Dear Bishop Hill: read your links. Also, take a look at this graph.
Bishop Hill thinks they've caught Nicholas Stern in a contradiction, saying one thing in 2009 and another in 2015. So let's take a look, using BH's own links.
Stern 2009:
Lord Stern said that although robust expansion could be achieved until 2030 while avoiding dangerous levels of greenhouse gas emissions, rich nations may then have to consider reining in growth...."At some point we would have to think about whether we want future growth. We don't have to do that now."
(Emphasis added.) That would be the second sentence of the article BH linked to.
And Stern 2015:
...Professor Stern, the chair of the Grantham research institute on climate change and the environment, said that it was a false dichotomy to posit growth against climate action. “To portray them as in conflict is to misunderstand economic development and the opportunities that we now have to move to the low-carbon economy,” he said. “To pretend otherwise is diversionary and indeed creates an ‘artificial horse race’ which can cause real damage to the prospects for agreement.” Green parties in Europe have often argued that decarbonisation requires an end to the model of economic growth “at all costs”. But Stern said that there was now “much greater understanding of how economic growth and climate responsibility can come together and, indeed, how their complementarity can help drive both forward”.
(Emphasis added.) In both cases Stern appears to be focusing on the short to medium term, and in both cases saying there's not a conflict between economic growth and addressing climate change.
In BH's telling, Stern said in 2009 they had to stop growing (BH gave no time frame so one would assume it was immediate) but that Stern in 2015 is saying grow away. Alarmist hypocrisy!!!
As for whether there's a difference over what to do in 2030, who knows - Stern wasn't being asked recently about policies 15 years from now, but I don't see a necessary difference in his statements. Even if there was a difference, BH somehow finds it unforgivable that someone could change their mind on a peripheral issue (what policies should be in place in 2030, as opposed to policies today).
Finally, BH might want to take a look at a graph at renewable power prices. Any graph really, but here's one:
This is new information available to Stern in 2015 and not in 2009, and I could see it having an effect on someone thinking about long-term compatibility of growth with limiting carbon emissions. I remember the debate 5 years ago over whether the long-term decline in solar costs would continue. Now we have the result.
Inability of denialists to adjust opinions to new facts is matched only by their inability to accept long-established ones.
Posts
760 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 760 Newer› Newest»Where I have a real problem with McKay is his personal consumption figure of 195 kWh/day for the UK. This is primary energy. However he says: Conversion losses in fact account for about 22% of total national energy consumption
That's wrong: transport is about 35% efficient at best, same for most electricity generation. So >60% losses for more than half the estimated demand. He also ignores improvements in technology: he has a value of 0.8kWh per km of distance travelled by car. An electric car today uses about 0.16kWh/km.
BP: you really have mastered the Gish gallop, but it doesn't do your credibility any good. Mackay gives the average insolation for a flat panel over the course of a year taking into account the angle of the sun, both in azimuth and east to west orientation. You claim that his figure is incorrect because your calculation uses a 2 axis tracking and tilting array. And the basis for this is that you assumed that he was using 2 axis system even though it is clear from his reasoning that he didn't.
Until you acknowledge your error, you won't be able to move on. Now I've done my charity work for this month just trying to help you see your mistakes, so the floor is open for the next candidate.
Yet he ALSO claims that there is wasted space because of a shadow effect and the need for maintenance access. Yet those DO NOT EXIST for a non turning and tilting array
Don't be so daft. Of course there is a shadow effect for a static non vertical panel. Sun low on horizon means long shadow. Even at noon in the middle of summer, a panel will cast a shadow in the UK.
"Where I have a real problem with McKay is his personal consumption figure of 195 kWh/day for the UK"
And even that figure isn't right. 205GW. Divvied among 70mil, that's 3kw per person for all power use. That's 72kwh/p/d.
THEN you add in that (about?) a quarter of that is transport, which electricity is three or more times more efficient, cutting that back.
Yes, heating would be harder because burning gas is still fairly common in the UK, but we don't have much decent housing stock for insulation purposes, and no reductions are considered.
UNTIL we've got a good long way down the road of SOLVING the problem of AGW wrt power generation, we can't afford to try to make usable nuclear. Trying would waste not only time but also a huge amount of money.
AND since we're not sure how bad it'll be (land ice breakup being the worst unknown), we don't know what land we have for the next 50-70 years.
And that means we can't rely on the nuclear power plants being built being safe for their lifetime to run.
IF WE'D STARTED 20 YEARS AGO, we would be in so much better shape NOW that maybe we'd have the time and leisure to test out new designs.
We don't have time for that, and we can't afford to rush nukes.
So by 20 years of pointless inaction, nukes are off the table.
If we're in a very different position in 20 years time, maybe that won't be true any more. Maybe, if the worse end of the scenarios happens to be closer to what we get, we have no opportunity to try.
Nuclear, at this time, is merely a way to avoid renewable roll out and, IMO more "importantly", *delay doing anything*. Because we punt mney into nukes, and 10 years later the rushed designs will be out.
In the meantime, no new renewables ("they'll be a waste of resources!") means we stuck with the status quo for 10 years.
Or, on current build rates, in 20 years time.
So it's another "do nothing" option to push for nukes.
We can only posit the increase of nuclear power when we can *afford* to do nothing.
" BP: you really have mastered the Gish gallop,"
When there are fifteen different complaints to answer, the problem isn't *me* gish galloping.
Read the flaming thread.
"Of course there is a shadow effect for a static non vertical panel."
Which occupies the same space that it would occupy if it were FLAT.
So by calculating the flat space as waste AND calculating the power based on that figure, THEN calculating the shadow space, the same reduction is applied TWICE.
For the eighth frigging time. Try reading the thread.
"I just wanted another source for independent confirmation."
Of what? Land was bought and some of it used?
"Until you acknowledge your error,"
Until you read the flaming thread where you would have found the explanation of how it WAS NOT an error,... same to you.
And how frigging difficult is it to wonder if the same problem exists with Mackay? that if it exists in one place (you already noted it), it can't be wrong elsewhere?
RTFT and you'll see buddy dumdum insisting that it IS 195 per person! And when told not, goes "You've gone back to lying again" as "proof" it is really 195.
And you upbraid me?
Never mind the errors you applied yourself to here, but never acknowledged.
If you admitted your errors, maybe you'd get some progress.
LSF: Hold on a mo, IIUC the 1/7 comes from you not McKay
BPL: Mackay's 2013 article explicitly cites a factor of 14% area usage.
I've realised that my description of the double dipping error is not clear enough for people looking so see how it is wrong, but I have an illustration that is clear enough for the dumbeest nitpicker.
At 60N a 1m high obstruction will cast a 2m highshadow at noon.
If we have a solar panel that will generate an average of 40W over its 1m square face when tilted 60 degrees so as to be facing the sun directly at noon, there is no point putting another solar panel to the north of it closer than 2m because of its shadow.
If the same panel was placed flat on the ground, it would generate 20W on average in that position.
If you claim that the tilted panel generates 40W, this is correct.
If you claim that the tilted panel in a farm occupies 1/2 the land area, this is correct.
If you claim that the flat panel generates 20W, this is correct.
If you claim that a solar farm using the panel that generates 20W when flat and where half the area is wasted by a "shadow effect" therefore it will generate 10W per square meter, THIS IS WRONG.
See where the switcheroo came?
"SO, AFAIK the MacKay 14% panel area to land area number is spot on"
And you know that is the maximum density possible there HOW? HOW DO YOU KNOW that 1/7th is as much as you can put in? How do you know that the other 6/7ths cannot be used for power generation?
How do you know his 14% IS right?
You calculate the ratio of two numbers, but how do you know it's the right calculation? After all I have ABSOLUTELY CORRECTLY calculated figures that show the panels should produce 7x as much as Mackay claims they do. If your "proof" Mackay is right is that the calculation done is 0.14 ratio in decimal notation, then you must ALSO admit *I* am right, since the calculation of the divisors results in 70W/m^2 for a current mass-market solar PV panel.
In a 10 minute run I can manage an average of 9.5mph.
There's actually no way for you to verify this in reality, but lets say you can and did.
a) Does this mean that the four minute mile is impossible?
b) If in verifying this you find out that this is on the treadmill, do you think that some significant information was missing from the verified and absolutely true numbers "10 minutes running at an average of 9.5mph"?
If you also find out that I have enough left to up the pace for the last minute and a half of the run to go at 11mph, would this have been necessary information in how fast humans CAN run? Especially since it means running for most of the time at a notably slower pace than the 9.5mph given...
"For that location 44.435 degrees latitude in wintertime I do get a packing density of ~14% based on their array dimensions"
Well, "Serge", I can very simply solve their energy density problem. They can get TWICE the energy from the same area of land by installing twice as many solar panels.
Viola! Twice the energy density per unit land area!
" Actually, no you can't."
Actually you can. There's six times as much space as they take up spare and unused.
"-> SHADOWS <-"
Where is the proof that this is the case? Panels lying on the ground CAST NO SHADOW.
Panels tilted up ad anything south of 60N only shadows twice its size on the ground at most.
Therefore there is enough space to put 3.5 times as many panels in there AT LEAST, unless you are asserting that it is above 60N.
22N a 1m high object will cast a shadow at noon that will extend northwards from its base a length of 1.078m. A panel placed 1.079m north will be completely unshadowed at any time by the panel southward.
Of course, you could place the solar panels 1m north of each other and you'd lose less than 8% of your power at noon (where you get maximum solar output) and lose nothing at all from shadows outside the hours of 10:30am up to 1:30pm.
It appears that no matter what the case is with actual SMEs running a solar farm, YOU think I'm a hell of a lot smarter than they are, because I thought of that idea for them to increase their solar output by a nearly sevenfold factor without extending beyond their borders and they are too dumb to think of it.
*I* think they aren't too dumb to think of it. I think that they aren't using all of the land they can at the time these figures were taken.
Blogger Profile - you need to consider the entire day - not just noon when shadows are shortest. Because adding more panels to the same area will decrease efficiency you need to integrate over the entire day.
These are not complex ideas. 9999/10000 times when you think that people that study an issue for a living have made really simple mistakes or overlooked something simple, the issue isn't with their knowledge or understanding, but your own.
"Blogger Profile - you need to consider the entire day"
No I don't. Try yourself. Either with a real light source and a set of birthday cards (or whatever) lined up or with pen and paper. Or a computer simulation if you like. Try it and see.
"not just noon when shadows are shortest."
At noon, they are the longest NORTH TO SOUTH. Like I said, check it yourself. The LONGEST extent to the north happens when the sun is at its peak.
"Because adding more panels to the same area"
They aren't. They can't. I'm not putting more ON THE TOP OF other panels, I am putting them ON A DIFFERENT AREA OF LAND than they sit on currently. So the same area is already occupied by one solid object: the first set of panels.
"These are not complex ideas."
Nope, they ARE very simple. And wrong. Like I said, try it for yourself.
"9999/10000 times when you think that people that study an issue for a living have made really simple mistakes or overlooked something simple, the issue isn't with their knowledge or understanding, but your own."
