I think we are cutting emissions and will get to that target before too long. But maybe not this year and already too late to be in compliance. One big advantage that we've got for ourselves is that we can lay the liability for climate damage on China now. As with an auto collision, the person with their foot in the brake is less at fault than the one with their foot on the gas. We've found some safe harbor from the coming storm of blame. I think we should be putting tariffs of imports from China to cover increased flood and crop insurance payouts domestically and to cover emergency assistance in the Philippines.
Not too sure of this. In 2012, the US reached an 18 year low, so emissions were around the 1994 level. The US does not have a Kyoto commitment since the protocol was not ratified, but it did sign on to 7% below 1990. So, if this year we cut around 9% from last year, we could make it. But I'd guess we'll be more than a year late (Kyoto commitment period was 2008 through 2012) and several percent short. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/1022/US-carbon-emissions-fall-to-18-year-low.-What-s-behind-it
Was that full scale thorium in twenty years? Tell me more, tell me more.... Face it, there are a lot of nuclear wet dreams out there that are just not going to be fruitful.
This is an interesting approach. I'm not sure that the cost of storage has been correctly evaluated though. Electrified transportation casts off some still pretty high quality batteries after nine or ten years of use at transportation grade. These aftermarket batteries can provide substantial storage. About half a day's worth of total consumption for a fully electrified passenger transportation system.
Problems with nuclear power are causing some to retrench to fossil fuels. So, indeed, coal is a choice some are making owing to those problems. Thus, nuclear does not reduce emissions as much as other alternatives.
There are a couple of big ways in which nuclear power does a bad job on greenhouse gas emissions. First, it is expensive and slow. So much so that its opportunity cost is bloated and when effort is ill spent on nuclear power, alternatives which are faster, cheaper and better are hindered. http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly
Second, as we are seeing here, one accident can lead to a massive pullback from nuclear power, both in the affected country and around the world. Even France has announced a planned pullback. When the pullback is rapid, then relic fossil fuel plants rather than new clean energy replacements are pulled into service to make up the difference in generation. This makes nuclear power not just a slow response to climate change, but a retrograde response since these bad accidents are inevitable.
There are other ways it has a bad influence as well, such as pretending to be a silver bullet to the adolescent mind for example, so much time is wasted on fantasy scenarios. But these two big ones are bad enough.
"Aluminium smelting is the process of extracting aluminium from its oxide, alumina, generally by the Hall-Héroult process. Alumina is extracted from the ore bauxite by means of the Bayer process at an alumina refinery.
This is an electrolytic process, so an aluminium smelter uses prodigious amounts of electricity; they tend to be located very close to large power stations, often hydro-electric ones, and near ports since almost all of them use imported alumina."
I have a Chinese knockoff version of the Joy of Cooking. The binding has fallen apart though. Interesting that a book with recipes for roadkill is sold in Taiwan. Not a lot of possum or raccoon to be found there. They do like snake though. Recipes do like to be shared.
Actually, if you follow the link or even read the post, you'll see wind doing the job. It will be interesting to see what happens in California though. Only one left to go.
Well, they are required to serve customers. If that makes them feel bad, maybe they should get into a different line of work. Solar makes electricity cheaper for customers, so they should be serving that interest.
This only seems important when it is the last coal plant running at 30%. Until then, you can just kill plants completely. Eliminate the fix cost by closing the redundant plant. We're not trying to keep coal plants are we?
It does depend on the size of the installation. $0.70 per KW capacity. Generally, customers who need more power need more grid service, including the spinning reserve you mention. And, since solar provides power at the highest demand periods, it costs those types of costs rather than increasing them. Though a bit more random, even wind is capping the expense of gas by putting the less efficient peakers off line to the extent that nukes are close because they can't compete. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/RenaissanceinReverse7.18.2013.pdf
It seems to me that all customers should be charged this fee and their per kwh fee reduced. This is a service that benefits all customers, not just solar panel owners. In some ways, non-solar customers use the gird even more that the home generators. It is a matter of getting the power charge, the distribution charge and the connection charge properly balanced across the board.
