Global Warming Climate Models Have Made a Successful Prediction

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:45:51 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 7:32:09 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 10:13:18 AM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/words...is-a-real-word

It's still a fake word, bozo, no matter how many bozos use it.

Pavlov would have loved you!

Ding, ding, roll over!

Ding, ding, argue!

Don't forget "Ding, ding, drool". Some of his less coherent rants
might be the result of shorts in his keyboard.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:47:56 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 10:38:21 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:32:07 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 10:13:18 AM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/words...is-a-real-word

It's still a fake word, bozo, no matter how many bozos use it.

It's got to be tough when you don't really know English but it's still
your only language. I guess that explains why your arguments are so
nonimpactful.

People hate such words as "impactful." They carry no meaning and those who use them are considered rather stupid, poorly educated and superficial.

People such as yourself? Pathological conservatives who are so locked
into their ways that they can't even adapt to changing language? Hate
away.

On Monday, 29 August 2016 15:42:31 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:

That's why I think that storage is better, since then power could be carried in
ships rather than requiring the building of enormous low-loss transmission
lines to distant continents.

John Savard

Any low cost, ambient temperature superconductors in the wings?

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:54:40 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote:

On Monday, 29 August 2016 15:42:31 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:

That's why I think that storage is better, since then power could be carried in
ships rather than requiring the building of enormous low-loss transmission
lines to distant continents.

John Savard

Any low cost, ambient temperature superconductors in the wings?

No. There might be low cost superconductors that only require LN
temperatures (not really cryogenic). It seems unlikely that they will
dominate power transmission. Indeed, the long term trend is likely to
lead away from large power grids in favor of smaller, local grids. An
advantage of solar (and wind) is that they work well at the community
level in a way that no fossil fuel technology really does.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:54:40 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote:

On Monday, 29 August 2016 15:42:31 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:

That's why I think that storage is better, since then power could be carried in
ships rather than requiring the building of enormous low-loss transmission
lines to distant continents.

John Savard

Any low cost, ambient temperature superconductors in the wings?

No. There might be low cost superconductors that only require LN
temperatures (not really cryogenic). It seems unlikely that they will
dominate power transmission. Indeed, the long term trend is likely to
lead away from large power grids in favor of smaller, local grids. An
advantage of solar (and wind) is that they work well at the community
level in a way that no fossil fuel technology really does.


Large power grids are particularly suitable for nuclear power.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:04:10 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:54:40 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote:

On Monday, 29 August 2016 15:42:31 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:

That's why I think that storage is better, since then power could be carried in
ships rather than requiring the building of enormous low-loss transmission
lines to distant continents.

John Savard

Any low cost, ambient temperature superconductors in the wings?

No. There might be low cost superconductors that only require LN
temperatures (not really cryogenic). It seems unlikely that they will
dominate power transmission. Indeed, the long term trend is likely to
lead away from large power grids in favor of smaller, local grids. An
advantage of solar (and wind) is that they work well at the community
level in a way that no fossil fuel technology really does.


Large power grids are particularly suitable for nuclear power.

And also for fossil fuel power, which in most cases is most efficient
with large-scale generation (small-scale generation with natural gas
has been successful in some cases). But for the most part, solar and
wind power are both much more scaleable than fossil fuel generation,
allowing energy to be used near where it is generated, which often
adds to efficiency and reduces the dependence on large and sometimes
fragile power grids.

Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:08:58 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
This means that solar power from different time zones
and longitudes can be used to even out the supply.

That is redundant. Or, to be even more nit-picky, solar power from different
longitudes would be equally effective in evening out the supply whether it came
from Europe, with different legislated time zones, or from China, with only one
time zone across an expanse of longitude. Solar power doesn't come from clocks.

Solar power doesn't come from clocks but domestic demand does.

(Actually, since China is at a different latitude than Europe, the effect of
longitude would be slightly different, but _that_ I viewed as a minor detail
not affecting my point.)

But I'm more concerned with a more basic error. Yes, long-distance transmission
of power can be used to even out the supply. However, Europe does not extend
across the same range of longitude as, say, the old British Empire. Thus, the
sun still *does* set on Europe once a day. Getting electrical power at night
from the Sun requires shipping power almost halfway around the world, a
daunting challenge.

I didn't say that the whole world could be used. But Europe already has
long distance transmission of power. The day can be extended by several
hours. The U.K. imports and exports power to and from continental Europe
and has been doing so for decades. Scotland exports power to the rest of
the U.K. The U.K., particularly Scotland has a large share of European
resources for wind, wave and tidal power. Tidal power in the Bristol
Channel has long been proposed. The Severn Barrier is probably beyond
current technology but the tidal lagoon in Cardiff has a good chance of
being built and smaller projects are already operational in Scotland.


http://www.tidallagooncardiff.com/the-project/faqs/59/


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...iness-37212373



Wave power can make a big contribution and may also be used to protect
coastlines in storms. The Thatcher government killed off all the wave power
projects in the 1980s but they are now under development again.

That's why I think that storage is better, since then power could be carried in
ships rather than requiring the building of enormous low-loss transmission
lines to distant continents.

John Savard

On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 3:23:36 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:08:58 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

This means that solar power from different time zones
and longitudes can be used to even out the supply.

That is redundant. Or, to be even more nit-picky, solar power from different
longitudes would be equally effective in evening out the supply whether it came
from Europe, with different legislated time zones, or from China, with only one
time zone across an expanse of longitude. Solar power doesn't come from clocks.

Solar power doesn't come from clocks but domestic demand does.

Ah, I missed your point. So the benefits would be cut in half in China!

So it's really... solar power from different longitudes could be sent to
different time zones to even out supply.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote:
On Monday, August 29, 2016 at 3:23:36 PM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 11:08:58 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:

This means that solar power from different time zones
and longitudes can be used to even out the supply.

That is redundant. Or, to be even more nit-picky, solar power from different
longitudes would be equally effective in evening out the supply whether it came
from Europe, with different legislated time zones, or from China, with only one
time zone across an expanse of longitude. Solar power doesn't come from clocks.

Solar power doesn't come from clocks but domestic demand does.

Ah, I missed your point. So the benefits would be cut in half in China!

So it's really... solar power from different longitudes could be sent to
different time zones to even out supply.

John Savard


We'll both really. In the UK power supplies have to be increased in
advertising breaks for popular TV programmes since people use their
electric kettles to make tea in the breaks.

On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 21:45:46 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

We'll both really. In the UK power supplies have to be increased in
advertising breaks for popular TV programmes since people use their
electric kettles to make tea in the breaks.

People still watch TV shows real time?