(08-25-2019 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-24-2019 11:03 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-24-2019 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-24-2019 03:03 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(08-24-2019 02:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  That's one group's opinion. I've seen others that say the opposite, not so much about 2018 and 2019, but primarily that the reduction since 1990 has been greater than that states. It's an uncertain target, and slight variations in methodology can produce differing results.
ETA: For example, this chart from EPA shows significant decline since 2005, and current levels back at about 1990 levels, which I think was the goal of either Kyoto or Paris (not going to look it up, you can and will correct me if I'm wrong).
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/index.html#allsectors/allgas/econsect/all

That graph (which again stops at 2017) shows we're doing well in reducing the electricity and industry emissions, but horrible in transportation (+22 pct.) and agriculture (+9 pct). I think we need to work harder on trying to get employees working at home and getting incentives to use mass transit where available.

But we are doing well in total, which is what really matters. Of course, the big reason is that fracking has produced a lot of cheap natural gas which is replacing coal. There is also a lot more wind in places like Texas that have deregulated electric utilities. Deregulation is absolutely essential for the economics of renewable energies to work. Texas now leads the US in wind generation.

Drove to Corpus down I-37 2 weeks ago. When we passed the giant wind farm just north of Corpus every single wind turbine as far as we could see (100s) was dead stopped. Figured short-term problem, right? Drove back up I-37 five days later. All wind turbines still dead stopped. All I could think was thank goodness for fossil fuels, and what a massive waste of capital.

Using an anecdote as evidence of the unreliability of wind isn’t super compelling when wind was the 2nd largest producer of energy in the state of Texas for the first half of the year (behind natural gas).

https://www.kut.org/post/texas-has-generated-more-electricity-wind-coal-so-far-year

I make that drive quite a bit right now for work and see the turbines near Corpus churning frequently.

(08-25-2019 07:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Okay, here's a map of the states of Brazil. What's described as the Mato Grosso Plateau on the map you linked is more like the states of Minas Gerais and Goias. With the states in their proper places, I will stand by my prior comments.



The state of Mato Grosso is the area to the north and west of the Mato Grosso plateau on the map you linked, where as you noted most of the fires appear to be. What does seem noteworthy is what appears to be the rather small number of fires in Amazonas and Para. I'm not certain about Rondonia, because it's not entirely clear on the fire diagram where Rondonia starts and Bolivia stops. There do appear to be quite a few fires in Bolivia.

(08-25-2019 10:34 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  It's kinda cool that there are two states named Rio Grande, after two different (but certainly grand) rivers.

(08-26-2019 06:29 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/26/why-everything-they-say-about-the-amazon-including-that-its-the-lungs-of-the-world-is-wrong/#48496c995bde
A pretty fair look at the Brazil fires. It brings up a lot of points that much of what has been mentioned in the news (including some things I have said about our planet's atmosphere losing oxygen) isn't true. It's an interesting read.

(08-25-2019 09:56 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-24-2019 11:03 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-24-2019 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-24-2019 03:03 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  That graph (which again stops at 2017) shows we're doing well in reducing the electricity and industry emissions, but horrible in transportation (+22 pct.) and agriculture (+9 pct). I think we need to work harder on trying to get employees working at home and getting incentives to use mass transit where available.

But we are doing well in total, which is what really matters. Of course, the big reason is that fracking has produced a lot of cheap natural gas which is replacing coal. There is also a lot more wind in places like Texas that have deregulated electric utilities. Deregulation is absolutely essential for the economics of renewable energies to work. Texas now leads the US in wind generation.

Drove to Corpus down I-37 2 weeks ago. When we passed the giant wind farm just north of Corpus every single wind turbine as far as we could see (100s) was dead stopped. Figured short-term problem, right? Drove back up I-37 five days later. All wind turbines still dead stopped. All I could think was thank goodness for fossil fuels, and what a massive waste of capital.

Using an anecdote as evidence of the unreliability of wind isn’t super compelling when wind was the 2nd largest producer of energy in the state of Texas for the first half of the year (behind natural gas).

https://www.kut.org/post/texas-has-generated-more-electricity-wind-coal-so-far-year

I make that drive quite a bit right now for work and see the turbines near Corpus churning frequently.