I thought the cathodes and anodes were solid. Lead acid batteries also sometimes have a liquid electrolyte but they are not considered liquid batteries. I think the interest in liquid batteries is that the cathodes and anodes refresh their structure and so don't suffer degradation the way solids do. But, for the redox battery, is seems like the cathode and anodes are really just electrodes, so maybe you've got the right of it where it counts.
I guess next he needs to put up a Liquid State Physics class? I agree that we'll need grid storage. One aspect that is not all that well appreciated is that the electric cars sold now are going to shed some batteries that are still pretty useful starting in the next several years. I've calculated that fully converting our passenger auto fleet to electric provides about half a day's worth of storage for our entire use of electricity from the aftermarket batteries alone, no V2G complexities, just stationary storage. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/roof-pitch.html
A surprising number of senior scientists are not aware of the problems introduced by ending an experiment based on achieving a certain significance level. By taking the significance as the criterion of the experiment, you don't actually know anything about the significance. Your highly significant result may just be a fluctuation because, had you continued, the high signal-to-noise ratio could well dissipate. Too often I've heard senior scientists advising junior scientists: You've got three sigma, publish. But, proper procedure is to design an experiment to run for a certain duration and then find out what the result is.
Medicine has a formal means to end a trial early if a medicine turns out to be dangerous or particularly helpful. This is an ethical consideration. But, it does make the trial results void.
Checking Bevington (1969) Table C-1: P=0.0000014868 for 5 sigma. Interestingly, the table does not go up to six sigma, suggesting that a certain set of companies don't actually exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Six_Sigma_companies
Slashdot Mirror
I think we are cutting emissions and will get to that target before too long. But maybe not this year and already too late to be in compliance. One big advantage that we've got for ourselves is that we can lay the liability for climate damage on China now. As with an auto collision, the person with their foot in the brake is less at fault than the one with their foot on the gas. We've found some safe harbor from the coming storm of blame. I think we should be putting tariffs of imports from China to cover increased flood and crop insurance payouts domestically and to cover emergency assistance in the Philippines.
Can't think of any reactor experiment that matches your description. You seem to be living in a fantasy world.
Not too sure of this. In 2012, the US reached an 18 year low, so emissions were around the 1994 level. The US does not have a Kyoto commitment since the protocol was not ratified, but it did sign on to 7% below 1990. So, if this year we cut around 9% from last year, we could make it. But I'd guess we'll be more than a year late (Kyoto commitment period was 2008 through 2012) and several percent short. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/1022/US-carbon-emissions-fall-to-18-year-low.-What-s-behind-it
Was that full scale thorium in twenty years? Tell me more, tell me more.... Face it, there are a lot of nuclear wet dreams out there that are just not going to be fruitful.
This is an interesting approach. I'm not sure that the cost of storage has been correctly evaluated though. Electrified transportation casts off some still pretty high quality batteries after nine or ten years of use at transportation grade. These aftermarket batteries can provide substantial storage. About half a day's worth of total consumption for a fully electrified passenger transportation system.
Problems with nuclear power are causing some to retrench to fossil fuels. So, indeed, coal is a choice some are making owing to those problems. Thus, nuclear does not reduce emissions as much as other alternatives.
There are a couple of big ways in which nuclear power does a bad job on greenhouse gas emissions. First, it is expensive and slow. So much so that its opportunity cost is bloated and when effort is ill spent on nuclear power, alternatives which are faster, cheaper and better are hindered. http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly
Second, as we are seeing here, one accident can lead to a massive pullback from nuclear power, both in the affected country and around the world. Even France has announced a planned pullback. When the pullback is rapid, then relic fossil fuel plants rather than new clean energy replacements are pulled into service to make up the difference in generation. This makes nuclear power not just a slow response to climate change, but a retrograde response since these bad accidents are inevitable.
There are other ways it has a bad influence as well, such as pretending to be a silver bullet to the adolescent mind for example, so much time is wasted on fantasy scenarios. But these two big ones are bad enough.
"Aluminium smelting is the process of extracting aluminium from its oxide, alumina, generally by the Hall-Héroult process. Alumina is extracted from the ore bauxite by means of the Bayer process at an alumina refinery.
This is an electrolytic process, so an aluminium smelter uses prodigious amounts of electricity; they tend to be located very close to large power stations, often hydro-electric ones, and near ports since almost all of them use imported alumina."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_smelting
I come across TI-35's and such at thrift stores for a few bucks. You aren't going to uses it again much so just re-donate when you are done with it.
I have a Chinese knockoff version of the Joy of Cooking. The binding has fallen apart though. Interesting that a book with recipes for roadkill is sold in Taiwan. Not a lot of possum or raccoon to be found there. They do like snake though. Recipes do like to be shared.
Actually, if you follow the link or even read the post, you'll see wind doing the job. It will be interesting to see what happens in California though. Only one left to go.
The US amended the Constitution to get off ethanol once. That didn't last.
Nuclear is just one of the higher cost generating schemes that renewables are beginning to eliminate.
Same for me on both counts.
Well, they are required to serve customers. If that makes them feel bad, maybe they should get into a different line of work. Solar makes electricity cheaper for customers, so they should be serving that interest.
This only seems important when it is the last coal plant running at 30%. Until then, you can just kill plants completely. Eliminate the fix cost by closing the redundant plant. We're not trying to keep coal plants are we?
It does depend on the size of the installation. $0.70 per KW capacity. Generally, customers who need more power need more grid service, including the spinning reserve you mention. And, since solar provides power at the highest demand periods, it costs those types of costs rather than increasing them. Though a bit more random, even wind is capping the expense of gas by putting the less efficient peakers off line to the extent that nukes are close because they can't compete. http://will.illinois.edu/nfs/RenaissanceinReverse7.18.2013.pdf
Exactly.
It seems to me that all customers should be charged this fee and their per kwh fee reduced. This is a service that benefits all customers, not just solar panel owners. In some ways, non-solar customers use the gird even more that the home generators. It is a matter of getting the power charge, the distribution charge and the connection charge properly balanced across the board.
Aluminum smelting prefers the cheapest power source. This has been renewable energy for a very long time. Here is what they do in Iceland where smelting is their largest consumer of electricity http://arcticecon.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/aluminium-smelting-in-iceland-alcoa-rio-tinto-alcan-century-aluminum-corp/
Solar is headed towards being the cheapest source so it is likely that smelting will shift away from hydro to solar in the next couple of decades.
I thought the cathodes and anodes were solid. Lead acid batteries also sometimes have a liquid electrolyte but they are not considered liquid batteries. I think the interest in liquid batteries is that the cathodes and anodes refresh their structure and so don't suffer degradation the way solids do. But, for the redox battery, is seems like the cathode and anodes are really just electrodes, so maybe you've got the right of it where it counts.
I guess next he needs to put up a Liquid State Physics class? I agree that we'll need grid storage. One aspect that is not all that well appreciated is that the electric cars sold now are going to shed some batteries that are still pretty useful starting in the next several years. I've calculated that fully converting our passenger auto fleet to electric provides about half a day's worth of storage for our entire use of electricity from the aftermarket batteries alone, no V2G complexities, just stationary storage. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/08/roof-pitch.html
Another liquid battery concept for grid storage was mentioned here: http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511081/ambris-better-grid-battery/
A surprising number of senior scientists are not aware of the problems introduced by ending an experiment based on achieving a certain significance level. By taking the significance as the criterion of the experiment, you don't actually know anything about the significance. Your highly significant result may just be a fluctuation because, had you continued, the high signal-to-noise ratio could well dissipate. Too often I've heard senior scientists advising junior scientists: You've got three sigma, publish. But, proper procedure is to design an experiment to run for a certain duration and then find out what the result is.
Medicine has a formal means to end a trial early if a medicine turns out to be dangerous or particularly helpful. This is an ethical consideration. But, it does make the trial results void.
Checking Bevington (1969) Table C-1: P=0.0000014868 for 5 sigma. Interestingly, the table does not go up to six sigma, suggesting that a certain set of companies don't actually exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Six_Sigma_companies