Yes. I know. See the previous post, the paragraph starting "*I*think they aren't too dumb...".
Now, go and check whether you have things right or not. Like I said, you can try with physical representations, geometrical diagrams, or computer simulations.
You will find that your claims of error are themselves in error.
Try it.
Actually you're somewhat correct at 22N. The difference becomes less and less as you go east or you use a shorter run west-east (for a sun setting in the northern hemisphere.
For example, imagine the sun is just setting to the west on the equator. The shadow falls *under* the panel to the east.
But do you know how to solve that? Slap them flat on the ground and use 8% more panels. That far south this is by far the cheapest option. It only costs 7 times as much for 6.5 the output and 6.5x the output per square meter.
At 60N, it would be 7x the cost for 3.5x the output.
Oh, and if you bring up "But how do we maintain them!" Well put it on a frame and you can be underneath, unclip one, turn it around to face you underneath and do your maintenance. Then turn it back up and clip it back in.
You can even use the shaded area underneath for growing crops. Or parking cars. EV cars, even, so you have a source of batteries to charge and use to maintain and reduce the nighttime load because the car has been charged for the journey home.
Something that I think illustrates the reasoning behind the gullibility people have for without hot air is this:
"9999/10000 times when you think that people that study an issue for a living have made really simple mistakes or overlooked something simple"
The assumption is here, by context of the comment this is a reply to, is that the people studying this for a living (the SMEs operating the solar power plants) is "How do we get the highest energy use per unit area of land".
NOWHERE is this shown to be the case.
Indeed, the only thing we CAN tell from business 101 is that they are trying to maximise ROI.
You need to demonstrate that they are maximising power density if you want to claim that their building is the maximum power density that sort of generator can do.
Doubly so if you're going to discard the drastic drop in SPV panels by positing they necessarily use huge amounts of land because of low production density in some farm not optimised for it.
The quote from you, kevin, demonstrates that you know they know what they're doing when designing, but that you're also ASSUMING they are designing for what you are arguing for.
Oh, and for shits and giggles, you CAN put two solar PV panels in the same area, and the energy capture can be doubled, near enough:
http://mitei.mit.edu/news/transparent-solar-cells
Note the PV absorption curves.
Blogger profile - "Oh, and for shits and giggles, you CAN put two solar PV panels in the same area, and the energy capture can be doubled, near enough:
"
You do know the difference between an actual working, manufactureable product and something researchers put together in a lab don't you? Stupid question, obviously not.
Blogger Profile - the PV industry's packing factor is 47% for Fixed panels, 34% for single-axis panels, and 25% for 2-axis panels.
The whole land-use issue is the subject of an NREL study - Land-Use Requirements for Solar Power Plants in the United States
"Blogger Profile - the PV industry's packing factor is 47% for Fixed panels"
Not 14%?
PS: Why?
Reading it it merely seems to be saying what IS used. And gives an example of a block packing that merely shows a block creation of solid areas of usage with panels and a lot of land around it of variable width.
So, again, this seems to be reporting what IS used, not what CAN be used.
Try again.
"You do know the difference between an actual working, manufactureable product and something researchers put together in a lab don't you?"
Yes.
You DO know how those actual working manufacturable products came to BE actual working manufacturable products, don't you?
Of course not. Stupid question, really.
Seems like your jihad is to prove me wrong as often as possible, even if you have to not read.
Why?
Rhetorical question.
Blogger Profile - "So, again, this seems to be reporting what IS used, not what CAN be used.... Try again."
Obviously you didn't bother to read. But what's new? Why don't you just download SAM and play with it. When you've made a significant improvement on what the computer models show is the best configuration - you'll be rich. I wouldn't start spending that money just yet, though.
" The more explicit and transparent we can be about the trade-offs involved in a shift away from fossil fuels, the better our final decisions will be."
Indeed. So we don't need faked numbers pretending two alternatives to fossil fuels are worse than they are.
Like, for example, your previous belief that it had to be 1/7th occupancy in a solar power farm. Which kevin has found an equally acceptable paper that has it at 1/2 occupancy.
That's quite a change in power output.
And entirely and 100% impotent on your outlook, never appearing to have impacted what you believe one iota.
Why?
"Obviously you didn't bother to read."
Why? Because I didn't read the just title and instead read the body?
See for example the beginning of Chapter 4 Results:
4 Results
We obtained land-use data for 166 projects completed or under construction (as of August 2012),
representing 4.8 GWac of capacity, and 51 proposed projects, representing approximately
8 GWac of capacity (Table 2).
Table 2. Summary of Collected Solar Power Plant Data (as of August 2012)
Still collecting data of what IS used, not what CAN be used.
It goes on:
The results reported in this study reflect past performance and not
necessarily future trends. For example, many of the largest PV systems currently proposed
consist primarily of thin-film technology on fixed-tilt arrays, which may have different land use
requirements than the results presented in this study.
Repeating again that these are not necessary requirements, merely ones that had been undertaken in the measured builds in the study.
TRY AGAIN.
Note, too that I don't claim to have a model of producing the best FINANCIAL output. Indeed SAM may absolutely agree with my statements if you tell it you don't give a horsepucky about how much money you spend, you want the maximum power output per unit land area used.
However, your crusade HAS demonstrated that the 1/7th that Mackay used is not the maximal level, and that they COULD, as I proffered, double output by installing double the number of solar panels.
You didn't proffer this difference to "Serge" here, though, despite the fact your answers disagree quite more significantly with his than they do with mine.
Neither did "Serge" feel it worth worrying about the fact that his assertion has been shown quite wrong, since he made no note of the data you proffered, nor did he proffer that it was "obviously" incorrect, since *Add Mackay link*.
You and he disagree more than you and I, yet I am the only one to be shouted at.
Your jihad is real, just not making any sense.
Blogger Profile - you made the idiotic comment that tilt has no effect on packing factor. That's where I stepped in. I've commented two or three times - is that a crusade? Jesus, talk about a moron.
*IF* you had read a little more you'd see why the land use is limited to close to those values for each type of installation. I..e. - maintenance access, inverters, etc. As you move to 1-axis and 2-axis devices you don't want much if any shading.
Sure, theoretically we can have a packing factor that is 1 exactly. Just raise a bunch of flat panels off the ground with all the maintenance and electronics below it. Of course you've immediately lost 15% efficiency by not tilting the panels to the optimum inclination. You've also greatly increased the cost of construction, shortened the lifespan, increased insurance costs and probably increased outages as well. Hey, but we have a packing factor of 1!!!!
In the end you'll have increased output by < 70% and trebled costs.
BPL had trouble understanding where Mackay got his 10W/m^2. He did some math and came up with 18.7 W/m^2. Blogger Profile then jumped in with his usual idiocy. Ridiculing MacKay and BBD.
I'm sure BPL has long since stopped paying attention, but the 50% land use average from NREL for fixed axis would drop his 18.7 down to 9.35.
What BPL and Blogger Profile didn't realize is that Mackay was being optimistic!! He even noted that Solarpark in Muhlhausen, Bavaria average power per unit land area was expected to be about 5 W/m2. Looking at the NREL land use and estimated energy production figures for PV farms in the US, the best I come up with 7.2W/m^2.
Blogger Profile then jumped in with his usual idiocy. Ridiculing MacKay and BBD.
That's the ugly face of denial, Kevin.
Since I failed to get the message across, I'd just like to quote my dear friend Everett's excellent summary above. It bears repeating:
The more explicit and transparent we can be about the trade-offs involved in a shift away from fossil fuels, the better our final decisions will be.
" Blogger Profile - you made the idiotic comment that tilt has no effect on packing factor."
Bzzzt.
NOPE. I said it made little impact on packing factor, most of the unpacked area is shadowed, and evening/morning shadows are mostly under the panel to the opposite side, not northwards.
You're reading what you want to be there and arguing against that.
Moreover, this is NO EXCUSE for saying crap like "Obviously you didn't read it" when THE TEXT ITSELF contains the information I was relaying: that it is a measure of what IS and not what CAN BE.
And, yes, you cannot pack tilted panels as closely as flat ones. But since Mackay and his acolytes' bleeding hearts are wounded by the power density of SPV production, basing what land use you need indicates that you should be calculating the power density for flat panels and packing them in WHICH CAN BE DONE 100% (less edge support, say 5% or less in total).
The reason to tilt and/or track is to minimise the cost of the panels for the power output.
And if the ground is already tilted, you can pack tilted panels 100%, just like flat panels.
And guess what? Most roofs are tilted.
"What a SIMPLETON!"
Sorry, proclaiming it in capitals when it does not follow that "We shouldn't be using crap numbers if we want to discuss each generation method by its ACTUAL merits" is actually correct is what a SIMLPETON does.
"Remember, we've, actually I've, played you before, I go find quotes on the internets"
When you were asked to prove that they could not be packed closer, you cannot post quotes of the person who says it isn't packed closer saying they measured it wasn't packed closer.
You have to show how it is not packed closer because ->SHADOW<-.
NONE of your quotes ever showed it.
Yes, you have played it before. And it didn't work those times. Quite why spinning a yarn about it will work is something a SIMPLETON would think would work.
Answers in Genesis have PhDs who can PROVE that the earth is only 6000 years old.
I guess that since they are PhDs you will acknowledge that you believe the earth is 6000 years old, right?
If not, then your reason for selecting the validity of one claim from the other is based on evidence OTHER than their claims and resources.
So where is yours for Mackay?
"Here's where that quote comes from:
David MacKay appointed Regius Professor of Engineering
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/david-mackay-appointed-regius-professor-of-engineering"
Two things:
a) Here's where a figure of about 1/2, as opposed to 1/7th comes from:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56290.pdf
b) Yes, big money, who can afford to fund nuclear power and get profit from it, like him. Just like Abbott likes the denier Bjorn Lomborg and wanted to make him a head of an entire department. You now have the reason for his hack job: money.
"Blogger Kevin O'Neill said...
BPL had trouble understanding where Mackay got his 10W/m^2. He did some math and came up with 18.7 W/m^2"
Yup.
And that was based on actual calculation. Yet somehow this was considered "usual idiocy" and he was "ridiculing Mackay and BBD".
Yes.
Mackay ALSO got 1/7th packing. You showed that it was able to go to 1/2 in ACTUAL scenarios. After you had ALSO demanded I show that there be evidence that it could be higher than 1/7th.
Seems like you're jumping in with your usual idiocy and ridiculing me.
Which I hear is something that is invalid and only done by idiots.
"but the 50% land use average from NREL for fixed axis would drop his 18.7 down to 9.35. "
But there's nothing to say they can't get double that by putting twice as many in. We're back to the "It's 14%, because that's what these surveyed places have!", yet having moved the goalposts to "It's 47%, because that's what these surveyed places have!".
Yet you forget the Chapter 4 coda:
The results reported in this study reflect past performance and not
necessarily future trends. For example, many of the largest PV systems currently proposed consist primarily of thin-film technology on fixed-tilt arrays, which may have different land use requirements than the results presented in this study.
