BBC News: Renewable Energy surges to record levels around the world.

[Western Red]

Hydroelectric power isn't green. So these numbers are the very definition of misleading.

 

As individuals in the province of British Columbia, we need to lead. We're about to be the new California, capable of feeding the entire country, but not without being frugal with our water. This includes not washing vehicles and yes not flushing #1.

 

I don't want to be remembered as a follower who blindly fell for the idea that we can all live better than Kings of old. I want to be remembered as a man who stood up and offered tangible solutions and ideas to peers who were unaware. In turn, I hope to learn from others and live in harmony with the wonderous ecosystems that gave life in the first place.

 

While we transition to a new age, it's best to use our current energies as conservatively as possible. I'm not educated in these matters, but the heart within me has a lot to give as far as encouragement and pursuit of a better way to live.

 

 

[SamJamIam]

4 hours ago, Kragar said:

I have read (and stated on earlier threads) that there are some flaws with the plan for the bolded, given that the plants which burn these fuels need to be kept running regularly to maintain the ability to support the grid efficiently.  Otherwise, the time it would take to build up to a point where they can generate power would mean black/brownouts

 

Has something changed with the efficiency there?  It would be great if so.

There are 2 types of gas plant.  Baseload power is provided by a variety of technologies but the ultra-efficient ones are called combined cycle gas turbines.  Then there are designs called "peakers" which are designed to come on quickly in order to fill gaps in supply.

 

Baseload power technologies also can modulate output.  Hydro One in Ontario has been running coal plants as pseudo-peakers since the 80s.  They spin up to provide extra supply during regular peak demand times each day then turn down for lower demand times (aka nighttimes and weekends).

 

Then there is also the fact that individual plants don't need to be able to instantly turn down at a moment's notice.  When you're balancing a grid, you shut down whole plants at a time.  As prices start to decrease (demand lessening) you switch off a couple plants, then slowly shut off more and more to gradually lower supply.  But every individual plant is just changing from On to Off.  Sometimes load comes on and off very quickly, and when prices shoot up that is when peakers make money but overall the system as it is is quite robust.

[Violator]

If they want to build this stuff on a larger scale great....

 

Though it would be nice if we built all of the technology in BC.we have the raw materials and the training schools to train the workers for installation and manufacturing.Instead of producing the raw material then shipping it off to China just to ship it back.

[clam linguine]

18 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

That's fine.

 

Just to reemphasize, outcomes on this issue, will now be mostly independent from reasoned opinions, & even subsequent actions. Numerous climate scientists now cite dozens of self-reinforcing feedback-loops, which will seemingly take this matter out of our hands.

 

For all of humanity's cleverness, we were likely far too slow in adjusting our societies & ff-lifestyles. It's an interesting predicament, but you don't get two cracks at history. Many will dispute this position, claiming tech will afford us a 2nd chance. Such hopeful views are understandable.

 

Whether we have similar opinions on this, or polar-opposite, matters not. So have a good day, & practice random acts of kindness.

If you were looking down on the earth for the last 10000 years, one of the surest bets you could make is that the ice sheet will continue to disappear.  So don't beat yourself, or humanity, up too much.

[Nuxfanabroad]

5 hours ago, clam linguine said:

If you were looking down on the earth for the last 10000 years, one of the surest bets you could make is that the ice sheet will continue to disappear.  So don't beat yourself, or humanity, up too much.

CL..enjoy a lot of your posts, & you may well be seeing things clearly, while I may be stumbling along with a white cane.

 

But your last sentence can certainly turn 180, depending upon one's pov. For example, how does one feel about Ind Civ if you're existing in Bangladesh(or tropical isle, Tuvalu), & you see the waters rising?

 

Are we truly as strong as our weakest link? Do we all subscribe to this belief, or do we just trot it out if one happens to slip into misfortune?

 

Look at the energy company Exxon(& I'm sure, many other related corps share this culpability). They HAD the data, & scientific info(from excellent researchers) 4 or 5 decades back. Did they choose to ignore it? Nope.. they chose to spend significant resources to effectively mislead, block & manipulate info of our possibly pending demise.

 

To those that argue of significant swings from one climate-scenario to another(over millenia/ages), I won't bother engaging in debate. This time WE are the asteroid(on steroids!); meanwhile utilizing a wh*ring media to act as a veil over the face of Mother Nature, whose snoz has been unceremoniously hacked off.

