Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 488

by Layzej (#48009425) Attached to: Utilities Should Worry; Rooftop Solar Could Soon Cut Their Profit

when wind blows, if you're running a nuclear or coal plant, you cannot sell any of your produced electricity until your wind/solar competitors sold everything they produced

In a free market wouldn't coal be at a similar disadvantage? Solar/wind would sell for any price above 0 but coal could not sell below the cost of the resource. When the wind is blowing and the sun is shining the renewable utilities will always sell at market price - even if that drives the market price down to almost nothing. We really need to develop a market that can handle this. Probably that will mean dropping feed in tariffs and charging the consumer a market rate rather than subsidizing the consumer. New technologies will be required to help manage this. For instance your car would charge automatically when the rate drops below 5 cents (and possibly sell excess when the the price is quite high). It is going to require a revolution but given the trajectory of the cost of solar - that revolution is coming one way or the other.

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 488

by Layzej (#48009295) Attached to: Utilities Should Worry; Rooftop Solar Could Soon Cut Their Profit
The cuts to subsidies cannot keep up with the dropping cost of renewables. The subsidies should be cut further and renewables would still be profitable. At some point there will be a tipping point when cost for renewables drops below coal. Solar is going to be a disruptive technology on the order of the internet.

Comment: Re:Which is bogus number (Score 1) 259

by Layzej (#47997161) Attached to: Obama Presses China On Global Warming

Ok. "At the end of 2012, there were 76GW (91GW in 2013) of electricity generating capacity installed in China, more than the total nameplate capacity of China's nuclear power stations,[3] and over the year 115,000 gigawatt-hours of wind electricity had been provided to the grid.[4] In 2011, China's plan was “to have 100 gigawatts (GW) of on-grid wind power generating capacity by the end of 2015 and to generate 190 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) of wind power annually” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

For comparison: "As of the end of 2013 the capacity was 61,108 MW.[1] This capacity is exceeded only by China.[2] Projects totaling 12,000 MW of capacity were under construction at the end of 2013, including 10,900 MW that began construction in the 4th quarter.[1]" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

Not bad on either account. Here is a comparison of USA to China on solar power. The trend is very exciting and probably scares the pants off of traditional utilities: http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

Here is a comparision of USA to China on wind power. Also an exciting trend: http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...

It looks like China really needs to catch up on nuclear. If they start popping out nuclear plants like they do wind turbines we are in real trouble.

Comment: Re:The pot calling the kettle black (Score 1) 259

by Layzej (#47990083) Attached to: Obama Presses China On Global Warming

You don't have to admire their government to be concerned that China is leading the way to a new energy economy while a significant portion of the electorate in the west refuses to accept basic physics. We used to be the leaders and innovators. What happened? There is an energy revolution underway and we don't seem to want any part of it.

One wind turbine an hour. Can we compete with that? Shouldn't we at least try?

Comment: Re:The pot calling the kettle black (Score 1) 259

by Layzej (#47983051) Attached to: Obama Presses China On Global Warming

immediate proximity to a border has very little to do with trade,

How do you figure? Do you think it is a coincidence that 70% of Canadian exports are to the USA? Also, it is worth noting that two of Canada's provinces have revenue neutral carbon taxes. One has closed down all coal plants. They are making strides, but there is a concern that being too far ahead of the curve will put them at a disadvantage.

Comment: Re:Talking Point (Score 1) 427

by Layzej (#47912953) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013
Hey Phlinn, In addition to my notes above, I just noticed that you can plot PDO in woodfortrees. Plot from 2002 and it shows negative: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/j...

The PDO cycle dominates over the short term, so if PDO is negative then atmospheric temperatures will be negative. PDO does not have a trend.over the long run so while it has a great effect on the 10 or 20 year trend, it has no effect on the long term trend.

