Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

For the benefit of those whom don't understand science (many of whom frequent this thread!), a light year is not a measure of speed or velocity, it is a measure of the distance that light can travel in one year!

Slow down mate. We commonly talk about "the speed of light " which is currently the absolute limit for the speed/velocity of any object. (To date the only objects that "might" be able to travel faster than the speed of light are tachyons) Speed of light is 300,000 klms/sec

When Explod was musing about radio laster transportation of grandchildren he was acknowledging the physical limits of breaking the speed of light.

But Cynic. When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.

 

[cynic]

Slow down mate. We commonly talk about "the speed of light " which is currently the absolute limit for the speed/velocity of any object. (To date the only objects that "might" be able to travel faster than the speed of light are tachyons) Speed of light is 300,000 klms/sec

When Explod was musing about radio laster transportation of grandchildren he was acknowledging the physical limits of breaking the speed of light.

But Cynic. When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.

Actually Basilio, I definitely do not require science lessons from those whom (like you) persist in reaffirming their faulty understanding of science in a public forum. The concept of velocity being limited to the speed of light is a misunderstanding of the scope and limitations of one of Einstein's theories. Those whom understand and appreciate the logic of his theory of relativity would be unlikely to ever make such a preposterous claim.

The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.

basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!

 

[basilio]

Well there you are folks.

OK I'll bite. Cynic could you please offer some references that offer further explanation on "The concept of velocity being limited to the speed of light is a misunderstanding of the scope and limitations of one of Einstein's theories."

And clearly I would never, ever dare to offer you science lessons Cynic.

 

[cynic]

Well there you are folks.

OK I'll bite. Cynic could you please offer some references that offer further explanation on "The concept of velocity being limited to the speed of light is a misunderstanding of the scope and limitations of one of Einstein's theories."

And clearly I would never, ever dare to offer you science lessons Cynic.

If you have a good understanding of mathematics (which I sincerely doubt), you'll be able to recognise it for yourself by examining the mathematical formulae that Einstein used to mathematically express his theory!

If you still cannot recognise it, then I suggest that you study the theory more intensely and when you finally arrive at an understanding of said theory, simply ask yourself: "How can this theory be seen to assert a limitiation on velocity?"

P.S. Apologies to ASF for going a little off topic, but I believe that scientific misconceptions, abysmal logic and faulty analysis are contributing factors to the climate change fallacy.

 

[basilio]

If you have a good understanding of mathematics (which I sincerely doubt), you'll be able to recognise it for yourself by examining the mathematical formulae that Einstein used to mathematically express his theory!

If you still cannot recognise it, then I suggest that you study the theory more intensely and when you finally arrive at an understanding of said theory, simply ask yourself: "How can this theory be seen to assert a limitiation on velocity?"

.

Hmm.... Actually I don't think I , personally, need to examine the mathematical formula around relativity or do an indepth study of the subject.

That type of deep mathematical/physics research is best left to the boffins who understand the theory as well as it can be understood.

So if I want to find out if there are serious reservations about the theory of relativity and in particular whether the speed of light is sen as absolute I should just look for some papers in the field that have done the maths and come to this conclusion.

Trouble is... I can't find them Cynic. Can you ?


On the other hand I can find some pretty authoritative sources that insist teh Speed of light is an absolute.

http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/speed_of_light

 

[cynic]

Hmm.... Actually I don't think I , personally, need to examine the mathematical formula around relativity or do an indepth study of the subject.

That type of deep mathematical/physics research is best left to the boffins who understand the theory as well as it can be understood.

So if I want to find out if there are serious reservations about the theory of relativity and in particular whether the speed of light is sen as absolute I should just look for some papers in the field that have done the maths and come to this conclusion.

Trouble is... I can't find them Cynic. Can you ?

What's this?!! Lost at sea because you cannot find a scientific paper to support you!

I have no more serious reservations about Einstein's theory than I do about Newtonian physics. I get very irritated with the number of people whom, without even understanding said theory, erroneously make bold claims citing it as their justification. Anyone that takes the time to understand the underlying mathematics will recognise that the theory wasn't designed to consider velocities above that of light. However, the theory itself, in no way shape or form precludes the possibility of such velocities, it simply hasn't allowed sufficient scope to consider them!

 

[sptrawler]

What's this?!! Lost at sea because you cannot find a scientific paper to support you!

I have no more serious reservations about Einstein's theory than I do about Newtonian physics. I get very irritated with the number of people whom without even understanding said theory, erroneously make bold claims citing it as their justification. Anyone that takes the time to understand the underlying mathematics will recognise that the theory wasn't designed to consider velocities above that of light. However, the theory itself, in no way shape or form precludes the possibility of such velocities, it simply hasn't allowed sufficient scope to consider them!