 

Some movies you're waiting for the 'right thing' to happen, or it's so damn good, you don't want it to end. Eventually, the credits always roll.

 

:^)

[Scottish⑦Canuck]

On 6/1/2016 at 5:44 PM, clam linguine said:

Haha...that's cool...listen...

 

Hydropower destroys our richest ecosystems, the valleys in mountainous regions (and snuffs out all life in the flood zone if that is of any concern)  Bio diesel and ethanol rely on agriculture which calls for the replacing of natural habitat (often rain forest) with chemical ridden grass.  These energy sources are disasters because they destroy the natural habitat...forever.

 

What part of the glaciation facts I mentioned sound crazy?  The continent was under an ice sheet which has been disappearing for the last 10000 years.  We are here to watch the last bit of it go.  The earth either cools or warms, when it cools, the cooling is rapid and destructive, when it warms, humanity thrives.

 

It frustrates and amazes me that CO2 Nazis have stolen the environmental movement with a meaningless issue.  Humanity is uniting to fight a natural process and has demonized the most benign of natural chemicals... CO2.  Meanwhile turds are being flushed into the Pacific and its called fertilizer.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Yes, climate change is a natural process. But not at the accelerated rate we're currently seeing. And that's the result of the colossal volume of increased CO2 that has been released into the atmosphere by anthropogenic activities. 

 

I tend to agree with your point on biofuels though.

 

Anyway, Scotland is producing >50% of it's energy from renewables. As far as I'm concerned it's the way to go in the future.

[nuckin_futz]

1 hour ago, Scottish⑦Canuck said:

Anyway, Scotland is producing >50% of it's energy from renewables. As far as I'm concerned it's the way to go in the future.

Chile Has So Much Solar Energy It’s Giving It Away for Free

Chile’s solar industry has expanded so quickly that it’s giving electricity away for free.

Spot prices reached zero in parts of the country on 113 days through April, a number that’s on track to beat last year’s total of 192 days, according to Chile’s central grid operator. While that may be good for consumers, it’s bad news for companies that own power plants struggling to generate revenue and developers seeking financing for new facilities.

Chile’s increasing energy demand, pushed by booming mining production and economic growth, has helped spur development of 29 solar farms supplying the central grid, with another 15 planned. Further north, in the heart of the mining district, even more have been built. Now, economic growth is slowing as copper output stagnates amid a global glut, energy prices are slumping and those power plants are oversupplying regions that lack transmission lines to distribute the electricity elsewhere.

 

“Investors are losing money,” said Rafael Mateo, chief executive officer of Acciona SA’s energy unit, which is investing $343 million in a 247-megawatt project in the region that will be one of Latin America’s largest. “Growth was disordered. You can’t have so many developers in the same place.”

A key issue is that Chile has two main power networks, the central grid and the northern grid, which aren’t connected to each other. There are also areas within the grids that lack adequate transmission capacity. 

That means one region can have too much power, driving down prices because the surplus can’t be delivered to other parts of the country, according to Carlos Barria, former chief of the government’s renewable-energy division and a professor at Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, in Santiago.

"Michelle Bachelet’s government has set the energy sector as a priority,” said Carlos Finat, president of the country’s renewable association, known as Acera. “But planning has been focused in the short term when it is necessary to have long term plans to solve these type of issues."

 

Inadequate Infrastructure

The government is working to address this issue, with plans to build a 3,000-kilometer (1,865-mile) transmission line to link the the two grids by 2017. It’s also developing a 753-kilometer line to address congestion on the northern parts of the central grid, the region where power surpluses are driving prices to zero.

“Chile has at least seven or eight points in the transmission lines that are collapsed and blocked, and we have an enormous challenge to bypass the choke points,” Energy Minister Maximo Pacheco said in an interview in Santiago. “When you embark on a path of growth and development like the one we’ve had, you obviously can see issues arising.”

Solar Growth

 

 

Solar capacity on Chile’s central power grid, known as SIC, has more than quadrupled to 770 megawatts since 2013. Much of that comes from the grid’s northern sections, the Atacama region that’s home to the copper industry. Total installed capacity increased 5 percent in the past year, with half coming from solar farms, according to the grid operator, Cdecsic. SIC supplies power to the regions where 90 percent of the country’s residential demand is located.

