I’d say, good thing you don’t work in that area any more
2 Likes
With that being said I’m extremely interested In the data that made you become a sceptic.
2 Likes
I second that. What changed your mind?
I could write and write and write and write on this one - but I have to (sorta!) brief (for everyone’s sake). Needless to say, renewables excite me (I have owned shares in renewable juniors previously) and I think the transition to a “cleaner” energy is great for society and the planet - but as a scientist, I find the misuse of science for political purposes and individual crusades (activists, academics, authors, bankers, fellow scientists!) in this arena has been truly perverse.
When preparing some reference materials for the AGO, I was asked to look closely at the Vostok Ice Core data in which, after applying a magnifying glass one actually can see that temperature rises BEFORE the CO2 does, not the other way round as Mr. Gore and Co have incorrectly stated. One swallow does not a spring make - but nevertheless it got me thinking and looking into things with scepticism. After all, to be scientific is to be sceptic. Consensus only applies in a political setting, not a scientific one.
But my ‘defection’ has come from three angles.
-
The political arena (the way the UN and the IPCC have behaved and essentially been perverted by scientific corrupt practices - from a UN Overpopulation Conference in Hungary in 1974 where such mavericks such as Margaret Read and her UN friends proposed a ‘constructed’ scientific theory relating to energy use known as the ‘Law of the Endangered Atmosphere’, so as to control population globally - through to how the IPCC “rig the game”, by writing the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ document, before the scientific Assessment Report has even been submitted! Ergo, let’s make the science fit what the policymakers (ie. politicians and the UN) want.
-
The scientific theory - so many facets of this dumbed down version of climate change (dumbed down to make it digestible to the common non-scientific person) have been ignored - ignored everywhere from the rhetoric and cheerleading on Q&A, through to the climate models (especially the GCMs, which are so damn crude they are next to useless for anything I’ve done, including developing climate adaptation models for several multi-national companies). The CO2 saturation effect, negative feedback loops, the underestimation of water vapor, the complete elimination of solar radiation on climate (utterly preposterous that it has been ignored by the IPCC, not sunspots, but more subtle and delayed impacts from solar irradiation), no acknowledgment of cosmic radiations influence of climate (now confirmed by CERN) - cosmic radiation is cloud-generating).
-
The empirical evidence (actual climate observations vs. .2). Sea level rise is not accelerating, the constant readjustment of the global temperature records (especially by NOAA and Hadley) to develop an upward bias, (maturity diagrams show how records have been changed to construct a warming bias), tropospheric warming in the equatorial regions is not occurring (the models say we should’ve have a 0.35c rise in this area of the troposphere - its actually been a 0.05c cooling), over the geologic time scale, CO2 changes FOLLOW temperature changes, human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is miniscule, the land based temperature records showing greater increase that satellite records (why? think about it).
The ‘hockey stick’ graph widely used is pseudo-science, where they merged thermometer records for modern times with tree ring data for pre-1850 times. Totally wrong methodology, not to mention they used bristle pine cones for that - hardly the right species to use as a proxy.
As CO2 has risen the outgoing longwave radiation has increased - the total OPPOSITE of what the models have said should happen.
I can go on and on and on. (Urban heat island effect, the removal of regional weather stations, Al Gore, “Hollywood Hypocrites”, the utter tripe of that “97% of scientists agree” statement (total garbage), the silencing and personal attacks of world-renowned climatologists who don’t toe the line, the influence of long-term oceanic cycles, (AMO, PDO, ENSO etc.), Many many many more examples where the public have been sold the hysterical story, but the reality is hardly that.
In finishing, climate change is irrefutable. Its always has changed, always will. Some historical changes have been far far more severe and quicker than the current levels of change, and these were all pre-industrial revolution. Global temperatures have been rising since 1850 (but there have been three periods of cooling) over that time, sea level has been rising over the past 5,000 years (but again there have been periods of fall), but the rate of change for sea ice, sea level, surface temperatures are hardly alarming compared to the geologic time frame.
I truly believe there are human influences on climate, but its barely anything to do with CO2 - the influence of the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 would be barely measureable on global temps, but mass land clearance, changes to vegetation and hydrological regime, urban sprawl, particulates from diesel and sulphurous emissions, massive dust clouds arising from overfarming and desertification - these have far more influence on climate than CO2. Even Matthew England from UNSW, a significant ‘warmist’ I discussed many years ago a theory I had around rainforest clearance in SE Asia and its impact to rainfall in SE Australia, and he totally agreed it had little to do with CO2, and was caused by changes to land use.
Anyway, I have given up on this issue now. I no longer debate anyone about it - I couldn’t care less nowadays. All my reference material in my office on this issue is covered in dust. I’ll leave it to the Gen Y Sebastians and Kates in the big acronym consulting houses with ‘Climate Change’ in their title to carry on - knowing that their economics and arts degree entitles them to know all there is to know about such a complex and chaotic thing that is our climate.