Comment: Re:Talking Point (Score 1) 427

by Layzej (#47912731) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013
Hi Phlinn

HADCRUT3 has even less coverage than HADCRUT4. Why not use the latest and greatest? Regarding mathematical artifacts, replication over many different reconstructions using different methods and different data gives us confidence in the results. Regarding malfeasance, I'm not sure that the resignation of a journal's editor when it becomes clear that the journal is pushing an agenda at the expense of the truth is malfeasance. I'm not inclined to discuss conspiracy theories although I know these narratives are popular. Suffice it to say that I disagree.

Regarding plotting from 2002, yes the trend line is negative for some data sets. It is more negative if you plot from 2010. What does that tell us? Note that the data is consistently above the trend until about 2007. Note that the data cycles above and below the trend as PDO and ENSO wax and wane. What we are seeing is a steady upward trend with natural variability superimposed on top. We're below the trend line now and the indicators show that we should be. That means we will go back above when the indicators flip back to the positive part of their cycle.

When you look at the data, do you have any expectation that the next El Nino will not be the new hottest year on record? That's even with the PDO strongly negative. You can subtract ENSO and PDO from the trend with this tool and you end up with something closer to the real trend: http://scratch.mit.edu/project...

P.S. if you have kids then you should introduce them to Scratch. I've been showing it to my kids and I've become addicted :) Please pardon the Scratch evangelism :)

Comment: Re:Talking Point (Score 1) 427

by Layzej (#47910313) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013
Hi Phlinn,

Yes, the RSS is an outlier. Should we put our faith in the minority report? Woodfortrees will show slope if you click the 'data' link at the bottom of the graph.

Be careful if you are suggesting that the various groups analyzing station temperature are all colluding to show the same result - a result that agrees with the UAH satellite reconstruction compiled by skeptics Spencer and Christy. The adjustments are all documented in the scientific literature. They appear to be necessary in order to make the data more accurately reflect the true global average temperature.

CRU does not have global coverage. CRU has been shown to have a cool bias due to the missing data. Even still, it does show an upward trend of 0.1C over the period. Please look again: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h....

Comment: Re:Talking Point (Score 1) 427

by Layzej (#47874283) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013

You can use woodfortrees.org to check for yourself. The folks you cited are using data sets without global coverage, and starting at the (then) 3 sigma El Nino anomaly. The missing data is important, but even still the trend shows a rise of 0.1C over the period: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h...

I'm not sure why they drew a flat line through that data when the trend is actually up.

It is worth noting that the 3 sigma event that they chose as their starting point is now not that remarkable an event. Modest El Ninos will exceed that event at this point. Soon ENSO neutral years will top that event.

Satellite data compiled by skeptics Spencer and Christy shows 0.08C over the period: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...

The data they omit is important. Here is a data set with near global coverage. It shows a rise of 0.14C over the period: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

Comment: Re:Simple change. What about round abouts (Score 1) 213

by Layzej (#47866627) Attached to: Surprising Result of NYC Bike Lanes: Faster Traffic for Cars
They are great for cars, but really bad for foot traffic. At a roundabout, pedestrians must wait until there is a gap in traffic to cross. There is no designated time for pedestrians to cross, like a walk signal, which means at a busy intersection you had better be quick if you want to make it through. You wouldn't want to place this anywhere people want to spend time. Only at busy intersections away from shops and destinations.

Comment: Re:Bikes lanes are nice (Score 2) 213

by Layzej (#47866235) Attached to: Surprising Result of NYC Bike Lanes: Faster Traffic for Cars
This same designated left turn lane came with bike lanes in Toronto and had the same effect. Prior to the bike lanes there was no dedicated parking. People would just park in the right lane - so effectively you only had one lane for cars and no room for a left turn lane. The bike lanes necessitated the designated parking which allowed for the designated turn lane. Traffic crawled before the bike lanes were implemented. It still crawls, but it crawls really fast now.

Comment: Re:Meanwhile in the real world... (Score 1) 427

by Layzej (#47863795) Attached to: UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013
Reminds me of Asimov: "when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Debug is human, de-fix divine.

Working...