Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
I saw a quote from one of the local experts that said, in summary, that you can't justify the costs of building an infrastructure (in this case the subject was pylons to withstand extreme storms or alternatives to them) compared to taking a chance on losing a few hours or days of power supply on very rare occasions.
It's an argument that has some merit taken in isolation.
However, given the reliance that we have these days on electrical power - much more so than when many existing core grid infrastructures were designed and engineered - it may be pertinent to look at the options available to make the system more robust at a relatively local level. Obviously they are doing that, hence the connectors to out of state coal fired generation that would seem to be intended to allow SA to claim renewable kudos without carry the full consequences of the risks.
The problem clearly become more acute and less predictable (in the context of a rare storm or similar) if the challenge you face goes beyond the exposed connection infrastructure (the pylons in this case) and effects supply sources.
Once you get to the point that the supply is inherently unstable in terms of the consistency of output that needs to be managed to keep the supply network operational without risk of catastrophic failure, you run the risk of the whole network crashing with a domino effect. That seems likely to be what happened in SA.
In the UK, historically, when failures of that sort occur (and they do so for many reasons) the problem is generally contained on a fairly local basis as a result of the way the grid has evolved/is designed.
Randomly adding significant capacity that come and go more or less instantly (in electricity grid management terms) presents some special challenges especially if synchronous supply and the benefits of spinning "flywheels" (conceptually and physically) that help to stabilize grid frequency have been lost or become unavailable.
When the fossil units were distributed around the areas of demand, as they once were in the UK even more so than today, the total system is better able to withstand economically unpreventable perturbations such as storm damage. Each "cell" will likely have some in built resilience that will allow the engineers to keep it operational or at least minimise down time and localise that to relatively small areas. Hopefully.
If the mix moves away from that capability and starts to rely on a few key connectors things change and one has to decide what the acceptable level of failure will then be and thus the risk cost analysis changes. The SA event will provide a real case study that can be fed back into the risk analysis model in order to reassess the financial assumptions that dictate investment and set the standards available for guarantee of supply.
The interesting thing is that Oz has recently had some well publicized issues with supplies related to a focus on renewables.
Tasmania is, much of the time, entirely self sufficient in electirity generation from Hydro sources. But it's not 100% at all times to they have some "fossil" generation capacity and then the "Bass Link" that connects Tasmania with the State of Victoria. Good for both states one assumes.
But the Bass Link broke and it was many months before it could be fixed.
Now one might assume that would be little problem for Tasmania with their huge Hydro capacity but is seems the reservoir level were low because the Bass Link, when operational, had allowed Tasmania to generate power quite cheaply and sell it to Victoria. Quite good business for the state and its power business.
Unfortunately that period happened to coincide with a drought in Tasmania - a fairly frequent but irregular occurrence - so reservoir levels dropped. No problem while the Bass Link was operational - that is exactly why it had been created. Not so good when it was not available.
They ended up having to eke out the Hydro supplies and fall back on the fossil backup facility, fortunately still mothballed rather then demolished, to get through the months of broken link and continuing drought.
That was a very recent event so the lessons, if any, that might make those in SA think a bit would not have had an opportunity to influence policy and decision making up to now. But putting all of Tasmania and SA experience together may be very useful for future planning in an increasing "renewable" era where the source of supply is, at best, difficult to manage and unlikely to be guaranteed to the degree that modern electricity deployment requires.
The final strategic decisions, of course, are entirely in the hands of the politicians.
It's an argument that has some merit taken in isolation.
However, given the reliance that we have these days on electrical power - much more so than when many existing core grid infrastructures were designed and engineered - it may be pertinent to look at the options available to make the system more robust at a relatively local level. Obviously they are doing that, hence the connectors to out of state coal fired generation that would seem to be intended to allow SA to claim renewable kudos without carry the full consequences of the risks.
The problem clearly become more acute and less predictable (in the context of a rare storm or similar) if the challenge you face goes beyond the exposed connection infrastructure (the pylons in this case) and effects supply sources.