And using your own anecdotal evidence proves your point?

Where did I say wind power was unreliable? I just found it surprising and disturbing that that much capital investment was sitting completely idle on the 2 days within a week that I drove by. Maybe there was a problem, maybe everyone’s Tesla was fully charged.

I too have seen them churning away many times which made the sight of all of them completely still on 2 windy, hot and humid days very strange.

(08-26-2019 10:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  One thing I have noticed about the wind mills - they always turn at the same speed regardless of how fast the wind is blowing. Maybe one of you engineers/economists could tell me why?

(08-23-2019 06:25 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Yes, really. If he wants post office employees to start policing our Fentanyl shipments on their own, he's insane. He's also said recently he is the chosen one, joked (I guess) about serving 10 or 14 more years instead of 6, and also at least twice said Jews who vote Democrat are being disloyal.

Quote:His supporters claim he's just pushing the buttons so to speak of Democrats when he tweets out something outlandish. But I think they are giving him way, way too much credit. He's just an egomaniac and a bully who can't stand to be criticized. IMO, most of his tweets are done with anger, and have no elaborate, long-term goal in mind.

Quote:And in all sincerity I am seeing some signs of senility in his speeches. People like to talk about Biden's mental capacity (which is fair based on the number of gaffes he's prone to). But Trump is no spring chicken either, and he's been slurring his words too on occasion in recent speeches. It's not all the time, but I think it's fair to wonder if he's going to be able to serve well into his upper 70's. If you want, I'll try to find his speech the other day where he was slurring words left and right (and we know he wasn't drunk because he doesn't drink - maybe he was jacked up on some medication but that's the only excuse I can think of that doesn't involve age).

(08-25-2019 11:14 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I think all we can do is lead by example.

Expanding on that a bit, it's sort of like the story The Three Little Pigs. We're the pig who can build his house out of stone, China is the pig building his house out of sticks and India is the pig building his house out of straw (don't even ask me what Africa is doing). Climate change is the Big Bad Wolf. I think eventually the other pigs will come running to us for help. It may be too late by then, but that's quite a bit down the road.

(08-26-2019 08:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 09:56 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-24-2019 11:03 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-24-2019 03:09 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  But we are doing well in total, which is what really matters. Of course, the big reason is that fracking has produced a lot of cheap natural gas which is replacing coal. There is also a lot more wind in places like Texas that have deregulated electric utilities. Deregulation is absolutely essential for the economics of renewable energies to work. Texas now leads the US in wind generation.

Drove to Corpus down I-37 2 weeks ago. When we passed the giant wind farm just north of Corpus every single wind turbine as far as we could see (100s) was dead stopped. Figured short-term problem, right? Drove back up I-37 five days later. All wind turbines still dead stopped. All I could think was thank goodness for fossil fuels, and what a massive waste of capital.

Using an anecdote as evidence of the unreliability of wind isn’t super compelling when wind was the 2nd largest producer of energy in the state of Texas for the first half of the year (behind natural gas).

https://www.kut.org/post/texas-has-generated-more-electricity-wind-coal-so-far-year

I make that drive quite a bit right now for work and see the turbines near Corpus churning frequently.

And using your own anecdotal evidence proves your point?

Where did I say wind power was unreliable? I just found it surprising and disturbing that that much capital investment was sitting completely idle on the 2 days within a week that I drove by. Maybe there was a problem, maybe everyone’s Tesla was fully charged.

I too have seen them churning away many times which made the sight of all of them completely still on 2 windy, hot and humid days very strange.

No - providing empirical evidence does.

My point of you own anecdote is that it directly refuted yours, but is worthless without further evidence.

(08-26-2019 12:48 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  And your empirical “evidence” says nothing about reliability. 22% of Texas power generated by wind is evidence of reliability??? By that logic, fossil fuel power generation in Texas is nearly 3 times more reliable than wind - 65% fossil fuels vs 22% wind.

(08-26-2019 12:48 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-26-2019 08:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 09:56 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-25-2019 09:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-24-2019 11:03 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Drove to Corpus down I-37 2 weeks ago. When we passed the giant wind farm just north of Corpus every single wind turbine as far as we could see (100s) was dead stopped. Figured short-term problem, right? Drove back up I-37 five days later. All wind turbines still dead stopped. All I could think was thank goodness for fossil fuels, and what a massive waste of capital.

Using an anecdote as evidence of the unreliability of wind isn’t super compelling when wind was the 2nd largest producer of energy in the state of Texas for the first half of the year (behind natural gas).

https://www.kut.org/post/texas-has-generated-more-electricity-wind-coal-so-far-year

I make that drive quite a bit right now for work and see the turbines near Corpus churning frequently.

And using your own anecdotal evidence proves your point?

Where did I say wind power was unreliable? I just found it surprising and disturbing that that much capital investment was sitting completely idle on the 2 days within a week that I drove by. Maybe there was a problem, maybe everyone’s Tesla was fully charged.

I too have seen them churning away many times which made the sight of all of them completely still on 2 windy, hot and humid days very strange.

No - providing empirical evidence does.

My point of you own anecdote is that it directly refuted yours, but is worthless without further evidence.

And your empirical “evidence” says nothing about reliability. 22% of Texas power generated by wind is evidence of reliability??? By that logic, fossil fuel power generation in Texas is nearly 3 times more reliable than wind - 65% fossil fuels vs 22% wind.

Try these references if you are truly interested in wind turbine reliability. Again, I was only making a personal observation, not a statement about overall reliability of wind turbines.

https://www.npr.org/2017/06/22/532763718/the-rise-of-wind-energy-raises-questions-about-its-reliability

https://www.exponent.com/knowledge/alerts/2017/06/wind-turbine-reliability/?pageSize=NaN&pageNum=0&loadAllByPageSize=true

https://www.intechopen.com/books/stability-control-and-reliable-performance-of-wind-turbines/reliability-analysis-of-wind-turbines

(08-26-2019 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Inherently the 22% does say something about reliability - if wind was unreliable, a market, especially a deregulated power market, wouldn't rely on it.

(08-26-2019 12:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-26-2019 12:48 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  And your empirical “evidence” says nothing about reliability. 22% of Texas power generated by wind is evidence of reliability??? By that logic, fossil fuel power generation in Texas is nearly 3 times more reliable than wind - 65% fossil fuels vs 22% wind.

What people don't understand about electricity--you need it instantaneously. If water system demand exceeds supply, pressure drops. If electric demand exceeds supply, the entire system shuts down. That's what causes blackouts and brownouts.

So let's say you have a demand peak and the wind is not blowing. You have to go somewhere else. That's what is meant by wind is not reliable. You can't count on it 24/7/365, whenever you need it. And you have to have electricity exactly when you need it, or the entire system fails.

Electric utilities have large SCADA systems that monitor the entire system, with AI to anticipate needs, and they spin turbines in advance to be ready when needed. You can't do that with windmills.

(08-26-2019 01:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-26-2019 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Inherently the 22% does say something about reliability - if wind was unreliable, a market, especially a deregulated power market, wouldn't rely on it.

Actually, no it doesn't. Wind is inherently unreliable because it cannot be counted on instantaneously as needed. Actually, that unreliability pretty much means that ONLY a deregulated power market can make significant use of wind.

(08-26-2019 01:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Used to be every navy in the world relied on wind.

Wonder why they changed?

Quote:Rotor ships, sometimes called Flettner ships, have been around a while. The big development now is that the major players in shipping are taking the idea seriously. Yesterday the shipping colossus Maersk installed 100-foot-tall rotors on one of its tankers, the Pelican, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Maersk thinks the advanced sails could cut its fuel costs by 10 percent. That may not sound like much, but consider that the Danish mega-corporation spends $3 billion annually on fuel to move the world's cargo, so we're talking about $300 million. If the Pelican tests succeed, the Maersk could try out rotors on other vessels and turn more cargo ships into hybrid sailboats.