SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (78339)7/15/2017 4:10:28 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation

Recommended By
russet

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 86356
 
The Church of Man-Made Climate Change on trial



By Printus LeBlanc

A little-known court case is taking place in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Vancouver. This case involves two scientists and two set of graphs. One of the graphs is very famous, and the basis for every man-made climate change believer’s faith, while the other…is not. The foundation of the church of man-made climate change is on shaky ground, and an earthquake could be coming.

Michael Mann is a climatologist and geophysicist working at Penn State University. In 1998, he was the leader of a group using statistical techniques that created a graph showing the earth’s temperature over the last 1,000 years. The graph would gain international fame and become known as the “ hockey stick graph.” The graph showed steady temperatures on the earth’s surface with a sharp increase in the last few hundred years, giving it the shape of a hockey stick.

The graph is a religious artifact to those that belong to this religion. It is so revered that those who created it, were invited to work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on its 2001 scientific assessment report. The assessment came to many conclusions, but three stick out:

There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities;Human influences will continue to change atmospheric composition throughout the 21st century;And, global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all IPCC SRES scenarios.Not surprisingly, the conclusions also involve more government control over what people do, and more money for man-made climate change research. Figure 1. shows how much money the Government Accountability Office claims the federal government has spent on combating supposed climate change between 1993 and 2010. Today, it is harder to find the facts on how much is actually being spent by the federal government, but Salon is reporting over $12 billion is to be spent this year, and other organizations are reporting up to $27 billion is expected to be spent.



Figure 1

The worldwide climate change industry is valued to be worth $1.5 trillion. That’s a lot of money for “research.” Enter Dr. Timothy Ball.

Dr. Ball has a PhD in climatology from Queen Mary University of London, and was a professor at the University of Winnipeg. He is an avid critic of the man-made climate change theory. It is not that he does not believe in climate change, but he does not believe humans are having the impact the church of man-made climate change says they are. He has written dozens of articles, appeared on numerous television shows, and written a book called “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.”

Dr. Ball also created his own version of the “hockey stick graph,” but it looked nothing like Mann’s. Ball’s graph shows what is known as the Medieval Warm Period. That period occurred between AD 900 and AD 1300 in which the Northern Hemisphere was much warmer than it is now. It is a much-debated period because of the possibility it destroys the man-made climate change theory.

Dr. Ball is enemy number one for the church of man-made climate change. One article he wrote made light of the connection between Mann and the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Mann did not take to kindly to the slight, and decided to sue for libel. It is one of Mann’s many libel lawsuits he has filed against people with whom he disagrees.

The court case has not worked out the way Mann envisioned. Dr. Ball did not lay down and instead decided to fight the case. The case was filled in Canada and known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation suit. It was filed six years ago, and is going sideways for Mann. The judge in the case has ordered all data used to make both graphs be handed over by all parties. Dr. Ball has cooperated, but Mann has not.

Dr. Ball recently stated, “We believe he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a U.S. court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the U.S. taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the U.S. ruling.”

John O’Sullivan reports on the punishment that Dr. Ball’s lawyers could ask for if Mann is found to be in contempt, “Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State’ is a precise and true statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is now proven to have willfully hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must then dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.”

If this holds true, then the basis of the entire Paris climate agreement, IPCC, and every climate change agreement is in jeopardy. If it was all formed from faulty data, it is all at risk. The hockey stick graph is responsible for hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars being spent around the world, and hundreds of job-killing regulations being enacted on the American worker. It is time we find out if it was all fake.

netrightdaily.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (78339)7/19/2017 8:47:14 AM
From: Eric  Respond to of 86356
 
Wind Markets & Policy

Wind Breezed Past Coal’s Capacity Factor in April



Better tech is getting more power out of each gust, but wind will likely continue to fall short of its fossil competitor on an annual basis.

by Matthew Klippenstein
July 14, 2017

Seasonal trends, favorable conditions and ever-improving technology all came together in April to help America’s wind turbine fleet spin past coal’s capacity factor.

The Energy Information Administration's Electric Power Monthly (Tables 6.7.A and 6.7.B) put wind at 44.8 percent, slightly above coal’s 43.4 percent -- and just below the 45.7 percent of the nation’s combined-cycle natural-gas plants.

A closer look at these contributing factors will help give better context for this achievement, so we’ll review each in turn.



