CO2 sanity

Joat42 wrote:The energy production in Norway is 98-99% hydroelectric and as far as I know they haven't had problems with brownouts - especially considering that their energy grid has very good interconnections with the other Scandinavian countries and the European continent. They are currently ramping up energy production from other renewable sources as wind and solar though in an attempt to diversify.

Hmm. Maybe it was Denmark after all. I remember seeing an article a few years ago about a North European country — I was sure it was Norway — having trouble managing their electrical load because they were getting over 40% of it from wind and solar power, mostly wind. All those 400-foot windmills out in the North Sea.

Why do they only put 3 skinny little blades on those things, anyway? I'd think 7 blades would provide substantially more torque for the same fan diameter, producing more power for very little increased cost.

It takes baseline generation to power a city, or a country. Steady, reliable, controllable sources. Hydroelectric power is reliable, and simple to control by just turning a valve. Yeah, I know there's more to it than that; it's simple, not easy. But there are only so many rivers, and so many canyons or valleys you can dam up. We've already dammed up most of them.

Intermittent sources like wind and solar can only be supplemental power, not baseline. Counting on them for more than 40% will give you those stability problems.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:..snip..
Any classically trained operational meterologist understands that the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is self regulating. CO2 is NOT the thermostat that regulates the temperature of the planet by regulating water vapor concentration.

As far as I know the self regulating mechanism of water vapor in the atmosphere is poorly understood except in general terms and anyone claiming to understand it fully is deluded.

Furthermore, we have no long term historical data on the content of water vapor in the atmosphere so no one has a baseline to use for establishing trends.

And you are entirely correct in that CO2 is not the thermostat, but it does affect the hysteresis of it and only a fool mucks around with variables in a black box system while saying it doesn't affect it.

Joat42 wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:..snip..
Any classically trained operational meterologist understands that the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is self regulating. CO2 is NOT the thermostat that regulates the temperature of the planet by regulating water vapor concentration.

As far as I know the self regulating mechanism of water vapor in the atmosphere is poorly understood except in general terms and anyone claiming to understand it fully is deluded.

Furthermore, we have no long term historical data on the content of water vapor in the atmosphere so no one has a baseline to use for establishing trends.

And you are entirely correct in that CO2 is not the thermostat, but it does affect the hysteresis of it and only a fool mucks around with variables in a black box system while saying it doesn't affect it.

Thank you for the very cogent arguments.

I would disagree with the contention that the self regulation of water vapor is not well understood. A good starting place is here:


http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/ ... g.html?m=1


It is not possible to have a long term record of water vapor concerntration. However; we do have a proxy record of CO2 concentration. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is interesting. CO2 lags behind​temperature, suggesting outgassing from warmer oceans.

Your point about messing with the hysteresis of the planet not being advisable is valid. However; the record of CO2 concentration reveals that much higher concentrations have been the normal in the past and this correlates to more life. I will concede that we need to hedge our bets by having a plan to sequester Carbon. Planting trees is not the answer because they burn so spectacularly when overstocked. The oceans can sequester massive quantities of CO2. Building OTEC that generate power and produce massive quantities of fresh water while stimulating plankton growth that is partially transformed into Calcium-Carbonate is the most effective option.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:..snip..
Your point about messing with the hysteresis of the planet not being advisable is valid. However; the record of CO2 concentration reveals that much higher concentrations have been the normal in the past and this correlates to more life. I will concede that we need to hedge our bets by having a plan to sequester Carbon. Planting trees is not the answer because they burn so spectacularly when overstocked. The oceans can sequester massive quantities of CO2. Building OTEC that generate power and produce massive quantities of fresh water while stimulating plankton growth that is partially transformed into Calcium-Carbonate is the most effective option.

As you say, higher CO2 concentrations can mean more life - but I'm afraid that doesn't necessarily include the human race.

The thing with wind power, well things really, are you need hydro accumulators as a battery source, and as a power source it's up and down times are predictable.
Similar with solar systems.

In Oz, well the southern part, our coal plants aren't predictable because so many of them are so old.

Leaving aside the whole mankind climate change question for a moment, there are clear advantages to researching ways to minimise it.
My current family hatchback replaced a ten year old one from the same maker. Noticeably quicker, and uses about 30% less fuel, all due to carbon emission research.
Due to my domestic solar panels and solar hot water system I haven't had an electricity account for 11 years now.
Just as wars promote technological progress so does an international research effort like this.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Why do they only put 3 skinny little blades on those things, anyway? I'd think 7 blades would provide substantially more torque for the same fan diameter, producing more power for very little increased cost.

Optimisation. More than doubling the number of 60+ m long blades pushes up costs more than a little while return is limited. Torque alone isn't that important if you run an electric generator.

aairfccha wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:Why do they only put 3 skinny little blades on those things, anyway?

More than doubling the number of 60+ m long blades pushes up costs more than a little while return is limited. Torque alone isn't that important if you run an electric generator.

Torque x RPM = Power. More torque means you can draw more current from the alternator without slowing it down. More current at the same voltage is more power.

Four more blades won't make the foundation, tower or alternator assembly cost any more, and will approximately double torque, therefore power output. Take a look at a picture — 98% of the wind just passes between those 3 blades without doing any work at all.

You have to avoid 4, 6 or 8 blades because of harmonic vibrations, so you're left with 5 or 7.
———————————
Bring out yer dead!

Aparently, they use three blades as a compromise between stability and drag. More than one blade and drag starts to drop your power generation.
Less than three causes stability issues.

Annachie wrote:The thing with wind power, well things really, are you need hydro accumulators as a battery source, and as a power source it's up and down times are predictable.
Similar with solar systems.

In Oz, well the southern part, our coal plants aren't predictable because so many of them are so old.

Luckily you got the Tesla Powerpack project down there that picks up the slack. And it also pays for itself by keeping the frequency much more stable and that reduced the grid service cost by 90%.