1 Like
Thank you for taking the time to detail that info, I have some counter data regarding the CO2 impact on climate but it’s after midnight so I’ll post in the morning.
Well Billy, I am also a scientist, not anything much to do with climate change, but I understand scientific exploit and practice as deeply as most.
I am not to going argue with your assertions over CO2, but agree that while changes in our worlds climate have occurred for thousands if not millions of years, the influence and hence effect of man is irrefutable.
Polar caps are melting, coral reefs are dying and air and water are polluted.
Where I do disagree, is regarding your claim that the UN and IPCC are corrupt and that scientists are to blame. For a start in my view the policy document that you refer sets guidelines for scientific research so that work can be compared and corroborated.
Science is all about putting up the hypothesis, and doing the research and laboratory work to prove it. A majority of hypotheses are proved false, but giant discoveries are made along the way to further our knowledge and progress our understanding of the pathways ahead.
No disrespect but I have met many disgruntled scientists who are in the minority with their claims, and they get a very hard time from their peers. Most fight harder, do more work and win support, or change their claims. The others just give up and die very grumpy old people.
Billy can you post where you got that stuff from.
I may be wrong but it looks like a cut and past job.
The Vostok data is pretty famous. What is it about the orbital cycles and large ice melt leading to a seesawing of heat between the poles as the explanation for this particular anomaly you don’t agree with? Hopefully you didn’t just look at CO2 against temperature and make up your mind from that?
No. As an earth scientist, one also knows to factor in the various Milankovitch cycles when looking at any geologic data such as temperature over the last few million years. Also major (and known) volcanic episodes (typically only those near the equatorial regions have more impact on climate) should be considered as well. 535AD was a doozy (‘Father’ of Krakatoa). Also yes you are partly correct is suggesting a ‘seesawing’ of temps between NP and SP, the modern satellite data suggests it is in fact sea ice area and thickness that fluctuates, and not surface temperatures - with that ‘seesawing’ largely driven by the multidecadal oscillations in the worlds main oceans.
But right now, my mind in not on climate…it’s on the weather, and hoping it stays dry for today’s game, Any wetness, and I worry our guys will continue to play ‘cute’ and not get the win At least my seat is undercover regardless.
We had one, then it went away but the good news is it will be back, hopefully by the end of May.
For the last year everyone has been calling Tasmania the “Battery of the Nation” — Turnbull, Hydro Tasmania, government departments, the ever hopeful green press. It’s an official plan. The bright idea is to add “Pumped Hydro Storage” to the large dams already on the island state, boosting the only reliable renewable type of energy. But right now, as far as mainland Australia goes, Tassie is a No-Volt Battery.
Battery of the Nation, Tasmania, Hydro.
Even Hydro Tasmania is calling itself the “Battery of the Nation”
The dirty secret is just how fragile the link is. Not only did it break for six spectacular months in 2016 — leaving the “green” state flying in squads of diesels – but its now quietly out of action again and it’s projected to be out for two months all up. The 290 km undersea cable known as Basslink is the second longest of its type in the world. It broke on 24 March 2018. It is not expected back in action til May 31. It was an accident of routine maintenance at one end.
“The equipment was damaged by a third-party contractor during routine works. There is no damage to the cable itself.”
This in what happens when you rely on others for essential services.
Coal, the only way to go.
The stunning numbers behind success of Tesla big battery
By Sophie Vorrath & Giles Parkinson on 11 May 2018
The Tesla’s big battery in South Australia has already taken a 55 per cent share in the state’s frequency and ancillary services market, and lowered prices in that market by 90 per cent, new data has shown.
The stunning numbers on the economics of the country’s first utility-scale battery were presented at the Australian Energy Week conference in Melbourne on Thursday by McKinsey and Co partner Godart van Gendt.
Speaking as part of a panel on the leading technologies and strategies that will help manage the transition to renewables of Australia’s, van Gendt said the data was more evidence that battery storage would “play a very big role.”
He said that a lot of discussion around the success of the big battery – the biggest of its kind in the world, to date, and delivered at break-neck speed – had focused on the fact that “we did it,” and not on the economics.
“So, I thought I’d give you a few numbers from the market data,” van Gendt said.
“In the first four months of operations of the Hornsdale Power Reserve (the official name of the Tesla big battery, owned and operated by Neoen), the frequency ancillary services prices went down by 90 per cent, so that’s 9-0 per cent.
“And the 100MW battery has achieved over 55 per cent of the FCAS revenues in South Australia. So it’s 2 per cent of the capacity in South Australia achieving 55 per cent of the revenues in South Australia.
“So that’s great for the first battery in the market,” he added, “but if you’ve already had 55 per cent of the FCAS that are now gone, right… and a 90 per cent drop in price, then the business case for the second battery, of course, is a bit less attractive.
“So I wish the second battery in South Australia a lot of luck!”
