alternatives. Finally, we need to do the effectiveness analysis, to determine the success rate for solving the original problem, to fulfill the intermittency problem of renewables.
None of this is done here. Batteries are presented as the only and best solution without any analysis or evidence. It is similar to the discussion re: can solar fulfill peak demand?
I think the WSJ may be reading Econbrowser. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wests-climate-policy-debacle-global-warming-energy-putin-russia-fossil-fuel-power-summer-heat-11658084481 (Sorry for copying so much of the article, but it is rich with cogent data points)
The West’s Climate Policy Debacle
“Soaring oil and natural gas prices. Electricity grids on the brink of failure. Energy shortages in Europe, with worse to come. The free world’s growing strategic vulnerability to Vladimir Putin and other dictators.
These are some of the unfolding results in the last year caused by the West’s utopian dream to punish fossil fuels and sprint to a world driven solely by renewable energy. It’s time for political leaders to recognize this manifest debacle and admit that, short of a technological breakthrough, the world will need an ample supply of carbon fuel for decades to remain prosperous and free….
Texas’s grid operator this month told residents not to use major appliances to avoid rolling blackouts amid a heat wave that brought wind power to a near standstill. Sluggish wind power also contributed to a week-long power outage amid freezing temperatures in February 2021….
Blame shrinking baseload power generation, which has been replaced by unreliable renewable energy. Regulators can’t command the sun to shine or wind to blow….
The rushed green transition is driving up energy prices across the board. Peak-time electricity wholesale prices this summer are projected to more than double…
Do Western leaders recognize or care that their climate monomania is endangering living standards in democracies and empowering authoritarians?”
its an opinion piece. note they bring up the texas blackout and try to blame wind, when it was natural gas that failed. the wsj opinion board is filled with clowns. if they were so worried about authoritarians with fossil fuels, then they should be promoting energy sources that make those governments obsolete. Russia and the Middle East exert very little influence in a world of renewables. But they maintain center stage as long as we continue to embrace fossil fuels. not sure why the wsj continues to embrace Putin or mbs?
Baffled, no! They didn’t try to blame wind they listed as a contributing factor: ” Sluggish wind power also contributed to a week-long power outage amid freezing temperatures in February 2021″ That’s something you have never done.
More realization of the bad impacts of this crazy war on fossil fuels is expanding. Please, please show how much better you life would be without them. Turn off your AC, open your windows, no lights, no heat in Winter, no travel, throw out any product in your house made from or transported by fossil fuels, throw out all your foodstuffs grown, harvested, processed and transport, frozen/cooled or stored with the help of fossil fuels.
If you don’t already have a fireplace or wood stove build or buy one. If you cannot do either in your current abode then move to where you can.
Once you’ve done all those things to save the planet from CO2, and presumably replaced all that lost fossil fueled electricity with renewables, then tell me how adding renewables doesn’t add costs to the grid.
Your fondest wish on steroids and all the virtue signalling against fossil fuels (you do own an EV?), is easily possible given enough money.
they knowingly omitted the cause of the failure, which was natural gas. the wsj op-ed page has always reeked of partisan hackery. they do a disservice to many of the fine financial reporters working for the paper. the wsj editorial board is what keeps the paper from being the best in the world at business news, unfortunately.
CoRev Turn off your AC, open your windows, no lights, no heat in Winter, no travel, throw out any product in your house made from or transported by fossil fuels, throw out all your foodstuffs grown, harvested, processed and transport, frozen/cooled or stored with the help of fossil fuels.
That’s what you’re asking future generations to do. There is such a thing as a carbon budget. The faster we spend that carbon budget today, the less will be left for future generations. Why don’t you care about future generations? Why are you so selfish? I guess that’s a MAGA thing.
2slugs claims: ” I guess that’s a MAGA thing.” after a bunch more of gibberish. Yes, the metrics are in, and they are run away inflation, a significant portions caused by that ole war on fossil fuels.
You’ve said several times that Biden’s war on fossil fuels policy is too little to satisfy you. I don’t know how far you would push the world, but we are seeing the inflationary impacts of that bad, bad policy. Do you really want to go this far? “Turn off your AC, open your windows, no lights, no heat in Winter, no travel, throw out any product in your house made from or transported by fossil fuels, throw out all your foodstuffs grown, harvested, processed and transport, frozen/cooled or stored with the help of fossil fuels.”
Why do liberals believe there is only one side to the fossil fuel/climate change/global warming/ etc. externalities equation? If you think environmental externalities costs exceed the standard of living benefits, then you are just crazy.
Why haven’t you refuted my claim that solar will not fulfill peak demand? I’m sure there’s a spiffy statistical tool capable of making solar generated electricity after sunset.
CoRev,
How stupid are you? We already know that you think dividing by zero leads to an answer of zero, which seems to be the amount of intelligence you have.
So, here we have you thinking that an editorial in the WSJ that notes the Europe has a problem due to its reliance on Russian fossil fuels is an argument AGAINST moving to greater reliance on renewable energy sources. Just how completely stupid are you? If Western Europe had no reliance on Russian fossil fuels, then they would not be facing the problems they are facing due to that reliance.
No, all this becomes yet more in your ridiculous claim that inflation is due to the supposed awful “war on fossil fuels.” Heck, if that war had been successful, we would not be having to worry about V.V. Putin cutting off various nations from the oil and gas he controls.
Barkley, how stupid are you? Germany is the European leader in embracing renewables for electricity generation with energiewende. “The energy transformation, or the “Energiewende”, is Germany’s transition to a low-carbon, nuclear-free economy. However, as the country aims to cut climate-harmful greenhouse gases to near-zero by mid-century as part of the European Union’s climate neutrality drive, the project now goes well beyond expanding renewable energy while phasing out nuclear power.” https://www.cleanenergywire.org/germanys-energiewende-brief
Current day ahead electricity pricing puts Germany in the top 1/3 of European countries. https://euenergy.live/ This is actually an improvement. Late in 2021 Germany (DE) was 2nd highest cost to households in the EU. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics Germany is under a gas rationing plan due to Russia’s curtailment of flow.
So Europe’s largest adapter of renewables also has some of the highest electricity prices, 2nd to top 1/3 of its contemporaries, but they are also so reliant on Russian gas to be rationing it.
” Just how completely stupid are you? If Western Europe had no reliance on Russian fossil fuels, then they would not be facing the problems they are facing due to that reliance.” Except for when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.
This is what a German economist says: “German Economics Expert Sees 6 Formidable Problems With Germany’s Green Energy Push”
https://notrickszone.com/2022/06/10/german-economics-expert-sees-6-formidable-problems-with-germanys-green-energy-push/
“Sinn wraps up his presentation with a warning for Europe: “Europe’s unilateralism with climate policy will undermine the competitiveness of its industries, initiate its downfall and thus discourage other countries from following the the European – and especially the German – approach.””
So just who is stupid? You’ve been badly wrong a lot lately.
corev, you are arguing that germany would be in better shape today if they had not gone with renewables, and had doubled down on natural gas. that is foolish. increased reliance on natural gas only puts them in worse position.
Actually, CoRev, you have not been able to find me wrong on ANYTHING, boy. You, on the other hand, have been repeatedly falling on your face hard, with one stupidity after another: solar power cannot be stored? threads were only about solar power and now wind? simultaneously rising GHG emissions and global temperature are simply autocorrelation? Germany reducing its reliance on fossil fuels makes it more dependent on Russian fossil fuels? Ack, one embarrassment after another!
Barkley, Ack, one embarrassment after another! You’ve been really wrong often lately. Let’s take this comment as an example:
1) solar power cannot be stored? NEVER SAID IT. SHOW A QUOTE.
2) threads were only about solar power and now wind? NOPE, NEVER SAID THAT EITHER. BUT I DID DEFEND MY QUOTE IN THE ARTICLE. THE QUOTE HAS YET TO BE REFUTED
3) simultaneously rising GHG emissions and global temperature are simply autocorrelation? NO AGAIN. I REFERENCED AN ARTICLE SHOWING A CLIMATE SCIENTIST CLAIM OF CORRELATION BETWEEN CO2 AND TEMPERATURE MAY BE WRONG DUE TO SPURIOUS CORRELATIONS
From that reference: ” As most investors, engineers, and geoscientists know, two time series that are both autocorrelated and increase with time will almost always have an inflated R2. This is one type of “spurious correlation.” In other words, the high R2 does not necessarily mean the variables are related to one another. Autocorrelation is a big deal in time series analysis and in climate science, but too frequently ignored. ”
THIS LIKE THE SOLAR CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN REFUTED. THE DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE AUTHORS LATER USE OF POLYNOMIALS TO PROVE THEY REMAINED AUTOCORRELATED. NO ONE REFUTED THE AUTHORS CLAIM OF SPURIOUS CORRELATIONS.
4) Germany reducing its reliance on fossil fuels makes it more dependent on Russian fossil fuels? I NEVER SAID THIS EITHER. ID CLAIM THAT GERMANY’S WAR ON FOSSIL FUELS, AND CLIMATE VIRTUE SIGNALLING, LED THEM TO IGNORE LOCAL SOURCES FOR GAS AND TO MOVE RELIANCE ON RUSSIAN SOURCES.
How more wrong can you be? Is your reading so dominated by ideology to blind you to what is actually said? It appears so. Apparently you are not alone, though.
CoRev is now telling us that there are positive externalities from using fossil fuels. I think I get where he is coming from. Every day around 6PM he heads out to the garage and breathes in the exhaust from his car until the sun goes down. That would explain a lot.
CoRev,
You are messing up so badly and so frequently, you really are getting desperate. I shall note that, like Moses Herzog, capitalizing and emboldening words merely emphasizes how unlikely it is what you are writing is correct.
Actually on Item 1 you are probably right that you never precisely said solar power cannot be stored. However, in the thread before this about the Texas energy situation, you kept going on and on and on about the precise timing of peak demand during a day and the production of solar power in a day, getting all worked up over and over and over about how they did not precisely correspond. A whole bunch of people, including me, pointed out that your ranting and raving on this matter was rendered completely silly by the fact that solar power can be stored. It is true that you never said it could not be stored. Rather, you simply ignored the point and kept on with your ranting and raving as if nobody had pointed this out. Now since Menzie put up his more recent post on this matter, you have admitted it can be stored and shifted to arguing about details of that. But before you engaged in arguments that only made sense if it can not be stored, with this being repeatedly pointed out to you. You do not look too good on that one.
On Item 2, I think you are confused about what this was about. Menzie had a thread that was about renewables in Texas. I am not going to dredge it out, but you in fact lectured him in particular about talking about wind, because as far as you were concerned the issue was solar power, this still tied to your stupid obsession with the precise patterns of peak demand and solar power production during daytimes. You had the nerve to tell Menzie what it was proper to talk about and what was not. You were completely out of line, and you are a complete idiot to bring this up and remind us of what an arrogant a-hole you have been with all of this discussion.
As for Item 3, maybe you did not say that Andy May proved that what was going on was autocorrelations, but you were clearly pretty convinced that he was providing strong evidence that they might be. In terms of the statistical analysis several people, led by Menzie and 2slughbaits, but including others, absolutely tore his analysis to shreds. There is simply nothing there. In terms of your final emboldened claim, this also happens to be just screamingly false and was pointed out by several people as well. In short, we know there is a causal connection between CO2 (and other GHGs) and global warming from separate and independent scientific studies of an enormous number that have directly studied he physics of this. We know exactly how it works. So in fact we are pretty bloody sure that the correlations are not spurious at all because in this case we know precisely how the causal mechanism works that is producing the correlation. So, scumbag, once again you are just dead wrong and look like a total fool about it, complete embarrassment all the way.
As for Item 4, you have reverted to your old practice of just plain old outright lying. I just checked, and, sorry, you did not say that somehow Germany was not looking for local sources for gas out of “virtue signaling” or its war on fossil fuels. You had a fit about it turning off its nuclear power, and on that one I agree with you that they have been very unwise, and it has been widely noted that this has led them to using much more coal, which is far worse than natural gas, so no “virtue signaling” there at all. You are just lying and making stuff up in an effort to get yourself out of having made a totally embarrassing fool of yourself on this as well.
And as for me, at most you have some minor technical slips by me more than offset by major blunders and stupidity by you. I mean, if you actually did know that solar power can be stored, why on earth did you go on and on like that about these minor deviations in the daily time patterns of energy demand and solar power production? All you did was make yourself look as stupid as when you came out with that stuff about dividing by zero, which I notice you have gone silent about after briefly repeating it once. Did your meteorologist son whom you supposedly lectured on number theory to at age 4 pop in to point out how abysmally wrong you were on that one?
Barking Bierka – the Disgusting NYC Jerk, this is the dumbest comment of yours to date: “CoRev is now telling us that there are positive externalities from using fossil fuels…”
I even put them in a category even you might understand, STANDARD OF LIVING. But, alas, that as too much for you to understand. Do you understand yet why I use your own pejorative names, Barking Bierka – the Disgusting NYC Jerk, for addressing your comments?
CoRev,
You really do not get it about externalities, do you? All that standard of living stuff, oh, excuse me, STANDARD OF LIVING stuff, was/is paid for by people when they purchase the fossil fuels. There is no unpaid for benefit externally accrusing.
The costs, however, pollution of various sorts, are not paid for. They are external. This is elementary principles of econ stuff.
Barkley, I’m sitting here LMAO. Concluding with this: “This is elementary principles of econ stuff.” after saying this: ” All that standard of living stuff, oh, excuse me, STANDARD OF LIVING stuff, was/is paid for by people when they purchase the fossil fuels. There is no unpaid for benefit externally accrusing.”
Ack! So let’s stop paying for use of fossil fuels, and see which side of accruals cause more angst and kills more. I guess you and Barking Bierka – Disgusting NYC Jerk only believe in negative externalities. But that isn’t elementary principles of econ stuff. You can not even recognize that STANDARD OF LIVING and ENVIRONMENTAL are categories of EXTERNALITIES.
How long have you had Covid? Fuzzy thinking is a side effect. You’ve been making some boner mistakes now for quite some time.
CoRev: Sorry, please tell me what’s the positive externality of burning coal?
Menzie, reliable electricity supply, but even more importantly, all the economic gains resulting in a much, much improved standard of living and expanded life spans.
CoRev: Those…are…not…externalities. For heaven’s sake, can you please read a micro textbook?!?!
Or at a minimum, read this post
Menzie, you’re kidding right? Social benefit, social cost, positive externality, negative externality…. If there’s a example or definition in that article you referenced, it is buried in jargon.
Maybe you can help out our NYC friend build his list of externalities, or better still give us some examples of what you believer are POSITIVE externalities of coal. If you can not that may be an indication of
Why haven’t you refuted my claim re: solar not fulfilling Peak demand? Do you know the difference between solar and renewables, or solar and batteries? Why not show how batteries fulfill or will fulfill Peak demand? BTW, your NREL reference doesn’t come close to making that claim.
If not I have several articles that I can recommend you read.
Menzie, what you meant to say was: “CoRev: Those…are…not…(negative)…externalities.”
CoRev,
You are flat on your face, so you attempt to double down.
I completely agree that it is foolish and hypocritical of Germany to be abandoning nuclear power. But nuclear power is an alternative to fossil fuel power, in case you were unaware of this fact. So their dumb effort to shut down nuclear power has been making them more reliant on fossil fuels and Russian ones at that than otherwise they would be.
Their other efforts to increase the use of various renewables is reducing their reliance on fossil fuels, even if arguably some of this is being poorly managed or too expensively so. But, you remain in a situation of complete absurdity, trying to argue that the “war on fossil fuels” makes people more dependent on fossil fuels, with your only evidence a case where Germany is stupidly avoiding something that would help them stay off fossil fuels: nuclear power.
Please try to retrieve your brain from the toilet that you went and flushed it down, boy.
Barkley, I see you doubled down on your stupidity. I refuted this and your prior comment above.
Please try to retrieve your brain from the toilet that you went and flushed it down, boy.
How more wrong can you be? Is your reading so dominated by ideology to blind you to what is actually said? It appears so. Apparently you are not alone, though.
Barkley, here’s a visualization of the UK temp record locations: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/20/hump-day-hilarity-eu-smack-in-the-face-heatwave-edition/#comment-3559061
It is from that ole site Menzie assure us is misinformation.
CoRev,
This is just completely and absolutely irrelevant. It is only in your deluded mind that somehow the issue is comparing Heathrow and Cambridge. The question was when and where was the highest temperature ever recorded in the island of Britain. You elsewhere said it was in Cambridge in 1911. It was yesterday in many locations, including Heathrow, but not Cambridge. Your brain has sunk further into the toilet.
Where is the picture of you chasing your own tail? Given the litany of lies you have uttered, a film of you chasing your own tail is the only thing we care to see.
“Except, if you just move East of the UK several hundred miles, the “global heating hitting you in the face” is not so much…of course they wont tell you that a cold outbreak is right next door.”
Whoever wrote this may be more dishonest than even you are. Yea those Tour de France riders escaped the 104 degrees heat when they rode into the mountains.