That link loads an application that requires a password.
Here's the FAQ for the International Disaster Database.LeftieBiker said:That link loads an application that requires a password.
If I don't believe your completely unsupported word over the International Disaster Database, then nothing is going to convince me?LeftieBiker said:If you really don't think that fatalities from climate change are on the rise again, then nothing is going to convince you otherwise.
I don't know why it took me so long, but you are now in my NULL list. I just don't have time for AGW denialists.RegGuheert said:Here is my prediction of increasing deaths in the next 20 years: If Germany closes all of their coal-fired power plants in the next 19 years, there will be lots of human deaths as a direct result of burning LESS coal.
The believers who have not been formally educated in green power generation will continue to insist that wind turbines and solar power will replace all fossile and fissile fuel power.RegGuheert said:More "evidence" for AGW, I suppose?
Again, here is how much temporal variation there is in Germany's wind generation system:
If Germany cannot find some way to bridge the low periods in that system, and without the coal- and gas-fired plants that currently backs up their grid, their system will simply collapse.
LeftieBiker said:The above looks like a post that I made a while ago, but it should have come from me, not from WetEV. Did I accidentally edit an existing post, or is this some sort of glitch? Since I no longer see the post I replied to, I suspect the former. If so I apologize! Let me know which it is, WetEV and I'll see if there is anything I can do.
From the fellow who cannot perform simple arithmetic. You are no more educated than my turtle. However, if you would actually read and understand academic studies like this recent one from Stanford (that is a world leading University, by the way)Oilpan4 said:The believers who have not been formally educated in green power generation will continue to insist that wind turbines and solar power will replace all fossile and fissile fuel power.
WetEV spoke of pseudo-scholarship recently. The Stanford "work" you reference is an excellent example of that. Simply put, you cannot simply assume that the production of dispersed wind farms can be modeled as Markov Chains. As a result, you cannot simply add more wind turbines and then expect to get level electricity production from the some of them.SageBrush said:From the fellow who cannot perform simple arithmetic. You are no more educated than my turtle. However, if you would actually read and understand academic studies like this recent one from Stanford (that is a world leading University, by the way)
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/08/new-jacobson-study-draws-road-map-100-renewable-energy/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148118301526
You might actually get a clue. In any case, you are as usual distorting the view. Storage, place and time shifting, and supply signals are integral parts of the clean, renewable energy puzzle.
It only seems simple to you because you think 1 watt of solar or wind generating replaces 1 watt of coal or natural gas generating capacity.SageBrush said:From the fellow who cannot perform simple arithmetic. You are no more educated than my turtle. However, if you would actually read and understand academic studies like this recent one from Stanford (that is a world leading University, by the way)Oilpan4 said:The believers who have not been formally educated in green power generation will continue to insist that wind turbines and solar power will replace all fossile and fissile fuel power.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/08/new-jacobson-study-draws-road-map-100-renewable-energy/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148118301526
You might actually get a clue. In any case, you are as usual distorting the view. Storage, place and time shifting, and supply signals are integral parts of the clean, renewable energy puzzle.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf. . . 3,800,000 5 MW wind turbines, 49,000 300 MW concentrated solar plants, 40,000 300 MW solar
PV power plants, 1.7 billion 3 kW rooftop PV systems, 5350 100 MW geothermal power plants, 270
new 1300 MW hydroelectric power plants, 720,000 0.75 MW wave devices, and 490,000 1 MW tidal
turbines can power a 2030 WWS world that uses electricity and electrolytic hydrogen for all purposes.
Such a WWS infrastructure reduces world power demand by 30% and requires only 0.41% and 0.59%
more of the world’s land for footprint and spacing, respectively. We suggest producing all new energy
with WWS by 2030 and replacing the pre-existing energy by 2050. Barriers to the plan are primarily social
and political, not technological or economic. The energy cost in a WWS world should be similar to
that today.
Germany keeps coming up because the German people were sold the same simplistic beliefs that you guys are dishing out. They were told that the wind varied spatially and that sufficient interconnects would allow it to even out across the country.iPlug said:Not sure why Germany keeps coming up.
EU Observer said:"I believe we would be well advised to admit that if we phase out coal and nuclear energy then we have to be honest and tell people that we'll need more natural gas," said Merkel in Davos last week.
She said that natural gas would "play a greater role for another few decades", and referred to the discussion about Russian gas.
I have to wonder how anyone could consider such a system an improvement over what we have today. In reality, it would be a huge step backwards both in terms of the environmental impact and the cost of energy.GRA said:https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf. . . 3,800,000 5 MW wind turbines, 49,000 300 MW concentrated solar plants, 40,000 300 MW solar
PV power plants, 1.7 billion 3 kW rooftop PV systems, 5350 100 MW geothermal power plants, 270
new 1300 MW hydroelectric power plants, 720,000 0.75 MW wave devices, and 490,000 1 MW tidal
turbines can power a 2030 WWS world that uses electricity and electrolytic hydrogen for all purposes.
Such a WWS infrastructure reduces world power demand by 30% and requires only 0.41% and 0.59%
more of the world’s land for footprint and spacing, respectively. We suggest producing all new energy
with WWS by 2030 and replacing the pre-existing energy by 2050. Barriers to the plan are primarily social
and political, not technological or economic. The energy cost in a WWS world should be similar to
that today.
Enter your email address to join: