VintonCounty

When Will Solar Achieve Grid Parity? We're Already There!

To Tedspick:
I had two reasons for saying the Nature Nazis depend on computer models:
1. Data are quite inadequate to demonstrate human effects on climate.
2. Without a model you don't know the temperature effect of a change in CO2 concentration. I'll make just two comments on data.

First is that accuracy is mostly terrible, and conflicting concllusions are drawn from data. Consider correlations of CO2 concentration (from ice cores) and temperature (from unreliable indirect values). Some see a correlation and say it supports the claim that increasing CO2 concentration causes increasing temperature. Others say the correlation is better with a time lag (T effect trails), supporting the view that temperature changes cause the CO2 changes.

The other data comment is that accuracy for the last century is inadequate to support the associated claims. To detect a temperature drift of 1K/century, which the Nature Nazis claim, requires an extraordinary temperature measurement program (which did not exist). It gets worse. To detect a correlation with temperature over that 100 years requires far better accuracy, which is totally infeasible. An example of what may charitably be called inaccurate data is a comparison of surface and air temperatures. Over about the last 50 years the surface temperatures have increased, but not air temperatures (according to measured values). That is a problem for the Nature Nazis, because the greenhouse mechanism predicts the air will warm before the surface.

To Yetiv:
Concentrations of Hg and S in coal combustion products can be greatly reduced with "scrubbers." It's expensive, but much cheaper than removing and disposing of CO2. So, to a first approximation, coal is the cheapest way to make electrical energy in absence of onerous CO2 regulation.

The result of a scientific study is a conclusion, not a belief. Believing pertains to religion. You may have "studied the science", but it did not influence your attitude.

You emphasize that SCE chose PV generation. I'll comment. Regulated utilities typically must get approval for any major capital expenditure from a state utility commission. Along with the approval, the commission promises to allow electric rates sufficient for a guaranteed return on invested capital (ROIC). If the CA commission approved PV (which surely it did), SCE would not care whether PV is cost-competitive. So SCE's choice might only indicate CA goofiness.

To all:
This discussion has two ethical questions hiding in plain view.

1. Is government justified in forcing us to use a particular type of electrical power generation? The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution both say the national government cannot impose such political choices on us. Congress routinely ignores those stuffy documents, of course. Those who care about this should understand how things work. The subsidy on PV generation, for example, is, I think, a production tax credit. A production tax credit may not literally be a subsidy, but it distorts the market like one. Also, Congress tends to use sneaky methods. If there are choices A and B, and Congress wants us to use A; it may achieve that result by imposing burdens on use of B. Taxing CO2 emissions, if it happens, would be such a burden.

2. Is it moral to advocate (mandatory) government actions that make Americans less prosperous? Friends of farmers recently did that by mandating use of ethanol in motor fuels and precluding any source but American corn. The propaganda drums are beating to change American opinions about electrical energy, so be alert.

When Will Solar Achieve Grid Parity? We're Already There!

Coal is the winner unless you shackle it with the requirement that the generator not emit CO2, also known as plant food. Why would anyone want to impose that restriction? The Nature Nazis say that manmade CO2 is making Earth warmer. That sounds desirable to me, but consider how the Nature Nazis reached their conclusion about man's effects on climate. They got it from inaccurate computer models. The models compute heat balances, and the associated temperatures, for particular places on Earth. Rate of energy inflow from the superhot sun is computed for an assumed Earth temperature; and also the rate of energy transfer from Earth to space (at nearly absolute zero temperature) is computed for the same assumed temperature. In the models, the correct temperature is the one for which rates of inflow and outflow are equal. The Nature Nazis worry about a temperature change of 1K over a century; so, to be useful, a model must be extremely accurate. No models now are even close to useful accuracy, and they won't attain it within current lifetimes. The punch line is that imposing a CO2 emission limit on coal-fired generators is completely arbitrary.