 

The country is expected to install almost 1.4 gigawatts of solar power this year, up from 371 megawatts in 2015, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

When power companies aren’t giving away electricity, it’s cheap. At the Diego de Almagro substation in the Atacama region, for example, prices didn’t exceed $60 a megawatt-hour for most of March. That’s less than the $70 minimum price for companies that won long-term contracts to sell solar power in Chile’s energy auctions in October and March.

The issue may limit future development because the uncertain revenue means banks will be reluctant to finance new power plants, according to Rodrigo Violic, head of project finance at the Chilean lender Banco Bice. “It’s a big problem,” he said.

Solar ‘Surprise’

Salvatore Bernabei, head of Enel Green Power SpA’s operations in Chile, has 170 megawatts of capacity in operation and 300 megawatts under construction in the country. He wouldn’t say if his company has surplus power.

Bernabei, however, is adamant that change is needed. “The rapid development of renewables was a surprise and now we have to react quickly,” he said.

Until this is resolved, low prices will plague companies that own power plants, according to Jose Ignacio Escobar, general manager for Acciona’s Chile unit.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-01/chile-has-so-much-solar-energy-it-s-giving-it-away-for-free

[aGENT]

Those investors need to further invest in infrastructure to sell/export their excess product more efficiently (at all).

[clam linguine]

5 hours ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

CL..enjoy a lot of your posts, & you may well be seeing things clearly, while I may be stumbling along with a white cane.

 

But your last sentence can certainly turn 180, depending upon one's pov. For example, how does one feel about Ind Civ if you're existing in Bangladesh(or tropical isle, Tuvalu), & you see the waters rising?

 

Are we truly as strong as our weakest link? Do we all subscribe to this belief, or do we just trot it out if one happens to slip into misfortune?

 

Look at the energy company Exxon(& I'm sure, many other related corps share this culpability). They HAD the data, & scientific info(from excellent researchers) 4 or 5 decades back. Did they choose to ignore it? Nope.. they chose to spend significant resources to effectively mislead, block & manipulate info of our possibly pending demise.

 

To those that argue of significant swings from one climate-scenario to another(over millenia/ages), I won't bother engaging in debate. This time WE are the asteroid(on steroids!); meanwhile utilizing a wh*ring media to act as a veil over the face of Mother Nature, whose snoz has been unceremoniously hacked off.

 

Some movies you're waiting for the 'right thing' to happen, or it's so damn good, you don't want it to end. Eventually, the credits always roll.

 

:^)

Hey, thanks..I had some fun googling the upcoming Methane explosion you refer to.  I was attentive until I heard them start to blame the oil industry, so I am not worried.  Just another special interest group with an agenda, I assume.

 

Ind civ has many sins, but putting our friends in Tuvalu under water is not one of them. I hope we are there to pull them out.

 

There was a one minute time lapse simulation of the North American ice cap receding over the last 10000 years, which puts everything into perspective for me. I have zero concern that humans are the cause of GW.   If the melting were to stop now (is it?) I would be afraid.  Opportunists know where we are heading and are jumping into the narrative to enrich themselves and advance their agendas. Right now, they are pinning the tail on the donkey of their convenience...Carbon footprint insanity.

[clam linguine]

5 hours ago, Scottish⑦Canuck said:

Yes, climate change is a natural process. But not at the accelerated rate we're currently seeing. And that's the result of the colossal volume of increased CO2 that has been released into the atmosphere by anthropogenic activities. 

 

I tend to agree with your point on biofuels though.

 

Anyway, Scotland is producing >50% of it's energy from renewables. As far as I'm concerned it's the way to go in the future.

Well, good for Scotland, if this 50% doesn't involve hydro or bio fuels.  You must have a lot of those ugly, bird munching wind mills?  I have to hand it to you Scots...very pragmatic.  You embrace renewables after your oilfields run dry.  You can teach us Canadians a thing or two!

[Ghostsof1915]

Even if you take away the renewable advantages. The reality is oil is finite. We don't know if there is enough oil for a few weeks, months, or a century. Saudi Arabia made a very interesting move that if I was an oil investor I'd be very nervous. The excuse is that Saudi Arabia is burning through cash reserves and has to get smarter. The real question is? Is Saudi Arabia trying to transition from oil because the reserves are not as much as people think there is? 