Pretty well sums up verbosity.

 

[cynic]

...


On the other hand I can find some pretty authoritative sources that insist teh Speed of light is an absolute.

http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/speed_of_light

Given that the following two contradictory paragraphs appear within your "authoritative" source:

"One of the most surprising features of special relativity is that a number of statements and results which we usually think to be absolute turn out to be observer-dependent. In particular, statements about space and time, distances and duration turn out to be relative."

"On the previous pages, relativity reigned supreme. Although we usually think of lengths and times as absolute, they turned out to be observer-dependent. On this page, the shoe is on the other foot. Ordinarily, we think of velocities as relative, but one of them turns out to be absolute: the speed of light."


I think we can reasonably conclude that these people haven't taken sufficient care in their examination of Einstein's theory.

For those whom don't immediately recognise the contradiction, I recommend that you consider the units of measure of velocity when assessing the integrity of the aforementioned statements.

 

[orr]

Anyhow, not a good vibe here anymore;

What? ... Well, I was almost of the same mind; Then "Whammo" through the post comes My own authentic reproduction of the The Green Tablet' ...sorry ' Emerald' .. Just three one monthly payments of $19.99 plus postage and handling $99.95 From Mystics'R'Us. And would you believe it, I put it up to window and 'blow me down with a feather' as the light passed through it, if it didn't come out faster than when it went in. Not only that the newly speeded up prismatically altered light gave me a secret message shining on the opposite wall "Green Hornet Ep6" ... So, I'm straight onto youtube ... I'm sure it has something to do with decoding Bruce Lees tattoo's ... Cynic and I are in discussion, 'in private' and he rekon's it got more to do with the advertising in the barber shop window in the second scene. I'll keep you updated.






This post is only 1/3 off topic, for the last page or so I've had to resist hysterical laughter

 

[basilio]

Given that the following two contradictory paragraphs appear within your "authoritative" source:

"One of the most surprising features of special relativity is that a number of statements and results which we usually think to be absolute turn out to be observer-dependent. In particular, statements about space and time, distances and duration turn out to be relative."

"On the previous pages, relativity reigned supreme. Although we usually think of lengths and times as absolute, they turned out to be observer-dependent. On this page, the shoe is on the other foot. Ordinarily, we think of velocities as relative, but one of them turns out to be absolute: the speed of light."


I think we can reasonably conclude that these people haven't taken sufficient care in their examination of Einstein's theory.

For those whom don't immediately recognise the contradiction, I recommend that you consider the units of measure of velocity when assessing the integrity of the aforementioned statements.

Cynic that website was the most authoritative reference you could find on the topic. It's established by the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.

The analysis you were quoting was clear about the way the maths in Special Theory of relativity define the speed of light as an absolute figure. Simply speaking when/if one attempts to accelerate a particle past the speed of light you have to postulate infinite energy. That is impossible

To date the only theoretical concept of anything traveling faster than the speed of light is the concept of tachyons. These (theoretical) particles have always been traveling faster than light. (No one has yet discovered them but you never know)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

 

[cynic]

Cynic that website was the most authoritative reference you could find on the topic. It's established by the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.
...

Well then, it's a damned shame that they've made such an idiotic mistake!

It also happens that you neglected to consider my advice regarding the units of measure for velocity before deciding to side with their opinion.

Don't bother quoting wikipedia at me either as I can already demonstrate that it has contradictory statements between several of its articles on physics.

P.S. If you are willing to take the time to understand the mathematics underlying Einstein's theorem I will be able to explain why it doesn't prove the impossibilty of velocities beyond the speed of light.

 

[explod]

Well then, it's a damned shame that they've made such an idiotic mistake!

It also happens that you neglected to consider my advice regarding the units of measure for velocity before deciding to side with their opinion.

Don't bother quoting wikipedia at me either as I can already demonstrate that it has contradictory statements between several of its articles on physics.

P.S. If you are willing to take the time to understand the mathematics underlying Einstein's theorem I will be able to explain why it doesn't prove the impossibilty of velocities beyond the speed of light.

Pretty fast anyway.

Have to take care of pebble size on this thread. Bit hard to delineate direction of "the hysteria" too.

 

[cynic]

Pretty fast anyway.

Have to take care of pebble size on this thread. Bit hard to delineate direction of "the hysteria" too.

Unsurprisingly, I believe you've missed the point!

Have you noticed what's just happened here?

Have you noticed how some here are only too willing to make bold claims about subjects of which they have little (if any) understanding?

Did you also notice how heavily reliant such individuals are on internet searches?

Did you happen to notice that I was expected to defer to the "infallibility" of an "authority" even after I'd highlighted logical contradictions within said "authority's" purportedly "infallible" statements?

Some of you may ask: "What's this got to do with climate hysteria?"

To which I reply: "Do I really need to spell it out for you?"

Blind faith is never a valid substitute for true comprehension and understanding.

If you want to tell me that science has shown a problem then I'll entertain your claims when you demonstrate some understanding of science!
My reason for saying this is that scientists do make mistakes!
Some scientists deny their failings whilst hiding behind their "credentials", but those true to the art of science willingly embrace fallibility by learning from recognisable errors!

 

[cynic]

...
But Cynic. When you you put up posts that try to say we need to produce more CO2 to keep the extra humans and animals happy you are slaughtering a thousand scientific facts without a beat.

...
The logical soundness of my assertions regarding an increased CO2 presence being essential for supporting the respiratory needs of our increasing populace are well supported by long standing scientific understandings which are being taught as scientific facts at high school level.

basilio, it would be most foolish for you or your peers to presume that you can lecture me on scientific facts!

I've yet to see any of the "thousand scientific facts" that you claim I am "slaughtering" with my CO2 requirements assertion!
(That's right! I was forgetting! Some believe science is confined to google searching opinion supportive articles!)

 

[burglar]

Geez, it was hot today. And more to come!

 

[burglar]

... Have to take care of pebble size on this thread ...

How big is Pebble?

 

[sydboy007]

For those who claim the variability of wind makes it "unreliable and expensive" since you need to have backup generation, the info from AEMO should help to show it's not particularly true. Considering 450MwH of production died within 5 minutes when the Loy Yang A plant died during the recent heat wave it seems there's just as much need for backup of fossil fuel generators, and it's much easier to cope with small changes in production of wind and solar compared to a large coal powered generator going off line.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...-politics/edis-dishonest-warmist-propagandist

The predictions by the AMEO 24 hours in advance for wind power production, matched fairly closely the actual production. Also, most of the time wind farms were producing more than expected.

Germany is also having great success with integrating solar and wind into their electricity network.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/12...ale-electricity-prices-like-bad-habit-charts/


Now if we could have a major focus on demand management we mightn't need a repeat of the $40B in network upgrades again to cope with the summer and winter peaks

 

[Smurf1976]

Take a conventional (coal, gas, oil, hydro, nuclear) power system comprising multiple power stations and, assuming it's properly designed and run, it will have a definite "firm" rating for peak power which can almost certainly be supplied.

It comes down to probability. If you have 100 generating units in a system then the chances of having all 100 in service at any one time are pretty unlikely. Even if they are inherently reliable technology (hydro) and you have 60 of them well then suffice to say that it's pretty rare to have them all actually working at once. Major overhauls, shorter term maintenance works, breakdowns, capacity limitations for various reasons - you can't depend on the system ever working to 100% of its' nameplate capacity.

For example, here in Tas the Paloona power station is currently shut down for major works that will take about 12 months to complete. Wayatinah is offline at the moment too, for about 2 months. Rowallan has been out since November (about to be returned to service) and once it's back then Mackintosh will be taken offline for a few weeks. Meanwhile there are countless much shorter outages for inspections etc. It's not unknown to have every machine in service, but it's certainly not the normal situation to be doing that in a properly maintained system.

But you can have an extremely high probability that a specific, lower level of capacity can be achieved and it comes down to how often you accept failure. If you need 100% to work then it's going to be a problem quite often. But if you only need half the system to work, because it's massively over-engineered, then you're unlikely to see a single problem with meeting demand in your lifetime.

If we take that a 1 in 20 year failure is acceptable, then realistically you'll be able to depend on about 80% of the installed capacity. So if you have a peak load of 10,000 MW then you need 12,500 MW of capacity to do it. That's pretty much the standard that used to be followed in most states. If you tighten it to a 1 in 50 year failure then you'll still be able to rely on somewhere around 75% of the installed capacity.

So to meet the roughly 10,500 MW of demand in Vic then realistically you could do that with incredibly high reliability using about 13,100 MW of installed capacity based on coal, gas (with oil as backup) and hydro.

Oil as backup? That's because no sane person would rely on the gas supply. There have been plenty of problems historically around the world with gas supply disruptions and it comes down to not being able to store the stuff economically near the point of use. Once something goes wrong upstream, well then you lose fuel supply to the power station such that gas supply can be maintained to other users.

These days in the "competitive" market nobody worries too much about this, if the gas goes off then so too will a decent chunk of the power supply, but certainly in cases where reliability is considered important then you need a backup fuel (almost always oil). So if you look at, say, Tamar Valley power station (Tas) then the largest unit is gas only but the 4 smaller ones have oil as backup fuel. There's a simple logic there - failure of a single unit is always possible for whatever reason, be it loss of gas supply or something else, but losing multiple units due to a single point of failure (ie gas) creates a far bigger risk to the power system. Hence oil as backup and it's the same with the older gas-fired plants in other states - they had backup fuel when the former SECV etc was building them.