Seasonal trends

As seen from the chart above, the United States’ wind fleet saw its highest capacity factors around April, roughly corresponding to the nation’s lowest period of electricity demand (Electric Power Monthly, Table 1.2.A). This pushes down on dispatchable generation, causing fossil generators to experience their turbine capacity factors reaching annual lows around this time.

Last year, these factors pummeled coal’s capacity factor below 40 percent in both March and April, allowing wind to slip ahead of it, largely unnoticed, for a brief stretch.

Wind has not yet topped coal’s capacity factor in the fall months, though it made its closest approach in November 2015 (39.0 percent versus 43.6 percent). A combination of mild weather and low natural-gas prices will probably be needed for wind to hit this next milestone.

That said, coal’s capacity factor remains well above that of wind on an annual basis (52.7 percent versus 34.7 percent in 2016), and grid modelers generally take pains to distinguish between intermittent and dispatchable power.

Favorable conditions March and April were both marked by higher-than-average wind speeds across key portions of the United States. April’s wind speed anomaly, based on Vaisala’s 5-kilometer (3-mile) resolution Numerical Weather Prediction data set, is reproduced below.

FIGURE: April Wind Speeds



Source: Vaisala

Relative to historical April norms, wind speeds were modestly higher in Texas and Oklahoma, together home to about one-third of U.S. wind capacity, and considerably higher in the western states, which represent another 15 percent. Southern Florida also experienced stronger winds, but average wind speeds in the American Southeast are low enough that the region is essentially wind-farm-free.

While seasonal factors and favorable conditions converged to help the wind industry clock an auspicious April, technology improvements formed the core of long-term gains, as they have done in many other grid edge industries.

Technology improvements

Just as the solar sector has succeeded in squeezing ever more electrons, ever more cheaply, from sunlight, the wind industry has succeeded in wringing more watts for fewer bucks from each breeze. (GTM's reporting from last August provides a good backgrounder on that.)

DOE’s most recent Wind Technologies Market Report noted that wind farms completed in 2014 saw an average capacity factor in 2015 (the most recent year for which production data is available) of 41.2 percent. Utility-scale wind farms built between 2004 and 2011 averaged 31.2 percent and those built from 1998 to 2003 averaged 25.8 percent.



While technology has improved, capacity factors have crawled upward very slowly. This is partly due to year-over-year variations in the wind resource adding significant noise to the data set, and partly thanks to cost reductions making once-marginal projects (with lower capacity factors) economic for developers.

The increasing deployment of turbine designs optimized for lower wind speed regimes, even in high-wind areas, has provided a boost. The shape of wind speed distributions means there are advantages to being able to harvest more energy in gentler winds, even in the blusteriest locales. An analogy might be made with advances in solar module design that allow photovoltaics to convert more indirect or low-angle light; the panels can provide more kilowatt-hours even if their peak kilowatt rating doesn't change.

The step change in capacity factor in 2004-2005 coincides with the industry’s shift from 60-meter to 80-meter hub heights, providing access to higher wind speeds. In 2014, fully half of the new wind capacity tracked went into Texas and Oklahoma, versus one-third in the national fleet. This could mean there were fewer projects in lower-capacity-factor areas to bring down the average of the 2014 “vintage.”

Provident prognostications

Even as wind’s rise mirrors coal’s decline in American power generation, it seems likely that in most months, its capacity factor will continue to fall short of that of its fossil competitors. The long-awaited boom in American offshore wind should raise the wind fleet’s capacity factor, but progress along the cost curve should allow developers to profitably site (and grid operators to comfortably integrate) wind farms in ever-calmer counties, which would tend to decrease it.

Meanwhile, the coal plants likeliest to close will be the least economic ones, whose lack of competitiveness likely stems from low utilization rates. The Darwinian thinning of the herd could conceivably even raise the average capacity factor of the surviving coal fleet, despite the ongoing encroachment of intermittent renewables into so-called “baseload” power.

While few biologists have the opportunity to watch dramatic evolutionary changes unfold (microbiologists and entomologists excepted), we are at a juncture where energy analysts and students of the grid edge alike can see this transformation bloom. However the trends turn out, pondering such statistics enriches our perspective of the changes underway, and hopefully equips us to help accelerate them for our collective benefit.

greentechmedia.com

***

Matthew Klippenstein (@EclecticLip) is a renewable energy consultant based in Vancouver, Canada.