Van Gendt’s calculations are just the latest in a series of assessments that show that how the Tesla battery – despite being mocked by detractors for its small size compared to the overall grid – is having an impact on the market.
Various estimates have put the cost savings to consumers from the FCAS market alone at around $35 million, just in the first four months of its operation.
That’s a pretty good bang for the buck for the estimated $50 million investment by the South Australia government. South Australia is the only state that has experienced a decline in FCAS prices over the past few months.
The fact that the Tesla big battery has been able to puncture the FCAS pricing bubbles created by the gas cartel illustrates how even small additions to capacity – and new dispatchable technologies – can change the equations and market dynamics.
Tesla is doing more than that: It is also changing the way the market operators and participants are thinking about the grid, and underlying the case for new rules to be developed to ensure that their assets are properly recognised by the market.
The Australian Energy Market Operator has praised its performance, noting how it can respond to faster than any conventional generator, and with more accuracy.
AEMO has also supported the push for new rules that would recognise very fast response, which it is now using as a front-line defence against any further grid-scale blackouts.
As van Gendt suggests, the development of new rules, and markets that place a value on its speed and accuracy, is critical for the next wave of batteries that will join the main grid over the coming months and years.
This will starting with the new battery at the Wattle Point wind farm (now due in June), and then at the Lincoln Gap wind farm in South Australia, and three different projects in Victoria.
Tesla Energy’s regional manager of business development Lara Olsen also spoke to the conference about how the value of the battery’s contributions to the South Australian grid could also be seen in its impact on bidding practises across the market.
Tesla’s observations are that for a thermal generator, often what decides what and when it bids will depend on fuel costs and O&M (operation and maintenance costs).
Renewable energy doesn’t have that fuel cost, and very low O&M, and battery degradation only over time.
“So when you’re thinking about bidding, you’re really thinking about what is the opportunity cost if I bid in this next five minutes, and if I bid this next 10MWh into this five minutes or I don’t? And will I get a higher price for that if I hold off and bid in an hour’s time?”
The same goes with charging. Should the battery operator hold off and will there be a lower price at which it can charge, even when it can’t charge from a renewable energy generator?
Olsen presented a graph to the conference showing the amount of re-bids into the SA market for the first couple of months of the Hornsdale system. We can’t reproduce it, although energy wonks can find the data here.
Imagine, though, two very very big balloons (representing the Tesla battery bids from charging and discharging), and numerous smaller different coloured balloons, representing hydro, coal and gas generators. Something like this above.
One of the two big bubbles represented the Hornsdale Power Reserve load, and the other the Hornsdale Power Reserve generation (charge and discharge). Both activities – load and generation – need to be registered, rather than the single facility.
The smaller balloons represented the bidding of coal assets, gas generators, hydro plants, and even an aluminium smelter. But it was the speed and versatility of the battery that enable it to provide so many more bids than its competitions.
Tesla says the fact that the fact that it is always looking at opportunity costs that you can respond in 200 milliseconds – so the battery is happy to discharge, charge, discharge, charge, as it doesn’t affect the battery degradation.
And because it can use its software and take this into account and change its bids, means that it’s starting to participate in the market in a different way. And that will start to impact how generators also start bidding into the market.
4 Likes
Department of defence has recommended better emissions targets to tackle climate change because it is becoming a national security issue. Dang. Guess our military are a bunch of latte sipping commies now too.
5 Likes
I keep telling the General that we should be looking into replacing coal and oil with bio-fuel. My preference is whale-oil. Just one of those suckers could run a tank for a year.
I also recommended including soylent green in ration packs.
4 Likes
Lol. AGL’s response to the idea of selling Liddel so they can keep burning coal in it? “Yeah, nah”. Tony Abbott and Baaarnaby are straight on the radio issuing threats and crying unfair over it. Not only that they’re saying AGL is just trying to take advantage of everyone and that “the Australian people aren’t that stupid.” The irony meter is red lining. Funny that it’s these two though. Almost like they’ve got something to lose out of it. Or, someone they know pretty well has.
3 Likes
Whale-oil beef hooked?
1 Like
NSW government are allowing Liddell to emit three times what is considered international standard of nitrogen oxide. 14 times higher than US standards on their coal fired generators. Awesome job.
Shut this clunker down.
2 Likes
Craig Kelly blustering and jumping up and down about prosecuting AGL for being anti-competitive. In the land of monopolies. Where the LNP have been complicit in maintaining this monopoly wonderland. It’s about as funny as neoliberals demanding certain assets be made public all of a sudden. What’s the common thread here? Why are they turning themselves inside out over this one thing? Because they’re in the pocket of the coal industry. They’re shills working on the inside and two of them were recently the PM and deputy PM. Unbelievable.
2 Likes
It’s really not unbelievable. Unbelievable would be them turning their backs on those guys
Kinda meant it feels unbelievable those two stooges held two of the highest offices in the land.
1 Like