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-04-21/the-2-trillion-project-to-get-saudi-arabia-s-economy-off-oil

[MadMonk]

3 hours ago, clam linguine said:

 

There was a one minute time lapse simulation of the North American ice cap receding over the last 10000 years, which puts everything into perspective for me. I have zero concern that humans are the cause of GW.   If the melting were to stop now (is it?) I would be afraid.  Opportunists know where we are heading and are jumping into the narrative to enrich themselves and advance their agendas. Right now, they are pinning the tail on the donkey of their convenience...Carbon footprint insanity.

While it is true that deglaciation only occurred relatively recently (geologically speaking), the climate (and ice sheet) has largely stabilized about 8000 years ago, so there isn't very much evidence that the current warming is simply a continuation of natural warming. Moreover, the temperature in fact decreased by about 0.5 degrees since 8000 years ago, so the current global warming is a reverse of the trend.

 

There are about a 100 year of scientific evidence that CO2 plays a major role in regulating the climate, and it has been postulated 100 years ago that if human were to burn fossil fuel continuously it would significantly alter the earth's climate, long before the existence of any "special interest group". You may disagree with people's view on how to handle the climate problem, but I think to dismiss human's role in the current warming is ignoring a LOT of scientific evidence.

[SamJamIam]

15 hours ago, J.R. said:

Those investors need to further invest in infrastructure to sell/export their excess product more efficiently (at all).

The problem is that transmission projects are logistical nightmares involving many landowners, regulatory authorities and reporting obligations during operations. It's just a totally different business that renewable project developers don't have the staff or expertise for.

 

In Chile, transmission is built and maintained by a government entity so if they're too slow,  everyone else waits. Not that this is their fault. The solar build out in Chile was a mad rush no one could keep up with.

[clam linguine]

11 hours ago, MadMonk said:

While it is true that deglaciation only occurred relatively recently (geologically speaking), the climate (and ice sheet) has largely stabilized about 8000 years ago, so there isn't very much evidence that the current warming is simply a continuation of natural warming. Moreover, the temperature in fact decreased by about 0.5 degrees since 8000 years ago, so the current global warming is a reverse of the trend.

 

I guess that explains why I can't find that clip anymore.  It doesn't fit the latest truth.

Quote

 

There are about a 100 year of scientific evidence that CO2 plays a major role in regulating the climate, and it has been postulated 100 years ago that if human were to burn fossil fuel continuously it would significantly alter the earth's climate, long before the existence of any "special interest group". You may disagree with people's view on how to handle the climate problem, but I think to dismiss human's role in the current warming is ignoring a LOT of scientific evidence.

Quote

 

 

Tell me, what percentage of GHGs are emitted naturally via forest fires, volcanoes, oceans, decomposition, etc. compared to human related fossil fuel emissions?  CO2 levels are rising, but temperatures are not. This is a failed theory, is it not.  We now have Climate Change instead of Global Warming, whatever works.  Do you know about the leading Global Warming advocate who was caught concealing data to keep his agenda alive? This is fact, not theory.

 

At the beginning of this dance we had Global Warming caused by humans, and it was too late to worry about it. Since then, China has modernized, fossil fuel emissions have exploded, but now there is hope!  We can still save the Planet!!!  We just need to keep generously funding "scientists" and their ever changing, self serving, narratives.  The truth is out there.  I believe the truth is, we are far from understanding the climate and its sub systems which Nuxfanabroad refers to.  Will fossil fuel emissions submerge the people of Vanuato, or will they stop an ice age?  Probably neither.

 

In the meantime, being an outdoorsman, I am going to continue to enjoy myself in an environment which has never been better. This is thanks to the good work of true environmentalists..... from years gone by.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MadMonk]

8 hours ago, clam linguine said:

I guess that explains why I can't find that clip anymore.  It doesn't fit the latest truth.

 

Without knowing the specific clip you saw it is hard to know what it depicted, but it doesn't seem like the timeline of the ice sheet has been revised recently. I found a map made in 1959 (source) that shows that BC, Alberta and Southern Ontario to be ice free by 10,000. Given that there are multiple lines of evidence to sort out ice sheet retreat (e.g. global temp, sea level, sediment, human migration), it is quite possible that the clip that you saw is simply wrong!

 

 

8 hours ago, clam linguine said:

Tell me, what percentage of GHGs are emitted naturally via forest fires, volcanoes, oceans, decomposition, etc. compared to human related fossil fuel emissions?  