You can't proclaim it has to be 1/7th because that is what's measured, then claim it has to be 1/2 because that's whats measured and pretend that you had already insisted it couldn't be any higher than 1/7th.
Unless you're a simpleton.
And you definitely can't use the "It cannot be any better than that" and cite a report that says IT COULD BE DIFFERENT.
"The more explicit and transparent we can be about the trade-offs involved in a shift away from fossil fuels, the better our final decisions will be. "
And I agreed 100% with it.
Which is why the hack job of Mackay that has been so successful at gaining him a well paid job is being argued against for its errors.
It's why instead of parroting the same BS from his book, you're being asked to substantiate that they are the correct numbers to use.
This, again, is another proof that you will say what you **BELIEVE** to be, but do not CARE TO CHECK, because you like the answer you get from this study. Why? Because you don't want renewables, you DO want nuclear.
" Blogger Profile then jumped in with his usual idiocy. Ridiculing MacKay and BBD.
That's the ugly face of denial, Kevin."
Yeah, denial of crackpot idiocy, Buddy dumdum.
Here's what denial looks like:
A: Why is this calculation of power production for the Sahara incorrect?
B: You have to correct for the latitude and weather of the UK
A: Why did you say the UK, when this is the sahara?
B: Why do you get the sahara and Uk confused?
A: It was you who did that, not me
A: Please provide a link for where I said it
B: Here is a quote
A: ...
B: So why did you get sahara and uk confused?
A: Please provide a link for where I said it
B: It's on this thread
A: ...
B: So why did you get sahara and uk confused?
A: Please provide a link for where I said it
B: It's on this thread
A: ...
====
Or
A: The numbers are right, you aren't using the right packing of 1/7th!
B: Put twice as many in, get twice as much out
A: SHADOWS!!!
B: Prove it.
A: The numbers are 1/7th, moron! Here's where he says its true!
B: Prove it.
A: It can't be any better than 1/7th! It's measured!
B: Prove it. Just pack 7x as much in there and get 6.5x the power for the same area
C: HAH! You can't get better than 47% packing, here's proof!
A: See, your packing is not right!
B: But 1:1 is closer to 1:2 than it is to 1:7.
A: SIMPLETON!
C: Yeah, he has the wrong packing!
B: Prove that the packing has to be 1:2.
C: It's MEASURED!
A: Mackay, (who said 1/7th) *is a PHD!!!!*
B: He's not said that it's 1/2.
D: That's what denial sounds like!
What utter bollocks BP.
Your 'reading' of this thread would embarrass a drunken baboon.
"Your 'reading' of this thread would embarrass a drunken baboon. "
So how did you manage to learn how to use a computer as a baboon?
Here's one simple example:
Did Mackay say 1/7 packing would be what we'd use when powering the UK?
Did you and various others insist that any different packing was IMPOSSIBLE, and cite, as evidence, MAckay saying that 14% packing was what was found in solar power plants investigated?
If the answers to the above are "Yes":
Is it now shown that the packing can be 47%?
If the answer to that is "Yes":
Is 14% packing being required proved or disproved?
Kevin, feeling a bit hostile, wrote: BPL had trouble understanding where Mackay got his 10W/m^2. He did some math and came up with 18.7 W/m^2.
BPL: Mackay got it from using 10% efficient solar panels and a packing fraction of 14%, which I found by reading through his 2013 article.
K: I'm sure BPL has long since stopped paying attention
BPL: You're sure of a lot that other people would find quite bizarre.
K: but the 50% land use average from NREL for fixed axis would drop his 18.7 down to 9.35.
BPL: Or using 20% efficient panels, would drop my 37.4 down to 18.7. How about that?
K: What BPL and Blogger Profile didn't realize is that Mackay was being optimistic!! He even noted that Solarpark in Muhlhausen, Bavaria average power per unit land area was expected to be about 5 W/m2. Looking at the NREL land use and estimated energy production figures for PV farms in the US, the best I come up with 7.2W/m^2.
BPL: What Kevin didn't realize is that Mackay was looking for an excuse to say "renewables can't do it all, so we need nuclear!" What Kevin also didn't realize is that I've been following this exchange rather carefully. What Kevin ALSO didn't realize is that solar farms have NOT been configured for maximum power density, but for maximum return on investment. What Kevin ALSO ALSO didn't realize is that this whole debate is a teatempestpot, since I demonstrated that even using Mackay's figures, you can still power the world on 100% solar--even though nobody has actually advocated doing that, least of all me.
You need to read more carefully, Kevin-san.
Actually, BPL, early on you posited that lack of winter panels would be solved for cheap enough panels by putting more up, to which buddy dumdum then whined
We are - yet again - in cloud-cuckoo land where hard problems (lack of available capacity) are waved away with soft 'answers' involving unfeasibly vast plant footprints and undefined 'smart grid' infrastructure that somehow magics energy out of nothing.
So "hard problems" like "unfeasible vast plant footprints" have been reduced to less than a third of the area so far, and nothing said of this massive removal of this problem.
And correcting him on his idiotic "magics emergy out of nothing" merely got the snooty ignorance of "I understand very well what a smart grid does", despite all evidence being that he's completely clueless on the subject. Or at least doesn't care that he knows he's lying about them in his "rebuttal" of your "just build more, then" comment.
Indeed his only "Go to" option for when his assinine claims are shown to be idiotic is "Show me a link where I said that", followed, of course, by ignoring the evidence.
Why? Because the asshat is a troll.
" Blogger Profile - you made the idiotic comment that tilt has no effect on packing factor."
And if you meant this:
"Yet those DO NOT EXIST for a non turning and tilting array"
This was in response to this claim:
"and the average raw power of sunshine per square metre of flat ground is
roughly 100 W/m2." (from Les Salines France , as it happens)
From which a 10% efficient SPV would only get 10W claimed if it were lying flat on the ground. Which would not be tilting and not be turning. Or in a fewer words not tilting and turning.
So
BZZZT! Wrong.
And correcting him on his idiotic "magics emergy out of nothing" merely got the snooty ignorance of "I understand very well what a smart grid does", despite all evidence being that he's completely clueless on the subject. Or at least doesn't care that he knows he's lying about them in his "rebuttal" of your "just build more, then" comment.
Still making shit up.
Go back and read the thread.
The airy certainty that there will always be a surplus just an interconnector away is based on nothing more concrete than wishful thinking.
As I pointed out at the time. Your incessant lying is irritating.
Denying the vast size of the footprint of eg. wind and solar if they are to be used to displace fossil fuels entirely is just stupid.
"Still making shit up."
So talking bollocks rather than answer a quite simple question that you can research using the information on this page of the thread alone:
Is 14% packing being required proved or disproved?
Oh, our nuclear power required that there be surplus just an interconnect away when Sizewell B went down for well over a year. And when Didcot went down as well, our interconnect wasn't big enough to supply the shortfall, though there WAS surplus available. Hence we're building more interconnects.
If the reliance on international HVDC links proves a system cannot be used, then nuclear power is CURRENTLY incapable of being a part of the power system.
Especially since in a warming world, we can't run them more and more often.
"Denying the vast size of the footprint of eg. wind and solar"
Which has already fallen to 2/7ths of the requirement since the study you decided this was the case for made its calculations.
Denying the vast decrease in the footprint of e.g.wind and solar is just stupid.
Especially since you admit when pressed that it COULD be done even at that earlier lowball estimate of power density with solar power. It's 3.5 times easier now. Insisting it still has the same exact problem is just denial.
BPL - sorry if tone leaked towards you. Did not mean it to. I was simply explaining why 10W/m^2 was a 'correct' number. I say 'correct', but it's actually too large - not too small. The fact that the industry to date cannot even achieve 10W/m^2 is a telling sign in my book that MacKay was erring on the optimistic side. The conclusions drawn from the data, regardless which side they're being used by, is irrelevant to the data. The data don't care.
ROI also has to include both land cost and array efficiency (i.e., maximum power density). Fixed arrays are the easiest to build. 1-axis and 2-axis arrays greatly increase construction costs, land costs (packing factor reduces to 34% and 25% respectively), and maintenance costs - but only increase efficiency slightly (per the NREL results).
I never actually saw a reference to where the "1/7" came from. The closest I found was you (BPL) saying: "I think, BTW, that I see where Mackay gets his tiny statistics for solar. He adds a "filling factor" of 14% based on total land use of a solar power station versus panel area. If anything, this is an argument that we should abandon tracking panels and just plaster the ground with wall to wall photovoltaics. That would increase his numbers by a factor of 7. I could go with that."
The filling factor based on actual empirical data from NREL would be 1/2 for fixed arrays, 1/3 for 1-axis, and 1/4 for 2-axis. Based on MacKay's calculated 10W/m^2 I assumed he was using 1/2. That's where the math leads us - i.e., taking your 18.7 W/m^2 and dividing by 2.
"packing the ground with wall-to-wall photovoltaics" is unfeasible for a farm of any significant size. You cannot hand-wave away the space required for the associated electricity handling equipment plus maintenance and/or repair paths.
"I was simply explaining why 10W/m^2 was a 'correct' number. I say 'correct', but it's actually too large - not too small."
Actually, you were presuming it was "not too large, not too small". However, based on that calculation, it's about 3.5x too small for today.
BPL's calculation gave a value about 2x as high. And 10% efficient panels aren't even dump grade today.
""packing the ground with wall-to-wall photovoltaics" is unfeasible for a farm of any significant size. "
This claim is hilarious! Prove it. The same claim was made that you couldn't put more than 1 part in 7 as SPV. That claim has already died. Define significant size, how this is the required size to make a grid system and that you can't make it of more smaller areas taken up, and how you worked out it would be unfeasible.
"You cannot hand-wave away the space required for the associated electricity handling equipment plus maintenance and/or repair paths."
You cannot handwave in the claim either.
Here's one method: suspended. Maintain underneath, lines underneath.
Here's another: every rooftop used.
"ROI also has to include both land cost and array efficiency"
Land in the middle of nowhere is very cheap per acre.
At one time in the dotcom boom, ***98%*** of fibre laid was unlit. Not merely underused. NOT LIT AT ALL.
Why? Maximise ROI. Fibre is cheap. Installation is expensive. Buy more cable than you need and you have expansion capacity.
"Denying the vast size of the footprint of eg. wind and solar if they are to be used to displace fossil fuels entirely is just stupid."
Denying the vast problem of fossil fuels and the urgency in which they need to be replaced with the alternatives you so quickly criticize is just plain stupid as well. You are not making yourself look good here.
We have no choice, not only do we need to solve this problem of the vast scale of the alternatives, we need to quickly expand upon the new quantum physics that will be needed to reduce the costs, and we very quickly need to increase the surface area and flux available to us, for instance, astrophysically. You utterly fail to 'get that' necessity as well. You seem to be stuck in nuclear la la land.
10^10 - ten orders of magnitude out of scale with entropic reality.
Blogger Profile - I respect BPL. You are an idiot.