Once you get to the point that the supply is inherently unstable in terms of the consistency of output that needs to be managed to keep the supply network operational without risk of catastrophic failure, you run the risk of the whole network crashing with a domino effect. That seems likely to be what happened in SA.
In the UK, historically, when failures of that sort occur (and they do so for many reasons) the problem is generally contained on a fairly local basis as a result of the way the grid has evolved/is designed.
Randomly adding significant capacity that come and go more or less instantly (in electricity grid management terms) presents some special challenges especially if synchronous supply and the benefits of spinning "flywheels" (conceptually and physically) that help to stabilize grid frequency have been lost or become unavailable.
When the fossil units were distributed around the areas of demand, as they once were in the UK even more so than today, the total system is better able to withstand economically unpreventable perturbations such as storm damage. Each "cell" will likely have some in built resilience that will allow the engineers to keep it operational or at least minimise down time and localise that to relatively small areas. Hopefully.
If the mix moves away from that capability and starts to rely on a few key connectors things change and one has to decide what the acceptable level of failure will then be and thus the risk cost analysis changes. The SA event will provide a real case study that can be fed back into the risk analysis model in order to reassess the financial assumptions that dictate investment and set the standards available for guarantee of supply.
The interesting thing is that Oz has recently had some well publicized issues with supplies related to a focus on renewables.
Tasmania is, much of the time, entirely self sufficient in electirity generation from Hydro sources. But it's not 100% at all times to they have some "fossil" generation capacity and then the "Bass Link" that connects Tasmania with the State of Victoria. Good for both states one assumes.
But the Bass Link broke and it was many months before it could be fixed.
Now one might assume that would be little problem for Tasmania with their huge Hydro capacity but is seems the reservoir level were low because the Bass Link, when operational, had allowed Tasmania to generate power quite cheaply and sell it to Victoria. Quite good business for the state and its power business.
Unfortunately that period happened to coincide with a drought in Tasmania - a fairly frequent but irregular occurrence - so reservoir levels dropped. No problem while the Bass Link was operational - that is exactly why it had been created. Not so good when it was not available.
They ended up having to eke out the Hydro supplies and fall back on the fossil backup facility, fortunately still mothballed rather then demolished, to get through the months of broken link and continuing drought.
That was a very recent event so the lessons, if any, that might make those in SA think a bit would not have had an opportunity to influence policy and decision making up to now. But putting all of Tasmania and SA experience together may be very useful for future planning in an increasing "renewable" era where the source of supply is, at best, difficult to manage and unlikely to be guaranteed to the degree that modern electricity deployment requires.
The final strategic decisions, of course, are entirely in the hands of the politicians.
turbobloke said:
"One of the main lines of evidence used by the Obama administration to justify its global warming regulations doesn’t exist in the real world, according to a new report by climate researchers."
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/22/the-fingerprint-...
Also...has Lovelock recanted before? If so he's done it again. If not, he's done it now...due to growing up, he claims at almost 100 years of age.
"Fracking is great, the green movement is a religion, his dire predictions about climate change were nonsense – and robots don’t mind the heat, so what does it matter? At 97, the creator of Gaia theory is as mischievous and subversive as ever."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/3...
Despite being an enthusiast of nuclear power he hasn't bothered to inform himself of salient facts, like there being a lot more than 100 years of uranium and thousands of years of thorium.http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/22/the-fingerprint-...
Also...has Lovelock recanted before? If so he's done it again. If not, he's done it now...due to growing up, he claims at almost 100 years of age.
"Fracking is great, the green movement is a religion, his dire predictions about climate change were nonsense – and robots don’t mind the heat, so what does it matter? At 97, the creator of Gaia theory is as mischievous and subversive as ever."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/3...
hidetheelephants said:
turbobloke said:
"One of the main lines of evidence used by the Obama administration to justify its global warming regulations doesn’t exist in the real world, according to a new report by climate researchers."
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/22/the-fingerprint-...
Also...has Lovelock recanted before? If so he's done it again. If not, he's done it now...due to growing up, he claims at almost 100 years of age.