 

it is true that the natural flux of CO2 is indeed very large (except for volcanoes, it is a common misunderstanding but human emission is at least 100 times larger than volcanos), but this ignores is that nature also sucks up a lot of GHG, so the type of argument only holds if nature is also a net emitter, but it turns out on the whole natural processes are actually sucking up anthropogenic CO2: only half of the anthropogenic CO2 remain in the atmosphere, so it is virtually certain that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human activity.

8 hours ago, clam linguine said:

CO2 levels are rising, but temperatures are not. This is a failed theory, is it not.

that would be true if indeed temperature has stopped rising.

 

8 hours ago, clam linguine said:

Do you know about the leading Global Warming advocate who was caught concealing data to keep his agenda alive? This is fact, not theory.

 

Not sure who you are referring to specifically, but despite years of accusations about scientists hiding/manipulating data, not once did anyone actually demonstrated any impropriety. Since raw data is actually freely available, why hasn't any one done a reconstruction to prove that global warming is a fraud?

 

Wait, actually some one by the name of Richard Muller was all ready to show the world that the temperature increase was all an illusion due to improper data handling/manipulation, but all he managed to prove is that climate scientist were right all along.

 

One more thing: ironically what is frequently lost amiss these accusations of impropriety is the adjustment to raw data actually makes the global trend lower when all is said and done.

[clam linguine]

43 minutes ago, MadMonk said:

Without knowing the specific clip you saw it is hard to know what it depicted, but it doesn't seem like the timeline of the ice sheet has been revised recently. I found a map made in 1959 (source) that shows that BC, Alberta and Southern Ontario to be ice free by 10,000. Given that there are multiple lines of evidence to sort out ice sheet retreat (e.g. global temp, sea level, sediment, human migration), it is quite possible that the clip that you saw is simply wrong!

Yup, or maybe yours is wrong.

43 minutes ago, MadMonk said:

 

 

it is true that the natural flux of CO2 is indeed very large (except for volcanoes, it is a common misunderstanding but human emission is at least 100 times larger than volcanos), but this ignores is that nature also sucks up a lot of GHG, so the type of argument only holds if nature is also a net emitter, but it turns out on the whole natural processes are actually sucking up anthropogenic CO2: only half of the anthropogenic CO2 remain in the atmosphere, so it is virtually certain that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human activity.

Volcanos are probably the most important climactic variable.

43 minutes ago, MadMonk said:

that would be true if indeed temperature has stopped rising.

Is this the data taken from what were once remote locations that are now in the suburbs....or satellite data?

43 minutes ago, MadMonk said:

 

Not sure who you are referring to specifically, but despite years of accusations about scientists hiding/manipulating data, not once did anyone actually demonstrated any impropriety. Since raw data is actually freely available, why hasn't any one done a reconstruction to prove that global warming is a fraud?

 

Wait, actually some one by the name of Richard Muller was all ready to show the world that the temperature increase was all an illusion due to improper data handling/manipulation, but all he managed to prove is that climate scientist were right all along.

Its called "climategate" ... surprised you haven't heard about it.  I'll get back to this...right now...I think I'll have a drink.

 

43 minutes ago, MadMonk said:

One more thing: ironically what is frequently lost amiss these accusations of impropriety is the adjustment to raw data actually makes the global trend lower when all is said and done.

 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, clam linguine said:

Yup, or maybe yours is wrong.

Volcanos are probably the most important climactic variable.

Is this the data taken from what were once remote locations that are now in the suburbs....or satellite data?

Its called "climategate" ... surprised you haven't heard about it.  I'll get back to this...right now...I think I'll have a drink.

 

 

I really don't understand what you two are arguing about, other than it has to do with temperature.  Go outside.  It's warmer than previously.  Done.  Easy.

[clam linguine]

On 6/3/2016 at 9:38 PM, Alflives said:

I really don't understand what you two are arguing about, other than it has to do with temperature.  Go outside.  It's warmer than previously.  Done.  Easy.

El nino Alf...every 7 years doomsday is confirmed...lol.   Now let me pour my drink

[Scottish⑦Canuck]

MadMonk arrives to save the day again. 

 

[Jimayo]

On 2016-06-01 at 10:00 PM, clam linguine said:

If you like losing money, invest in solar.  Do the windmills really kill birds and bats?

Sure.  So do buildings.