"Actually, you were presuming it was "not too large, not too small". However, based on that calculation, it's about 3.5x too small for today."
No, I looked at empirical data from the NREL and made the calculations for what we actually see. Iasked myself the question: Do PV farms today meet or exceed MacKay's 10W/m^2 number? The NREL data show the *BEST* PV farms are seeing 7W/m^2. Most are in the 4 to 6 range.
And regarding maintenance access you say,
"You cannot handwave in the claim either.
Here's one method: suspended. Maintain underneath, lines underneath.
Here's another: every rooftop used."
I don't 'hand-wave' in the claim. I look at empirical data. That's what the data says, you might not like it - but so what? Maintenance is a real cost. Every organization tries to reduce it's overhead in this area. Considering I've worked in test equipment maintenance basically my entire adult life, I know a bit about how it is viewed within both commercial and government cost accounting structures. I am also probably the only person you will ever interact with that has actually written a calibration procedure for a Solar I-V Curve Tracer and performed said calibration. Does this make me an expert on PVs? No, but your view is so distanced from reality that it just cries out, "IGNORANT!!!"
Your 'method' is one I've already suggested hypothetically earlier. It is impractical for the reasons I stated earlier.
Rooftops are not PV farms. I have always limited all my comments to PV farms. You can create strawmen all you want, but let's be clear, in context of anything I've said they (rooftops) are irrelevant. Just as pretty much anything you say is irrelevant to reality.
EFS - I agree it's even physically possible. We could meet all of our *non-transport* needs with wind and solar, but it would require an effort that would probably dwarf that of WWII. Once you drag transport into the equation you make the effort of WWII look like a vacation in the Bahamas.
Rooftop solar or residential wind for every new home and timeframes for upgrading existing homes is probably the easiest and quickest way to move away from centralized gas or coal-fired electricity generating plants.
While I try to keep abreast of the science, it becomes almost irrelevant when you consider the political practicalities. In the USA I see almost zero chance that anything approaching the effort required for even modest changes to be made. We have consistently passed up economic opportunities to do so - the great recession of 2008 on being the most recent missed opportunity.
If Google or Elon Musk can fund the necessary technological advances, perhaps there is some hope. I am not optimistic they will come through in time for future warming to be at the low end of projections.
EFS - "The 14% was mentioned in MacKay (2013) twice. I found both of those sites and posted Google Maps locations upthread for anyone to see the visual layout for themselves. Also, I was the 1st one to post the two NREL reports (2009 for wind and 2013 for solar) upthread."
I've reviewed the thread a couple of times. I've reread the MacKay (2013) section where he cites the 10W/m^2. I still can't find an actual reference to the 14% value in MacKay 2013.
I've also searched the document for '14%' - there is only one search result for '14%' in MacKay 2013 - unrelated to land-use or packing factor ("This plan gets 14% of its electricity from other countries. - Page 211). Can you cite a page number? Is it important? No, just annoying I can't find it :)
Kevin, you are a moron and blinded with vitriol and a desire to lash out.
NONE of your petty whine absolves you of the crass ignorance of your rush to defend nukes and to make crap up to ensure this happens. NONE OF IT even vaguely attempts to explain or admit error or apologize and withdraw ANY of that BS you spouted.
But it sure pissed you off.
You just vomited out your hate and spite in an attempt to pretend that it doesn't matter, because "I'm mean".
"At the end of the day, if it's 5 or 10 or even 20 W/m^2 we're still talking about large area"
And therefore proving that it doesn't MATTER how much area is used, you will INSIST it's "too large".
The problem you have isn't rationally demonstrable. It's post hoc rationalisation of a conclusion you want to insist be true.
Christ knows why.
EFS - sorry, I was reading MacKay 2008, not 2013. The first citation you provide is for CSP. The second for a 2-axis system. Even for a 2-axis system the 14% would be low by comparison to other USA PV projects, probably as you state due to it's location. In both cases though MacKay is just citing specific examples, I wouldn't go so far as to make the claim that MacKay says it has to be 14% (not that you have).
Others apparently make an illogical leap and *do* make the claim that MacKay says it's 14%. I should have known considering the source :)
[number string] says:
Denying the vast problem of fossil fuels and the urgency in which they need to be replaced with the alternatives you so quickly criticize is just plain stupid as well. You are not making yourself look good here.
Jeez. Not you as well.
Right. Go back and read the thread.
Then quote (in full) and link to the comment where I did anything of the sort.
If you cannot do this, post an apology.
Blogger profile - you are not only an idiot, you're delirious.
You write: "NONE of your petty whine absolves you of the crass ignorance of your rush to defend nukes and to make crap up to ensure this happens. "
But the only time I've mentioned nuclear was in response to your conspiracy ideation. You wrote: "There is still a hugely suspicious lack of evidence of the outage of nuclear power, despite it being generally about the same level as planned outage for the most modern designs in wide use."
And I responded: "It took me about three minutes to find the daily status reports for all of the US operating nuclear reactors. NRC:Power Reactor Status Reports If someone was actually interested in the numbers they're easily accessible."
So, your 'hugely suspicious lack of evidence' was a fiction of your own mind. Not only that, you then claimed you'd found the same reports. I.e., you wrote 'hugely suspicious lack of evidence' even AFTER you knew the actual data was publicly available on a per day basis. Your conspiracy ideation was the subject of my mentioning nuclear in the post - not whether nuclear is or is not a good idea. Come to grips with reality.
After spending too much time on denial blogs I have little use for people that cannot, will not, or simply are intellectually incapable of reading and understanding the science, the data behind the science, basic facts around the science, etc. It is pointless to argue with them. All one can do is point out their silly mistakes and ridicule them. You embody the worst of that class of know-nothings.
[number string]
The only thing I *criticise* is bullshit. While you are reviewing the thread looking for me denying the seriousness of the FF problem, read what I said carefully and you will find that it is a critique of bullshit.
Please take especially close note of what I say about energy policy.
According to BP, MacKay is faking data and shilling for the nuclear industry.
This is both ludicrous and offensive.
BBD said..."According to BP, MacKay is faking data and shilling for the nuclear industry.
This is both ludicrous and offensive."
I also find it hilarious - given that MacKay goes out of his way to use numbers that are favorable to both wind and solar. The 10W/m^2 number is one the PV industry would *love* to see. As is clear from NREL reports, the actual real world numbers are on average 30% - 60% smaller.
Our BP is nothing more than the typical commenter at WUWT. Clueless, righteous, knows more than all the experts, has all the answers and never for a minute stops to think that maybe they're smarter than he is :)
"I wouldn't go so far as to make the claim that MacKay says it has to be 14% (not that you have)."
HAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, right EVERY SINGLE FRIGGING TIME I say "How about putting more in there?" you dipsticks all go "It says here (Mackay again) that it's 1/7th, DON'T YOU DARE say he's wrong about it!!!!"
Sure.
Bloody delusionists.
So, yes, the 14% is now shown to have been exceeded and was never a maximum, AS I SAID.
But oh, no, you never said anything about it being a maximum, you just refused to believe it could be any higher.
Mind you "Serge" here has already said that it doesn't matter how much power you can get out, its ALWAYS going to be "too huge an area".
It doesn't MATTER to you to have clear information, the only clarity you want is that it can't be renewables.
"According to BP, MacKay is faking data and shilling for the nuclear industry."
Uh, yeah. You know. Evidence.
"The only thing I *criticise* is bullshit"
Oh dear. The delusion here goes up to creampie.
You PRODUCE it.
"But the only time I've mentioned nuclear "
Hey, when did that bother YOU what someone actually said, hmm?
But, yes, you've never mentioned it, but you've every single freaking time shouted out that renewables are not good enough for it.
It's like the "pick a card" game. You remove all options but the one you want them to pick.
Only the moronic think the trick unknown.
"And I responded: "It took me about three minutes to find the daily status reports for all of the US operating nuclear reactors.""
And what did I say?
You "forget" that, and prefer to let insinuation work its "magic".
So, when you got this information, WHERE IS ITS EFFECT ON OUTPUT?
Hmmm?
Uh, yeah. You know. Evidence.
Of which there is exactly fuck-all.
It's all in your mind, BP.
Let's use a "filling fraction" of 47%.
Solar constant: 1360 W m^-2
Top of atmosphere mean: 340 W m^-2
Absorbed: 238
Shortwave optical depth: 0.24
Surface illumination: (= 238 x exp(-0.24)) 187 W m^-2
Earth surface area: 5.10066 x 10^14 m^2
Land fraction: 0.292
Land area: 1.48939 x 10^14 m^2
Total land illumination: 2.785 x 10^16 W
Human energy use, all types: 1.8 x 10^13 W
Land fraction used at 100% collection efficiency: 0.000646
At 20% efficiency: 0.00323
With 47% filling fraction: 0.00688
That is, 0.7% of Earth's land surface.
Compare: 1.0% of land surface used for cities and other urban areas.
2.0% of land surface used for highways.
Much of the above 3.0% can be double-used by covering rooftops, parking lots, vehicular tunnels, etc.
Consequently, all human energy use can be provided by solar power.
Caveats: Time/labor/expense needed to lay down infrastructure and decommission other power sources; political/financial opposition; etc.
BPL - I don't think anyone has claimed we don't have enough land. Though using a fraction of the earth's surface is kind of pointless.
For instance, the USA consumes about 8.3 quads of BTUs each month.
This is the equivalent of about 2.44E15 Wh
Assume a 30 day month, 24 hours in a day and that leaves us 3.39E12 W/h
At Mackay's generous 10W/m^2, we'd then need 3.39E11 m^2
Now, the USA is about 3.8 million square *miles*
As a fraction of the USA's overall land, the space required is equivalent to 0.0095%
But it's still 131 thousand square miles !!!!
Or a rectangle 360 miles by 360 miles.
On average, each state would have to devote 2.5 thousand square miles to energy.
Hey - but it's only 0.0095%.
You should be aware and I shouldn't have to tell you that small fractions of very, very large numbers result in very, very large numbers.
If you truly think that we in the USA are suddenly going to devote 131 thousand square miles to renewable energy, then we need to have a discussion about the political realities.
K: If you truly think that we in the USA are suddenly going to devote 131 thousand square miles to renewable energy, then we need to have a discussion about the political realities.
BPL: In a single project, no, of course not. In the aggregate... keep watching.
BPL - if we covered all 70 million single family homes in the USA with 5kW solar kits we would reduce our energy needs by 10% and the land required by 10%.
Even that would require a gargantuan effort. And in 25 or 30 years we'd probably have to do it all over again.
I'm not optimistic.
"It's all in your mind, BP. "
No, it's all in the words written.
1) No matter how small the area it takes, renewables are taking too much space
2) All the stupid maths errors (seriously, if the UK flat ground gets 100W, then the rooftops get between 122 and 130W, NOT 110, go check it out yourself: 100/cos(theta) where theta is either 35 or 40 degrees). Among multiple others.
3) Nuclear has no problems at all
4) Mackay is now egregious professor of engineering or some shit, same deal that Bjorn Lomborg was going to get paid for him for his sterling work for fellating the industry heavyweights, except the UK was a little more spineless than the AUS university system.
" BPL - if we covered all 70 million single family homes in the USA with 5kW solar kits we would reduce our energy needs by 10% and the land required by 10%."
You've really buggered that one up. If we use the roofs, we use NO LAND WHATSOEVER. For starters.We already have used it: to put the roof under, you retard. And the rest of the house.
And there's a lot more roof to add.
The USA also uses a RIDICULOUS wastage of power. Moronic. The EU average is half the USA, and they have very similar levels (better indeed) lifestyle and GDP to the USA. Nordic countries half that, and they live in a much colder and darker land.
But you kept bleating on how you're not anti-renewables, how Mackay isn't against them, but he says WE CAN ALREADY DO IT.
It seems when it comes to agreeing with Mackay or ignoring him, the only indicator is whether he's "proving" renewables can't do it.
BPL has already made your calculation. And that whining cry about how many square km is is worthless: IT'S ALREADY LAND WE'VE USED. And adding SPV to the top of it makes NO DIFFERENCE to the land use.
" BPL - I don't think anyone has claimed we don't have enough land."
But you'll insist that if they try using it, you'll tell them they're not allowed to?
"Caveats: Time/labor/expense needed to lay down infrastructure and decommission other power sources; political/financial opposition; etc."
Actually, you only have to build out at the rate the old stuff is decommissioned. The old stuff isn't going to be mothballed in a month.
"Even that would require a gargantuan effort. And in 25 or 30 years we'd probably have to do it all over again."
Weird. With conventional plants we'd have to build them all all over again in 25 or 30 years.
And maintenance is a lot more than "Squirt some water on it and swipe it with a sponge" every now and then.
Seriously, we don't have time for anything else other than renewables or (or better AND) a cutback in the heinous waste of energy and eke out what we have. And when we finally have this problem sort of sorted, with at least power needed being done, we have time to run with newer generator types to see how they break down or how they fail and how to fix them. We don't have the 40 years it would take to roll out any significant amount of nuke power. Simple as that.
And any problems we'll have to suck up and work around with our ingenuity instead of whining about how we can't do it, and accept it as 20 years of doing fuck all about it when we had the time.
Blogger Profile - word diarrhea does not impress anyone. In fact it just annoys them.
Here's another prime example why you are an idiot; you write: "You've really buggered that one up. If we use the roofs, we use NO LAND WHATSOEVER. For starters.We already have used it: to put the roof under, you retard. And the rest of the house."
My comment was that if we covered every residential roof in the USA we'd reduce the amount of energy required by 10%. And that this would also reduce the calculation of how much land would be needed by 10%.
What part of that don't you understand? Using roofs reduces energy that would otherwise be in a PV, wind or CSP facility. If you need X square miles of land to produce Y GWh, then reducing X by 10% reduces Y by 10%.
Instead your comment is just meaningless drivel that doesn't even understand what is being discussed. Your little rant is moronic. Completely misses the point. And makes some weird supposition that I counted roofs as land?!? The only one that buggered anything here is you. You really ought to quit posting. People that were amenable to the idea of renewables will be of the complete opposite opinion once they begin listening to you. It would be akin to finding out you're on the same side of an argument as Christopeher Monckton.
Another day on fantasy island:
1) No matter how small the area it takes, renewables are taking too much space
Never said that or anything like it.
2) All the stupid maths errors (seriously, if the UK flat ground gets 100W, then the rooftops get between 122 and 130W, NOT 110, go check it out yourself: 100/cos(theta) where theta is either 35 or 40 degrees). Among multiple others.
Read the thread properly; not going over this again.
3) Nuclear has no problems at all
Never made this claim or anything like it.
4) Mackay is now egregious professor of engineering or some shit, same deal that Bjorn Lomborg was going to get paid for him for his sterling work for fellating the industry heavyweights, except the UK was a little more spineless than the AUS university system.
Bollocks and evidence-free, libelous, conspiracist bollocks at that.
The short of it is that even Mackay says it could be done with renewables alone. He and his blowhards keep bringing up that claim to "prove" he's not anti-renewables. But it takes up a vast amount of space.
We now have proof it takes up a vast amount less than his study proposed.
So it can do it on its own even easier.
But nobody is saying "do it with solar alone" any more than they're saying "do it with nuclear alone". Use Wind too. And tidal. And geothermal. And hydropower. And waste reclamation power generation. And keep the nuclear power stations as long as they last. Which should be a bit longer if we can turn them off most of the time.
Heck, improve them with retrofits fitted whilst they're off for the 99% of the time they're not needed.
" Blogger Profile - word diarrhea does not impress anyone."
Then why so much of it?
(Please, stop with the infantile attempts to poison the well. Don't PRETEND that you don't have to)
"But it takes up a vast amount of space."
So? So does farming. 71% of the UK.
And if only 0.3% is needed of the landmass, we're already using *10 times* that on other shit. Why do you get to say no because it uses an amount of land *that you never specify why it's "too big" to be used*?
If it uses 0.3% of the land, why not? Even if that IS a large amount, it's still only 0.3% of the land.
Nuclear can't be used because their failure mode is "Blow the shit up".
Nuclear can't be used because only a few are ALLOWED to use it.
Nuclear can't be used because it uses a toxic resource that also leaves much more toxic resource to dispose of *that we don't know how to deal with*.
Nuclear can't be used because WE DON'T HAVE TIME.
Nuclear can't be used because we don't have the cooling for it to be reliable NOW, never mind when more warming arrives.
Nuclear can't be used because we don't know how much sea levels will rise. Hinkley Point already is at risk of SLR in the next 50 years. within the economic lifetime (required to make nuclear still one of the most expensive generation methods) of the build. Sizewell is ALREADY known for historic flooding.
Nuclear can't be used because Jellyfish is already a nuisance that shuts them down, and the ocean changes will make it worse.
That 0.3% can be entirely out of areas that we already have built on or areas that just can't be used for ANYTHING else. How big a land use is is no more an argument against using it than the area of urbanisation means we cannot have as many people as we do.
"My comment was that if we covered every residential roof in the USA we'd reduce the amount of energy required by 10%."
And MY comment was about how that was irrelevant.
The USA is wasteful. You can reduce by a third AT LEAST and still get an entirely first-world lifestyle.
Your calculation is incorrect, since it would total nearly 30% of your power use.
Your calcualtion is incorrect, since it won't use ANY MORE LAND AT ALL. Roofs built on DO NOT use any land. It uses ROOFS.
And that is primary power, which isn't necessary, since your car engine will be 90% efficient whilst your ICE is 20-25% efficient. So you'll have reductions just by driving EVs.
"1) No matter how small the area it takes, renewables are taking too much space
Never said that or anything like it."
"Serge" did. Did I ever claim YOU had said it?
Of course, since it DOESN'T apply to you, the fact that we've reduced the land footprint of something ALREADY able to do it on 5% of the land and was entirely feasible at that level, now it's less than 2% of the land, it's fine.
You DIDN'T claim that, but the answer MUST be either "No, it's still too big", in which case you're saying as per #1 there, or "Yeah, it's fine" in which case your claim never to have said this is shown not to be mere weasel words.
"Never made this claim or anything like it."
Well, yes, no claims of the problems of nuclear means no problems with nuclear. And saying that it is fine means that it is fine. So no claims about the problems and saying it is fine is SAYING there are no problems with nuclear and that it's fine, AS STATED.
"Bollocks and evidence-free"
Apart from when "Serge" "proves" Mackay right by pointing to his authority:
David MacKay appointed Regius Professor of Engineering
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/david-mackay-appointed-regius-professor-of-engineering
Or do you not care about facts as long as the lie sounds good?
Oh, and buddy dumdum, DON'T claim that you "merely" never mentioned it. You have claimed you wanted to be fair and balanced and give all the information about the options. If you don't claim any problems with nuclear, but make up plenty of problems to claim for renewables, then you're specifically saying that there WERE none for Nuclear.
a) State you want to inform people of the entire picture
b) Paint a picture of only renewables having problems
Corollary: (a) was a lie and you DO NOT want to inform people, only indoctrinate them with a biased source of problems.
Saying you are balanced means that not saying something means it doesn't exist.
Or do you not care about facts as long as the lie sounds good?
Like this?
4) Mackay is now egregious professor of engineering or some shit, same deal that Bjorn Lomborg was going to get paid for him for his sterling work for fellating the industry heavyweights
You have descended into self-parody.
* * *
This thread isn't about problems with nuclear, so this is just stupid bollocks:
Well, yes, no claims of the problems of nuclear means no problems with nuclear. And saying that it is fine means that it is fine. So no claims about the problems and saying it is fine is SAYING there are no problems with nuclear and that it's fine, AS STATED.
See "do you not care about facts as long as the lie sounds good?"
Etc. Can't be bothered with the rest of the facile bilge.
"Like this?
4) Mackay is now egregious professor of engineering or some shit, same deal that Bjorn Lomborg was going to get paid for him for his sterling work for fellating the industry heavyweights
You have descended into self-parody. "
No, like this:
---
"Serge" David MacKay appointed Regius Professor of Engineering
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/david-mackay-appointed-regius-professor-of-engineering
Me 4) Mackay is now egregious professor of engineering or some shit
You"Bollocks and evidence-free"
---
And, of course your post that this is replying to, which I won't include because then it gets recursive. Recursive fury? Buddy dumdum denial of reality? There's an interesting convergence...
"This thread isn't about problems with nuclear"
This thread is about nuclear. And this thread is, BY YOUR ADMISSION OF YOUR MISSION is to, and I quote, "The more explicit and transparent we can be about the trade-offs involved in a shift away from fossil fuels, the better our final decisions will be."
My emphasis.
And it IS about the problems of nuclear "trade-offs involved", remember.
K: BPL - if we covered all 70 million single family homes in the USA with 5kW solar kits we would reduce our energy needs by 10% and the land required by 10%. . . . Even that would require a gargantuan effort. And in 25 or 30 years we'd probably have to do it all over again. . . . I'm not optimistic.
BPL: There are also commercial roofs and industrial roofs. But I'm not optimistic either. I really don't think enough will be done in time, and I'm still anticipating complete global social collapse c. 2028.
It isn't 70million either.
2.61 people per house. 305 million people. Do the maths.
And why use the USA, when it comes to why their broadband sucks, they go on about how dispersed they are. Lots of spare land in the USA. And they are horribly profligate in their use of power, wasting it. So they're DEFINITELY not a good statistic to use as to whether the world can manage in solar power alone.
Not that solar power alone is being proposed.
NOTE: the average UK house is supplied adequately with electricity by one 1kw panel per person. 2.61kw is enough for the average american home, even at the rather high level of the UK's consumption.
The question is how much more energy would be imported to run electric cars if we only supplied their electrical needs? It's nowhere near as much as you have to import as petrol to do the same task.
More intellectual dishonesty from the clown prince:
Me 4) Mackay is now egregious professor of engineering or some shit
You"Bollocks and evidence-free"---
What I was objecting to was your libelous [sp] conflation of MacKay with Lomborg and your libelous insinuation that MacKay *too* was an industry shill "fellating the industry heavyweights".
If you won't own your words when challenged, then don't write dishonest, evidence-free, libelous crap in the first place.
"If you won't own your words when challenged"
LoL!
What about your incessant "I've never said that nuclear had no problems", hmm?
"What I was objecting to was your libelous [sp] conflation of MacKay with Lomborg and your libelous "
They are so close they're practically identical.
Pointing out the facts and drawing conclusions are not libel.
"your libelous insinuation that MacKay *too* was an industry shill "fellating the industry heavyweights"."
He loves nukes. Nukes require big money and central control, which is fine as long as the control is private rather than public nowadays, and therefore big money loves big nukes.
By his asinine fabrication of his data to distress the ability of renewables and in fluffing up the nuclear power systems he is fellating the industry heaviweights and shilling for their patronage.
Which patronage successfully got him a cushy job, similar to that Lomborg was being promoted for by, similarly, big money.
Pointing out these facts and drawing the obvious conclusion is not libel.
By his asinine fabrication of his data to distress the ability of renewables and in fluffing up the nuclear power systems he is fellating the industry heaviweights and shilling for their patronage.
This is what makes me angry.
You have been shown over and over again that you are WRONG about this and MacKay's numbers are a generous estimate.
Yet you just carry on repeating your original bullshit and lies - and libels.
That is utterly disgraceful behaviour.
" By his asinine fabrication of his data to distress the ability of renewables and in fluffing up the nuclear power systems he is fellating the industry heaviweights and shilling for their patronage.
This is what makes me angry."
It SHOULD make you angry. However, it seems to make you angry that anyone would point it out, rather than he's gulling you.
Are you and he besties or something?
"You have been shown over and over again that you are WRONG about this and MacKay's numbers are a generous estimate."
Wrong. Morons like you have screamed and shouted over and over again that Mackay said those numbers. NOT ONCE have you shown they were valid.
NOT ONCE have you shown they were valid.
Ah, so NREL is in on the fraud.
Of course.
"Ah, so NREL is in on the fraud. "
Yeah, we all know you can't read.
Here's one a simpleton can get.
If Mackay claims that UK ground level solar radiation adds up to 100W/m^2, then the UK roofs that are either 35 or 60 degrees slanted must have 122W/m^2 or 130W/m^2. Check it out for yourself. It just uses the Cosine of the angle from the sun.
However, he claims it is 110W/m^2.
His maths fails utterly.
He claims that the average UK energy use is 195kwh/d/p. It's 72. And moving to EVs will drop that by something of the order of 1/3. And easy savings can make it half.
Not 195.
He uses the figures reported by solarfarms in their first 12 months, when they can start producing before completion.
He uses the occupancy of solarfarms he selected as valid, but not investigated that they are necessary.
All fuckups that only a moron or someone deliberately lying would manage.
So which is it? Fraud or moron?
He claims that the average UK energy use is 195kwh/d/p.
No he doesn't. The average figure given is 125kWh/d/p.For the thousandth time, RTFR.
It's 72.
No, it's 125kWh/d/p, not some arbitrary number you plucked out of thin air, no matter how loudly you shout otherwise. Nobody believes a word you say anyway because you have been so comprehensively discredited here.
* * *
We don't even need MacKay because:
NREL
NREL
NREL
:-)
"It's 72.
No, it's 125kWh/d/p,"
No, it's 72. 205GW average. 70 million people. Do the maths.
Oh, that's right. You can't can you.
100/Cos(15) != 110
100/Cos(10) != 110
100/Cos(15) != 110
100/Cos(10) != 110
100/Cos(15) != 110
100/Cos(10) != 110
100/Cos(15) != 110
100/Cos(10) != 110
100/Cos(15) != 110
100/Cos(10) != 110
100/Cos(15) != 110
100/Cos(10) != 110
100/Cos(15) != 110
100/Cos(10) != 110
100/Cos(15) != 110
100/Cos(10) != 110
100/Cos(15) != 110
100/Cos(10) != 110
100/Cos(15) != 110
100/Cos(10) != 110
What about NREL?
They also state that the Solar Irradiance is nearly 1400W/m^2.
So using that number, the UK can get 1400.Cos(50)=900W/m^2.
Check NREL. They confirm those figures. 1400W/m^2 and 50N.
Or are NREL wrong?
They also state that the Solar Irradiance is nearly 1400W/m^2.
At TOA. Not at the SURFACE.
Will you never learn?
You really, really don't understand this at all.
The difference between flat and optimum tilt (~35 degrees) on a south-facing roof is 10% (100W/m2 ---> 110W/m2).
Go and look it up.
You have been WRONG about this for quite long enough now.
"You really, really don't understand this at all. "
Bah! So you think that the NREL and EVERY SINGLE ASTRONOMER ON THE PLANET are LYING!?!?!?!?!?!
How about EVERY ATLAS IN THE WORLD, huh? Are they in on this great conspiracy too?????
Check NREL. They confirm those figures. 1400W/m^2 and 50N.
"You have been WRONG about this for quite long enough now. "
NREL have THE EXACT SAME NUMBERS!
1400W/m^2 and 50N.
Are you claiming they are LYING?????
You CANNOT say it's wrong because those numbers REALLY ARE TRUE!
Go look on ANY site.
It will say that the solar constant is nearly 1400W/m^2 and that the UK is about 50 degrees N. And EVERY calculator will show that this is approximately correct:
1400*cos(50)=900
NOWHERE NEAR 100!
" The difference between flat and optimum tilt (~35 degrees) on a south-facing roof is 10% (100W/m2 ---> 110W/m2)."
Wrong. Type it in on your smartphone calculator.
The Earth receives energy on its cross-sectional area, pi R^2, but it is actually a sphere, area 4 pi R^2. Therefore the top-of-atmosphere flux density is the solar constant divided by 4, 1360 / 4 => 340. With 30% reflected away (albedo), that becomes 238. Because of absorption by the atmosphere, that drops to 187 at the ground.
The 1000 figure is probably for noon at the equator (1360 x (1 - 0.3) => 952 assuming minimal absorption on a very clear day). It will vary with latitude by Lambert's cosine law. If the latitude of some part of Britain is 50 degrees North, the noon illumination will be 100 cos(50) = 643 W/m^2. The actual illumination on any day, aside from the vagaries of weather, is a complex function of latitude, time of year, and time of day. Details can be found in many books on climatology and planetary astronomy.
Sorry, I meant 1000 cos(50) above, not 100.
BP
See BPL. Yes, per every single reference the 1000W/m2 fig is an idealised calculation for noon at the equator.
If the latitude of some part of Britain is 50 degrees North, the noon illumination will be 100[0] cos(50) = 643 W/m^2
At noon on an idealised midsummer day.
Annual average insolation for horizontal surface at ~50 degrees N latitude is ~100W/m2 as any solar power reference table will confirm.
Wrong. Type it in on your smartphone calculator.
Efficiency boost for an optimally-tilted panel on a south facing roof is 10% (so 110W/m2) as any reference calculator will tell you.
Go and check instead of shouting denialist crap at me for another 100 comments.
Do it now before posting any more rubbish. This has to stop.
Thank you.
"See BPL."
See BPL. His calculations ALSO show Mackay is wrong.
"Annual average insolation for horizontal surface at ~50 degrees N latitude is ~100W/m2"
NREL SAY IT'S ~1400W. And 50N.
1400*cos(50)~900
NOWHERE NEAR 100!
ARE NREL LYING?????
BPL, your post cannot be right, since as everyone here has demonstrated time and time again, if the calculation used is accurate, there can be NO FAULT WITH THEM. And they MUST be true and that claiming the figures used are invalid is NOT acceptable, you can just go:
So you think NREL are in on the lie too?
And this PROVES the calculation is correct. NREL say it's 1400W/m^2 and a 50 degree tilt from perpendicular by EVERY CALCULATOR IN EXISTENCE gives a factor of .64, then the result of the multiplication, 900W IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
Unless you can show that NREL are lying about the TSI figure being 1400W, or that Google Maps are lying about the UK being at 50N (for the south of it), the figure I came up with is IRREFUTABLE.
What CANNOT work is saying that I'm using invalid figures because they're misapplied or not applicable for the calculation I'm doing.
That's been proven time and time again to NOT be a valid argument for a conclusion to be wrong.
You have to prove that
1400*cos(50) DOES NOT equal approximately 900.
If you come to a different value with a different calculation, this is NOT VALID. I have had this told me several times now and it is proven in the insistence of others here that this is a valid argument.
If it were not a valid argument, then they would have had a different response than "No, you're wrong" and a repeat of the same calculation that is being posited as invalid.
ARE NREL LYING?????
No, you just don't understand what is being said either by NREL or anyone else on this thread.
* * *
Why are you refusing to address the questions directly (again)?
Here's a generic reference to get you started.
First, you need to deal with your confusion about the difference between TOA and surface. See ref.
Then of the difference between equator at surface and eg. 50 deg N latitude. See ref.
Then of the difference between idealised midsummer noon and annual average. See ref.
Then of the fact that the actual increase in power per unit area achievable at optimum panel angle (35 deg) on a south facing roof in the UK is 10%. Just look it up. Here's another sample reference to get you started. Please read it.
"No, you just don't understand what is being said either by NREL"
Nope, this is wrong.
NREL says it's 1400, 1400*cos(50)+900.
Are you saying NREL is LYING????? PROVE IT!
You've been told time and time again about this, but still you lie about it and concoct some libelous claim about how NREL are wrong and that it's all fake!!!!
BP
*Hint*
You write:
1400*cos(50)~900
NOWHERE NEAR 100!
But BPL wrote:
If the latitude of some part of Britain is 50 degrees North, the noon illumination will be 1000 cos(50) = 643 W/m^2
Spot the difference yet? The difference between TOA and surface (see reference)? See it now?
That's the value for an idealised midsummer noon. The annual average value for the UK is 100W/m2. MacKay was correct.
"*Hint*
You write:
1400*cos(50)~900
NOWHERE NEAR 100!
But BPL wrote"
Sorry, where is his PhD and links to papers proving that the NREL are lying about the solar constant being 1400W/m^2?
You cannot use BPL as an authority since he disagrees with, and the calculations PROVE that it's valid, Mackay's figures of 100W/m^2.
To accept his calculations as correct is to ACCEPT Mackay's figures are wrong.
If you reject his calculations for disagreeing with Mackay's figures, you cannot use them to reject my figures by pointing to them.
Lets break this down and see where your "proof" of my error lies.
Answer each question with Yes or No:
Is the solar constant nearly 1400W/m^2
You cannot talk your way out of this.
* * *
Is the solar constant nearly 1400W/m^2
First, let's define what is meant by solar constant, because this is, I think, where you begin to go wrong.
Solar constant definition:
The solar constant (ISC) is the average radiation intensity falling on an imaginary surface, perpendicular to the Sun’s rays and at the edge of the Earth’s atmosphere (figure 2.1).
Get that? The solar constant is average equatorial insolation at the top of the atmosphere (TOA).
So yes, the solar constant as correctly defined is ~1400W/m2.
At TOA.
"So yes, the solar constant as correctly defined is ~1400W/m2."
Good. Because the proof was going to be from here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png
So, we agree, 1400W/m^2.
Do we agree that the UK can be claimed to be at latitude 50N? Yes or No.
Hold on, before we go any further, do you agree that the solar constant is explicitly, definitionally and *only* applied to the top of the atmosphere (TOA)?
Yes or no.
We already agree 1400W/m^2 is correct. That's done. Lets move on.
AGAIN:
Do we agree that the UK can be claimed to be at latitude 50N? Yes or No.
Not until you agree to include the fact that the solar constant is measured at the top of the atmosphere.
You have to say it.
The reason you have to say it is that this is at the root of where you screwed all this up.
So say it, or we go no further.
We already agree 1400W/m^2 is correct. That's done. Lets move on or we go back to you changing your mind and telling us that the physicists making charts of the solar constant are lying to support me.
Or answer the question:
Do we agree that the UK can be claimed to be at latitude 50N? Yes or No.
Why will you not explicitly state that the solar constant is ONLY applicable to the TOA?
Why are you being so evasive about this?
I will NOT continue until you clearly state here that the solar constant of ~1400W/m^2 refers specifically and ONLY to TOA.
Just say it and we can continue immediately.
Why are you being so evasive about this?
Do we agree that the UK can be claimed to be at latitude 50N? Yes or No.
This should have been the LEAST contentious question to ask, yet you're refusing to answer it.
I think you *know* that you have stuffed this up and muddled the TOA with the surface.
I think that's why you are refusing to state explicitly that solar constant only applies to TOA.
That's why I am refusing to proceed until you state explicitly that 'solar constant' valued of approx 1400W/m^2 applies only at TOA.
Prove me wrong. Say it.
Are you rescinding your agreement earlier that the Solar Constant is about 1400W/m^2?
If not, is the UK at 50N? Yes or no.
Are you rescinding your agreement earlier that the Solar Constant is about 1400W/m^2?
No, I waiting for you to stop farting around and state explicitly that 'solar constant' valued of approx 1400W/m^2 applies only at TOA.
Come on.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/United+Kingdom/@55.378051,-3.435973,4z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x25a3b1142c791a9:0xc4f8a0433288257a?dg=dbrw&newdg=1
WHY would Google Maps have set up an entire global conspiracy just so I could prove Mackay wrong on this blog?
Or are you refusing 1400W/m^2?
In which case, explain this:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_3month_640x480.png
Hmmm? Or have I changed the entire internet to further my scheme to prove Mackay wrong???
You won't say it, will you?
Because the minute you do, you know it's all over.
So tell Google that they have their maps completely wrong, then.
But before doing that, I suggest you go and learn how to find out the latitude of a location and check yourself before going and telling people who do this as their profession and sell data based on knowing where things are that they are wrong.
As I said MANY times now, it's close to 900W per square meter, nowhere near 100W.
Your petty refusal to believe the experts is your issue, not that of anyone in the real world of actual facts.
As I said MANY times now, it's close to 900W per square meter, nowhere near 100W.
Nobody - including BPL - agrees with you because you have used the TOA value instead of the surface value.
You have done this:
1400 x cos(50)
Instead of this:
1000 x cos(50)
Which is wrong.
First get that sorted out, then average for the year and you will get the correct answer, which is 100W/m^2 for the UK.
As I said, you really, really don't understand this at all.
On the other thread you have left yet another honking big bullshit lie.
"We'd have to do that for nuclear. Not renewables.
Is just plain wrong and you've had this explained to you several times now"
BZZZT.
Nope. Never. Not once.
Dinworig, remember. It was about dinworig and your asinine claim that renewables need hydrobackup. They don't. Dinworig was built to allow Windscale. And you claimed that we'd need to built them if we went renewables. We don't. EVER. And you've never claimed it before, asshat, so you couldn't have told me I was wrong before BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER MADE UP BEFORE.
"You have done this:
1400 x cos(50)"
YES. And the answer is...?
" Everyone else: We have the fossils!"
Please link to where this was said, "Serge".
1400 x cos(50)"
YES. And the answer is...?
Correct for equatorial TOA...
...but NOT for any surface value.
It's mind-boggling that you can't see what you've done despite it being pointed out so often now.
1400 x cos(50)
YES. And the answer is...?
The answer is a numerical value.
Go on, what is it? Can you tell?
Maybe if we cut to the end, since you have so much trouble working out what you do and don't agree with, and work back until we find out where your disagreement lies, since you seem unable to keep your mind on an answer.
1400*cos(50)~900
Is this value of 900 correct? Yes or no.
If no, why?
"1400*cos(90) = ZERO
Is this value of ZERO correct? Yes or no."
Yes.
See, buddy dumdum, it's easy.
Try it yourself.
Another example of the idiocy of the anti-renewable crowd is Andrew who read me saying this:
"Well if you meant literally and ONLY storage, then your comment was still bunk because we don't need seasonal storage."
And then summarised it as this:
"You are now claiming that we don't need storage."
It seemed quite a central point to his whine about how SPV was worthless. We needed SEASONAL storage. Hence a big number. Storage? We already have that. Lots of it. Never asked whether we needed storage. Only answered the claim we needed SEASONAL STORAGE, with a "No, we don't".
But by the morphology of "Interpreting it whatever the hell way I want, who gives a crap, I KNOW that renewables are shite", the word seasonal, the word that was so important before, disappears into whitespace.
See, buddy dumdum, it's easy.
Try it yourself.
A few things.
- My screen name is BBD
- I am not stupid
- I am not the person utterly incapable of seeing that they have made a fundamental error despite it being pointed out to them over and over again
- 100 x cos(50) = 642.787
- This is a maximum, noontime, summer, idealised value *not* the annual average
- 1000 x cos(50) = 642.787
When I accidentally posted to the wrong thread this morning, you shat all over me.
You are now posting stuff on this thread that should be on the other thread.
Please stop it.
How like a stupid lying politician wannabe to ignore the question asked and instead answer a different quesiton, then blame others for not asking the "right" one. E.g Trumpet's "Gotcha question" which is basically "Ask me a question".
1400*cos(50)~900
Is this value of 900 correct? Yes or no.
If no, why?
This is not difficult.
1400*cos(50)~900
Is this value of 900 correct? Yes or no.
If no, why?
This is not difficult.
It is correct for the equatorial TOP OF THE ATMOSPHERE NOT THE SURFACE.
How many times?
Dear God give me patience.
*deep breath*
As I have been saying all along, you are doing everything at TOA, **not** at the surface and that's why you are going wrong.
Let's to back to the reference. Look at fig.2.3.
Read the text:
- plane A, a horizontal plane at the point P on the Earth’s surface
- plane B, a surface parallel to plane A but on the edge of the Earth’s atmosphere, often referred to as the horizontal plane
- plane C, a surface perpendicular to the Sun’s rays, often referred to as the normal plane
You are calculating insolation at TOA for Plane B but you should be calculating for Plane A at the surface.
"When I accidentally posted to the wrong thread this morning..."
...twice.
And, no, I did not pop round and hold you down, drop my britches and defecate on you.
I DID give you a well deserved smackdown for your ignorance and duplicity that you have merely been doubling down on time and time (and time...) again here.
Unable to answer the simplest question, you blatter about making BS claims, whining about BS persecution and refusing to stick to one point if you suspect there may be a "trap".
You pretended to agree that TSI was about 1400W/m^2, but you seem unable to actually stand by that claim.
You are completely incapable of telling us whether you think the UK is at 50N or not.
And skipping to the end, you will not and apparently CANNOT, do a simple sum, preferring to do a different one instead.
And somehow your inability to do anything coherent is because you feel shat on.
1400*cos(50)~900
"Is this value of 900 correct? Yes or no.
If no, why?
This is not difficult. "
What part of "Yes or No" did you not understand?
I mean, I TRIED to let you calculate your own value for it, but no, that wasn't comprehensible to you. So I did the sum myself and then asked if you agreed with the result, and EVEN put "approximately" in there, so you hadn't set yourself to a precise answer.
I've even shown you how easy it was by demonstration with "Serge"'s attempt to make up another question.
1400*cos(50)~900
Yes or No.
Well well well. More moron from nuke fluffers from the other thread. There, apparently, John thinks that the other nuclear plants were NOT shut down, but that shutting them down (which they didn't do) was a stupid thing to have (not?) done:
"They didn't need backup for any of the other plants because they kept working. Shutting them down was a (stupid) political decision."
And also plucking some mad scheme out of think air, hoping that in rebutting this I'd annoy people for "cluttering up" the thread:
"Much of your argument about nuclear seems to be based on the premise that France doesn't exist."
None of my argument is based on that. It is as valid as claiming that Andrew's rant against renewables is based on the premise that Europe doesn't exist.
However, when it comes to France...
Shush child.
Nobody;s talking to you yet. You can say your piece after we've finished working out what Buddy dumdum's problem is, and where it's located.
So far we've taken one step forward then on that second step, suddenly he got cold feet and didn't know what yes or no meant.
So don't confuse him. He needs to concentrate.
You can have your turn later.
OK.
In the meantime you can look at the data ( GoogleMaps UK at 50N TSI~1400W/m^2) I've used. Verify or refute it yourself, and when buddy's stopped drooling, we can get on to what you found there.
Well BP, I have explained your simple mistake to you enough times now and backed it up with references. I've even shown you a schematic illustrating exactly where you went wrong (fig. 2.3).
You are either too stupid or too crazy to understand how this works.
So, here's what we do.
I dismiss you as the hopeless case that you clearly are and you carry on with bullshit as usual.
Meanwhile, the solar constant continues to apply only at TOA. Trying to apply the value to surface insolation as you are doing is, was and forever more will be wrong.
Amen.
You pretended to agree that TSI was about 1400W/m^2, but you seem unable to actually stand by that claim.
NO!
The solar constant is about 1400W/m^2.
The solar constant.
Total solar insolation at the surface IS NOT the solar constant.
Terminology matters. The difference between TOA and surface matters.
It's the difference between right and head up arse.
You are acting as if the atmosphere is completely transparent, no absorption, no reflection, no scatter.
It isn't.
Can't you see what you've done? Really?
Really?
" Well BP, I have explained..."
Yet never actually answered the questions that were really very, very simple. I know what your problem is here.
Denialism.
*Exactly* the same as claiming the temperature record is faked.
Data sources.
GoogleMaps UK at 50N
TSI~1400W/m^2
Show us all why all this data is wrong. Go on. Next comment. Facts only. No more denialist ranting. Get on with it.
If you feel that my comment above is somehow not a suitable proof of the accuracy of my claims, please explain CLEARLY why.
I really would LOVE to hear it.
If you are unable to, then you have proven that you cannot manage this task and your bluster is shown up for the vapid empty rhetoric it surely is.
I;m talking to Buddy, dear. wait your turn.
Did you do your homework, by the way? No rush yet, but you wouldn't want to put it off till the last minute would you?
TOA
NOT
SURFACE
IDIOT
Show us all why all that data is wrong. Go on. Next comment. Facts only. No more denialist ranting. Get on with it.
If you feel that my comment above is somehow not a suitable proof of the accuracy of my claims, please explain CLEARLY why.
I really would LOVE to hear it.
If you are unable to, then you have proven that you cannot manage this task and your bluster is shown up for the vapid empty rhetoric it surely is.
Was there something you didn't understand there?
I've told you this multiple times now, but it appears that your intransigent idiocy refuses to budge off its denialist ranting.
You have not found an error in my data.
You have not found an error in my calculation.
Screaming "IDIOT" is not a proof that I'm an idiot.
Your failure to prove either an error in my data OR in my calculation, OR explain why I'm wrong, proves you are unable to rationally disprove my case.
Screaming "IDIOT" really doesn't do anything to undermine that conclusion.
Rather confirms it, really. Explains why you're so in love with nuclear and so very much in denial of this fact.
Rather than burst your bloodvessels in your rage-out against something you cannot explain, how about we try to find the problem again, hmmm?
Lets ignore my conclusions for the moment. We will not address them.
These are the absolute facts as they are:
You have not found an error in my data.
You have not found an error in my calculation.
Can you confirm that the data I supplied DOES show that the solar irradiance is nearly 1400W/m^2 and that the UK can be said to lie 50N?
Can you confirm that the calculation done IS correct for converting 1400W/m^2 coming from the sun falling on a unit area that is tilted by 50 degrees from perpendicular to the sun's rays.
Remember, NOT talking about my conclusions here.
Can you confirm that there is no error in either the data proving the two numbers I used nor the numerical value of the calculation that provides the reduction necessary to turn an intensity per unit area at the equator to the intensity per unit area at 50N.
I have to go in VERY SMALL chunks, baby steps, because you seem unable to manage any longer step without screaming "IDIOT!" which really doesn't answer anything, only raises queries about your sanity and mental stability.
Buddy DumDum, unable to recognize that his country (the UK) is not a third world nation, insists on there this idiocy:
"No, oh Clueless One, it indicates that we cannot run the grid without adequate backup."
Therefore something that is completely uncosted for is ADEQUATE BACKUP in our CURRENT (nearly renewable free) network.
Since his original distemper-induced whine was how backup wasn't costed for renewables, this really DOES negate THAT problem with it too.
So we have removed:
a) Power density problems, since we have reduced that by over 2/3rds
b) Cost of backup infrastructure, since that exists for ALL power systems, including the one we currently have. Ergo a 1-all draw.
Since we have also calculated that it's several times cheaper to just overproduce on renewables than to produce unreliable nuclear, we have ALSO lost
c) It doesn't produce near as much energy in winter as it does in summer. Since all we have to do is build double. Still leaves us at significantly less land use than Mackay thought the maximum acceptable amount.
So Mackay's conclusions no longer hold true or are mooted by being a common problem in a national grid run for the benefit of the companies selling energy.
It IS rather ironic that Buddy DumDum here calls me "Clueless" when he has patently missed the point of the failure of our current system: it's uncosted and widely ignored backup requirements. A future that has this "problem" is in no way an impediment of having a national grid based on that future.
Clue abounded. None was noted by Buddy DumDum.
Irony went up to 11.
You have not found an error in my calculation.
Yes I have, you idiot.
For the hundredth time: you have used the solar constant instead of surface insolation.
Wrong-o.
Buddy DumDum, "Fuck off, you cretin." is not a substantive answer to, well, ANY question at all.
Your denialism, having found that screaming "IDIOT!" doesn't work has tried intemperate demands. Can death threats be far behind?
" You have not found an error in my calculation.
Yes I have, you idiot."
So you claim that 1400 times the cosine of 50 degrees is NOT approximately 900?
Is that what you're claiming?
So you claim that 1400 times the cosine of 50 degrees is NOT approximately 900?
Is that what you're claiming?
Of course not.
Were you to read what I have written ~100 times or so above, you would know *exactly* why I object to your use of the TOA solar constant value when you should be using the surface insolation value.
Anyway, since you are determined to proceed with the TOA value, go ahead. Next step.
Over to you...
" So you claim that 1400 times the cosine of 50 degrees is NOT approximately 900?
Is that what you're claiming?
Of course not."
OK, so the calculation isn't wrong. The data isn't wrong, what is the problem?
"why I object to your use of the TOA solar constant value when you should be using the surface insolation value."
So you're saying that the facts aren't wrong, they just aren't the correct ones to use in my conclusion?
Is that correct?
Yes!
So you're saying that the facts aren't wrong, they just aren't the correct ones to use in my conclusion?
Is that correct?
10/9/15 1:25 AM
Blogger BBD said...
Yes!
So why (and when!) did you change your mind about this?
Because every time you've been told that Mackay is wrong with his 10W/m^2 figure, you point to the data from which he calculated 10W/m^2 and thought this entirely 100% fine. IOW an invalid set of data being used DOES NOT cause the conclusion to be false.
Yet when I have presented a table that shows my calculation is correct and results in 900W/m^2, the proof that TSI is 1400W/m^2 is not enough. IOW an invalid set of data being used DOES cause the conclusion to be false.
Why, and when, did your opinion on this change?
Because every time you've been told that Mackay is wrong with his 10W/m^2 figure, you point to the data from which he calculated 10W/m^2 and thought this entirely 100% fine.
I don't understand you. The data MacKay uses and the calculation are correct.
Yet when I have presented a table that shows my calculation is correct and results in 900W/m^2, the proof that TSI is 1400W/m^2 is not enough
I repeat: the solar constant is 1400 W/m^2 (agreed) at the top of the atmosphere (*important*)
BUT
Solar irradiance at the surface (TSI) is a different thing altogether yet you are treating them as if they were interchangeable and they are not.
I don't understand why you cannot see this.
Can you explain what you don't understand about what I have just written and I will try to clarify.
"I don't understand you. The data MacKay uses and the calculation are correct."
The data I used and the calculation are correct. You even agreed with me they were!
So you're saying that the facts aren't wrong...
Is that correct?
10/9/15 1:25 AM
Blogger BBD said...
Yes!
So, we're back to this:
TSI=1400
UK=50N
Solar power density at the UK: 900W/m^2.
I did not fabricate the empirical data I simply reported it. AND I provided sources, which I have already linked to twice but will do so again...
GoogleMaps UK at 50N
TSI~1400W/m^2
Or are you accusing me of fabricating the data? Because if not, you are making a specious argument. The data are what they are, as I keep on telling you. Your denial of matters of fact is irritating.
No, BP, you are still treating the solar constant and insolation at the earth's surface as if they were the same. That would require that the atmosphere was utterly transparent to solar energy - no absorption, no reflection, no scattering - nothing. Now you know that this isn't the case, so can you see now why you can't simply use the top of the atmosphere value of 900 W/m^2 for the surface energy value?
Let's use a reference (but I encourage you to find another one to corroborate what I am saying). Look at fig.2.3.
Look at the text:
- plane A, a horizontal plane at the point P on the Earth’s surface
- plane B, a surface parallel to plane A but on the edge of the Earth’s atmosphere, often referred to as the horizontal plane
- plane C, a surface perpendicular to the Sun’s rays, often referred to as the normal plane
Okay, now look carefully at the diagram again.
You are calculating insolation at TOA for Plane B but you should be calculating for Plane A at the surface.
Do you see the difference now? One has to take account for the attenuation of solar energy as it passes through the atmosphere to reach the surface. Absorption, reflection, scatter. Much is lost on the way down, which is why you *don't* get a peak value of 900 W/m^2 for the UK.
AGAIN.
I did not fabricate the empirical data I simply reported it. AND I provided sources, which I have already linked to twice but will do so again...
GoogleMaps UK at 50N
TSI~1400W/m^2
Or are you accusing me of fabricating the data? Because if not, you are making a specious argument. The data are what they are, as I keep on telling you. Your denial of matters of fact is irritating.
This argument has been given on this thread OVER SIX DAYS AGO!!!
Go check for yourself.
4/9/15 12:53 AM
On this thread. SIX DAYS LATER and STILL people refuse to accept this as proof! DENIAL PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
I did not fabricate the empirical data
I know you didn't!
I've never accused you of that!
All I have ever said is that you are making a mistake - a methodological error.
Please read what I wrote above again. There are no accusations of fabrication anywhere.
" I did not fabricate the empirical data
I know you didn't!"
Then your argument is specious! The data are what they are, as I keep on telling you. Your denial of matters of fact is irritating.
And the result is 900W/m^2
"All I have ever said is that you are making a mistake - a methodological error."
All I and BPL has said is that Mackay is making a mistake - a methodological error.
Yet your ONLY argument to refuse this is "MacKay did not fabricate the empirical data he simply collated it. AND he provided sources" and "The data are what they are" and referring back to the data he collected "tables 1 - 3 MacKay (2013).".
Here is the data for 1400W/m^2
This is either something you must prove fake OR accept that the use of a data set to draw a conclusion must be justified.
Then your argument is specious! The data are what they are, as I keep on telling you. Your denial of matters of fact is irritating.
And the result is 900W/m^2
But not at the surface. At TOA. Up to 70% of solar energy is lost on the way through the atmosphere. This greatly reduces the actual energy reaching the surface And THAT is the energy that is incident on a solar array so THAT is the basis for calculations of array power per unit area.
Why can't you see what you've done wrong?
It's. So. Simple.
Are you accusing me of fabricating the data? Because if not, you are making a specious argument. The data are what they are, as I keep on telling you. Your denial of matters of fact is irritating.
it IS 900W, not 10.
The data is correct. End of story.
Buddy DumDum, YOU believe that argument you're now turning to to be *spurious* and YOU insist that the ONLY method to validly refute a calculation is to prove the data that went into that calculation was fabricated.
You CANNOT claim that it works only when you do it and expect anyone to accept it. That you still try it against the multitude of evidence and the huge reams of laws of logical inference that indicate the fallacy is why you're ABSOLUTELY named Buddy DumDum.
Are you accusing me of fabricating the data?
No, I've already said that I'm not doing that.
I *am* going to say that you are too stupid / insane to comment on this topic because despite repeated hand-holding explanations you remain incapable of grasping essential concepts.
it IS 900W, not 10.
You don't know what you mean by 'it'.
It's almost as if you believe that I invented the data rather than simply acquired it from the relevant sources.
PS, I'm TOTALLY going to steal this
I *am* going to say that you are too stupid / insane to comment on this topic because despite repeated hand-holding explanations you remain incapable of grasping essential concepts.
next time you trot out table 3 or Mackay's book as proof it's 10W.
Reuse is better for the environment than recycling.
Post a Comment