But what about wind? Well the problem is simply this. It may well be predictable but it is by no means reliable. We can get 8,000 MW from a 10,000 MW thermal / hydro system with reasonable certainty. But there's no guarantee that you'll get much at all from wind since, in practice, multiple wind farms completely fail at the same time due to a single point of failure - the wind itself isn't reliable.

If the forecast says that we'll get 100 MW from wind in SA tomorrow then we can't simply issue a formal direction to postpone the outage of natural wind and get another 500 MW of generation online. Nor can we build up a stockpile of wind at wind farms to cover such variation. Nor can we arrange interruptions in wind to occur in Autumn and Spring or on weekends. In short, whereas a thermal / hydro system can reliably operate to around 80% of it's nameplate capacity for wind it's roughly 8% and there's the problem. Building 100,000 MW of wind to run Victoria, generating on average 6 times the state's total power requirements, just to get some reliable peak capacity doesn't really work out too well financially, practically or environmentally.

Which brings us to storage. Hydro, batteries, compressed air, heat, hydrogen, whatever. If we're going to use intermittent sources of energy to supply most of the load then (1) there needs to be some over-engineering on the supply side (ie at times wind energy will supply 100% of the load with the rest going to waste) and (2) storage.

I flew over Tas today, with a nice view of the entire Mersey-Forth scheme (Rowallan, Fisher, Lemonthyme, Cethana, Wilmot, Devils Gate and Paloona power stations) plus part of the Great Lake scheme (Great Lake itself and also Lake Augusta) and a bit of the Derwent catchment too (Lake Echo). Now, this was a commercial flight by the way (Melbourne - Hobart) but I don't need to look at any lake level data to see that there's energy sitting there in storage. Simply looking out the window it's clear where the water is and isn't. Likewise a stockpile of coal, or a mine set up ready to quickly extract it right next to the power station, is also energy in storage. Likewise a tank full of oil or even a pile of firewood.

But we've got no wind in storage whatsoever. Right now Woolnorth is operating at 85% of capacity but Musselroe is only running at 7%. Both are constrained by how much wind there is right now. Suffice to say that if the ability to spin hydro turbines was dependent on it raining before people get up tomorrow morning then it would have been front page news long ago.

Ultimately we have to go renewable, no doubt about that so far as I'm concerned, but it's not as simple as just scaling up operations and making forecasts unfortunately. Either we need a non-intermittent renewable or we need a means of storing it in decent quantity.

 

[Smurf1976]

An hour ago in Tasmania.

Wind generation = zero

Solar generation (house roofs etc) = practically zero as it was sunset.

And it's not raining either.

But we were still supplying all local load and over 500 MW to Victoria as well. 88% of that from hydro using water stored in dams and the other 12% from gas.

The inherent characteristic of renewables is that the energy arrives intermittently. But at least with hydro you can store it for future use whereas that's not the case with wind and current solar production (solar can be stored to a limited extent via solar thermal systems but that's large scale generation not panels on house roofs).

You need quite significant storage to make it all work too. Over the past 14 weeks since storages peaked we've drawn the equivalent of 7.6 weeks' of average hydro + wind production out of storage and the rest from inflows (hydro + wind) over that time.

If we're going to move to renewables as the major power source then we're going to need some form of storage to make it work reliably. Either that or massively over-engineer the whole thing such that even a dull day yields enough from solar etc and just have overnight storage but that would cost a fortune.

 

[sptrawler]

An hour ago in Tasmania.

Wind generation = zero

Solar generation (house roofs etc) = practically zero as it was sunset.

And it's not raining either.

But we were still supplying all local load and over 500 MW to Victoria as well. 88% of that from hydro using water stored in dams and the other 12% from gas.

The inherent characteristic of renewables is that the energy arrives intermittently. But at least with hydro you can store it for future use whereas that's not the case with wind and current solar production (solar can be stored to a limited extent via solar thermal systems but that's large scale generation not panels on house roofs).

You need quite significant storage to make it all work too. Over the past 14 weeks since storages peaked we've drawn the equivalent of 7.6 weeks' of average hydro + wind production out of storage and the rest from inflows (hydro + wind) over that time.

If we're going to move to renewables as the major power source then we're going to need some form of storage to make it work reliably. Either that or massively over-engineer the whole thing such that even a dull day yields enough from solar etc and just have overnight storage but that would cost a fortune.

From what I've read, molten salt seems to be the only solar storage medium at this stage and it is limited.
Hydro is the only reliable storage at this point of our development.
However some do place a lot of faith in there own knowledge, whether their specialised field, or not.
Jeez I miss operating.lol
Thanks for your input Smurph.