"Fracking is great, the green movement is a religion, his dire predictions about climate change were nonsense – and robots don’t mind the heat, so what does it matter? At 97, the creator of Gaia theory is as mischievous and subversive as ever."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/3...
Despite being an enthusiast of nuclear power he hasn't bothered to inform himself of salient facts, like there being a lot more than 100 years of uranium and thousands of years of thorium.http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/22/the-fingerprint-...
Also...has Lovelock recanted before? If so he's done it again. If not, he's done it now...due to growing up, he claims at almost 100 years of age.
"Fracking is great, the green movement is a religion, his dire predictions about climate change were nonsense – and robots don’t mind the heat, so what does it matter? At 97, the creator of Gaia theory is as mischievous and subversive as ever."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/3...
So now they're going for HFCs , lucky the planet isn't warming as keeping cool is going to be a bit more expensive soon in the west at least!!! we are going to phase out gases like R134a which is used in car and building A/C systems from 2019 and as its only right China and india about 20 years later !!! oh well onwards and upwards...
powerstroke said:
So now they're going for HFCs , lucky the planet isn't warming as keeping cool is going to be a bit more expensive soon in the west at least!!! we are going to phase out gases like R134a which is used in car and building A/C systems from 2019 and as its only right China and india about 20 years later !!! oh well onwards and upwards...
HFC phased out. Global cooling begins. Thank you policymakers/climate scientists.powerstroke said:
So now they're going for HFCs , lucky the planet isn't warming as keeping cool is going to be a bit more expensive soon in the west at least!!! we are going to phase out gases like R134a which is used in car and building A/C systems from 2019 and as its only right China and india about 20 years later !!! oh well onwards and upwards...
Climate change: 'Monumental' deal to cut HFCs, fastest growing greenhouse gaseshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3766...
More than 150 countries have reached a deal described as "monumental" to phase out gases that are making global warming worse.
Hydroflurocarbons (HFCs) are widely used in fridges, air conditioning and aerosol sprays.
Delegates meeting in Rwanda accepted a complex amendment to the Montreal Protocol that will see richer countries cut back their HFC use from 2019.
But some critics say the compromise may have less impact than expected.
US Secretary of State John Kerry, who helped forge the deal in a series of meetings in the Rwandan capital, said it was a major victory for the Earth.
"It's a monumental step forward, that addresses the needs of individual nations but it will give us the opportunity to reduce the warming of the planet by an entire half a degree centigrade," he told BBC News
Can they proove that ?
Energy subsidies should focus on storage and cutting demand, MPs say
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37664880
Subsidies to reduce the risk of blackouts must focus on energy storage schemes and cutting demand instead of "dirty diesel", MPs have urged.
Currently, power providers are paid to ensure electricity is available to the grid to meet future demand.
But the Energy and Climate Change Committee said current policy favoured diesel generators over smart technology that stores power and reduces demand.
This technology could save billions of pounds for consumers, it said.
Er, shouldn't they have thought about this at the begging ? Of course, they’re not very embarrassed about all those extremely expensive, polluting diesel generators thumping away are they ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37664880
Subsidies to reduce the risk of blackouts must focus on energy storage schemes and cutting demand instead of "dirty diesel", MPs have urged.
Currently, power providers are paid to ensure electricity is available to the grid to meet future demand.
But the Energy and Climate Change Committee said current policy favoured diesel generators over smart technology that stores power and reduces demand.
This technology could save billions of pounds for consumers, it said.
Er, shouldn't they have thought about this at the begging ? Of course, they’re not very embarrassed about all those extremely expensive, polluting diesel generators thumping away are they ?
robinessex said:
Energy subsidies should focus on storage and cutting demand, MPs say
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37664880
Subsidies to reduce the risk of blackouts must focus on energy storage schemes and cutting demand instead of "dirty diesel", MPs have urged.
Currently, power providers are paid to ensure electricity is available to the grid to meet future demand.
But the Energy and Climate Change Committee said current policy favoured diesel generators over smart technology that stores power and reduces demand.
This technology could save billions of pounds for consumers, it said.
Er, shouldn't they have thought about this at the begging ? Of course, they’re not very embarrassed about all those extremely expensive, polluting diesel generators thumping away are they ?
And exactly what is that technology in the context of the UK?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37664880
Subsidies to reduce the risk of blackouts must focus on energy storage schemes and cutting demand instead of "dirty diesel", MPs have urged.
Currently, power providers are paid to ensure electricity is available to the grid to meet future demand.
But the Energy and Climate Change Committee said current policy favoured diesel generators over smart technology that stores power and reduces demand.
This technology could save billions of pounds for consumers, it said.
Er, shouldn't they have thought about this at the begging ? Of course, they’re not very embarrassed about all those extremely expensive, polluting diesel generators thumping away are they ?
I mean something presented precisely with well researched cost benefit analysis and a timeline for how it will achieve what people claim it will achieve with no unreported side effects.
No arm waving, smoke or mirrors and random projections 100 years into the future.
No assumptions that "something will turn up to save the day".
Smart technology that reduces demand is otherwise knowm as smart metering. A smart meter can limit the power available to any site which has one fitted, anywhere from ambient to zero and points inbetween, instantly lowering what politicians call demand as they're thinking about power generation - but it's actually limiting supply to a level that their 'planning' can cope with.
turbobloke said:
Smart technology that reduces demand is otherwise knowm as smart metering. A smart meter can limit the power to any site which has one fitted, instantly lowering what politicians call demand as they're thinking about power generation - but it's actually limiting supply.
Indeed. Or it's manipulating a market depending on what the things can eventually do (once they have become mandated for every electricity supply point for example.)
But I was thinking more about the storage technologies that these politicians seem to think will miraculously appear and save the day.
Such development might well occur at some point. Or they might not, at least not on the scale required.
Yet it seems that the "lawmaking masses" are all herding to the same ideas and committing spending as well as assuming benefits for m "carbon" output control policies, that are unproven in any practical respect.
That's not unusual in itself. Humans have always chased unrealistic objective in their attempts to gain power and wealth.
However, to seek only "clean" electricity and ignore the consequences of erratic supply that comes with the supposedly "free" energy source seems to me to be high risk. Once absolutely everything is reliant on electricity being available 24/7/365 the consequences of lack of power are likely to be acute. Possibly extremely acute.
In the meantime the new technologies emerging will be merely interim developments, come and gone video tape timescales at best, Intel processor working life spans at worst.
Yet to introduce them the "lawmakers" are scrapping many recent technology items much earlier than is necessary from an engineering point of view.
As this a motoring based web site lets think of cars.
Some time in the 90s we got to a point when manufacturers introduced greatly improved manufacturing processes for steels and engineering enabling a vehicle to have a much extended life expectation whether measured by time or distance covered. The concept extended, leaving aside the manufacturer's likely desires for planned obsolescence, for some years and means we have some vehicles today that could last a very long time in productive use.
The "lawmakers" however, chasing bright and shiny new windmills to tilt it, started to introduce legislation that makes long term cost effectiveness unlikely to be attractive and thus the "CO2 burn", for want of a better badge for my point, is a front end "cost" that offers returns over about 8 years rather than the 16 or more years which are entirely possible.
By "cost" here I am thinking manufacturing and distribution. I doubt that any claims of greater efficiency and lower CO2 output will come close to bridging the gap with he "lost" benefit from using a product for only half of its potential life.
Of course that concept - one of real resource "best use" - is of no interest to a car manufacturer's bottom line nor, therefore, to the Boards decision makers.
Thus any legally created changes that will likely shorten the life of a product and improve the replacement sale opportunity will be welcomed n the boardrooms of the world. Whether they actually deliver on the concepts that spawned them is anyone's guess. It's not the sort of metric that I would expect anyone responsible for the developments to want to see measured and made public.
In reality the mandates on technology changes for "ecological" reasons, when supported by some sort of environmental panic stirring, become vanity projects for "lawmakers" and mandated obsolescence programs for manufacturers.
On that basis the likelihood that they achieve the wonderous objectives set out for them seem to me to be very low. More likely negative. But I doubt we will ever see any figures that will tell us how things worked out in the real world.
The concept of "carbon" reduction seems to be that we make stuff that "releases carbon" now in order to cut outputs in subsequent years. There is no obvious followup to make sure that those cuts are achieved and proved effective. Indeed the chances are that before the products and savings concepts get close to their end-of-life they will have been mandated out of use or service costs have been ramped up so far that they are scrapped early. As in the case of vehicles.
In other case, where subsidies and price guarantees are involved, they may deliver nothing at all in terms of claimed "real benefits" before the "lawmakers" move the goalposts once again.
If that continues we will have a policy of perpetual cycle of "carbon consumption" now for claimed savings later despite the apparent need to "do something" immediately. Does "immediately" mean this year or in 30 years from now, perhaps, if no other schemes are dreamed up in the meantime?
And will the rush to an "unproven renewables" future actually result in lots of expensive "dirty diesel" generation plants being required for years to come as the only rapid response solution to and energy consumption need that lacks the main plant resources required to satisfy demand on demand?
We really should be told. But that won't happen.
UK government 'short' on climate target
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3763...
The UK's official advisers have issued a sombre assessment of government plans to hold climate change at a safe level.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) says the government is not on track to meet its pledge of cutting emissions 80% by 2050.
And they controversially warn ministers to park their recent ambition to tighten carbon reduction targets to protect vulnerable nations.
Ministers say they are determined to tackle climate change.They say they will publish new policies soon.
They support the Paris Agreement on climate which commits to holding temperature rise to 2C - preferably 1.5C.
But the committee is warning the government not to run before it has proved that it can walk.
They controversially advise ministers not to adopt stricter targets for the moment, even though poor nations say they are essential.
The report states: "Do not set new UK emissions targets now. The UK already has stretching targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Are the cracks beginnining to show ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3763...
The UK's official advisers have issued a sombre assessment of government plans to hold climate change at a safe level.
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) says the government is not on track to meet its pledge of cutting emissions 80% by 2050.
And they controversially warn ministers to park their recent ambition to tighten carbon reduction targets to protect vulnerable nations.
Ministers say they are determined to tackle climate change.They say they will publish new policies soon.
They support the Paris Agreement on climate which commits to holding temperature rise to 2C - preferably 1.5C.
But the committee is warning the government not to run before it has proved that it can walk.
They controversially advise ministers not to adopt stricter targets for the moment, even though poor nations say they are essential.
The report states: "Do not set new UK emissions targets now. The UK already has stretching targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Are the cracks beginnining to show ?
Edited by robinessex on Saturday 15th October 21:40
It seems the Met Office has issued a report that, when interpreted by the "media", has them predicting winter weather a year ahead with 62% accuracy using their new super-duper-expensive computer system.
The Telegraph reports it thus.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/17/met-...
And the Mail thus.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-384...
To my mind neither "report" has any journalistic merit.
The 62% claim may not be what the headline would like people to think it is (even though 62% is actually damn close to 50% and so much the same as taking a guess.)
Interestingly somewhere in one or both of the reports - I really can't face reading them again - they make a claim that the previous computer system was 65% accurate for something.
So they have shelled out £93M (Telegraph) or £100M (Mail) for something that is less accurate than its predecessor? Great!
(Yes I realise that the comparison is most likely utterly meaningless from every angle - but the journalists, it seems, don't.)
Normally I would have expected this to be content for the Science thread ... but really it just isn't.
The Telegraph reports it thus.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/17/met-...
And the Mail thus.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-384...
To my mind neither "report" has any journalistic merit.
The 62% claim may not be what the headline would like people to think it is (even though 62% is actually damn close to 50% and so much the same as taking a guess.)
Interestingly somewhere in one or both of the reports - I really can't face reading them again - they make a claim that the previous computer system was 65% accurate for something.
So they have shelled out £93M (Telegraph) or £100M (Mail) for something that is less accurate than its predecessor? Great!
(Yes I realise that the comparison is most likely utterly meaningless from every angle - but the journalists, it seems, don't.)
Normally I would have expected this to be content for the Science thread ... but really it just isn't.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff