The Optimist dismisses most renewable power generation sources because they are intermittant. This is just stupid. Individually, each renewable intermittant power source may have an availability of 30-50% (less for solar photovoltaic). However different locations and different forms have availability at different times, so that at any given time, there is a better that 30-50% chance that much or most of the renewable power sources will be able to generate. Diversity is the key here. This allows us to use our other generation less, including fossil fuels, biomass, hydro and geothermal. Given that hydro and geothermal already provide about 2/3 of our power, it is quite realistic to generate most of the other 1/3 from renewable intermittant sources.

To make it easier to generate the last bit and to make more efficient use of the intermittant generation when it is available or hydro and geothermal generation when it isn’t, we can add storage. There are several options:

Flywheel energy storage – good for high power but very short timeframes. Enough storage to allow a generator to be started or to get a turbine spinning if demand exceeds current supply, or for frequency regulation:
http://www.beaconpower.com/products/EnergyStorageSystems/flywheels.htm

Vanadium flow batteries – good for medium power and generation for a few hours, such as peak shaving or smoothing out the output of a wind farm or a tidal flow system:
http://www.vrbpower.com/

Pumped hydro storage – for when you want to store a lot of power and have the geology and the water. Normally used for supplying peak demand from off-peak power but could add to New Zealand’s hydro storage about 300%:
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/news/index.shtml?article=221
http://www.earth.waikato.ac.nz/staff/bardsley/download/EEA_conference_pumped_storage.pdf

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I see that if I post in the morning before coffee my counting gets fuzzy

“Two things about it” should read “Three things about it” Sorry…. BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The risk I see is that the environmentalists’ aversion to risk sends us back into the stone age

Who is exaggerating here? All that environmentalists propose is that there be a MARKET PRICE PLACED ON THE USE OF THE COMMONS. If you are familiar with the “tragedy of the commons” (Hardin) you must understand that there is a purely economic problem here. The invisible hand reacts perfectly to what it can feel. It cannot see, it cannot think ahead, it is a fncking HAND… and we have put no price on the future climate, the CO2 in the atmosphere, the acidification of the ocean, the disappearance of species or the exhaustion of oil and natural gas and fresh-water. All that stuff can be encompassed by business-as-usual for FREE…. it’s part of the commons, and as a result it is done in preference to ANY solution that costs ANYTHING no matter how inefficient it actually is to heat an uninsulated house with electrical resistance heating. Now it is starting to cost something owing to the price of electricity. If the carbon cost had been included in the price of that design however, NO UNINSULATED HOUSES WOULD EVER HAVE BEEN BUILT IN NEW ZEALAND AND NO RESISTANCE HEATERS WOULD BE SOLD… because the price signal would have told people how stupid it actually is to do things that way.

Greens want the market to WORK… we have no interest in throwing human civilization back to the stone-age and your exaggeration is just another way you mislead.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The video rests largely on the idea that global warming will be a disaster. This is why we keep getting stories in the media about how bad even a small temperature change will be. The idea is to tell us that even though it is unlikely, the consequences are so bad that we should spend all our money fixing it now.

No… we say nothing about “all” our money. What we say is that we have to change. As for the disaster, the 2 degrees already “baked in” is quite bad enough. There’s two things about it.

First – if we don’t stop it turns into 3 and 4 and more degrees quite quickly… you suggested a couple of decades more delay… and that would easily put us at 3 degress.

Second – At just 2 degrees you will get drought, disappearance of the winter snow-pack in the Rockies and no water for LA and the productive areas of California… the entire Amerian West will become far less habitable. Similar issues face people in South America, India, China. Food supplies follow the disappearance of water.

Third – The melting of the ice of Greenland and the WAIS continues and accelerates with time… at the end of the century it is 2 meters (we can manage with some pain)… at the end of 150-160 years it is 7 meters or more, and in 300 it is ~ 15 meters and both Greenland and the WAIS are gone.

The only mitigating factor here is that the destruction of civilization due to the effects mentioned is likely to prevent “business-as-usual” from actually continuing all that much longer.

At 3 degrees the sea level is about 25 meters higher… Check conditions in the Pliocene for a reference point. The Amazon would dry out and eventually a fire would start. Indonesia burning is a foretaste of that particularly hellish outcome. It’d happen elsewhere too… Australia had a good example in 2003 near Canberra… have you heard the term “pyro-cumulo-nimbus” before? It would become familiar to those who still cling to language and civilization. Most of the planet would ALREADY be back to the stone age at this point.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well I’m not paid to do that, like many environmental and atmospheric scientists

Please get it through your head that the scientists are paid no matter what their research uncovers. Also, take note of this recently released by the NASA Inspector General:

Our investigation found that during the fall of 2004 through early 2006, the NASA Headquarters Office of Public Affairs managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public through those particular media over which the Office of Public Affairs had control (i.e., news releases and media access)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

If the solar output changes, would that affect temperature on Earth?

Of course it does AND NO CLIMATE SCIENTIST IGNORES IT, but the questions to be answered are

“How much?”

“Has it been changing to drive the climate as we see the climate changing now?”

The way you are asking the question implies that you believe that climate science DOES ignore it, and that can only be because you haven’t been paying attention.

This provides a fair lot of links to the science that’s being done. I have not read all of them as *I* am not paid to do this either.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~dshindel/

The point is not the specifics, but that the science INCLUDES the solar forcings and does so in a scientific manner. Not by making up graphics, cherry-picking data and misleading people as “the swindle” does.

I’m done for today. The insulting and absurd arguments about my personal behaviour will be ignored. The global problem is what it is, and I am doing what you imagine I should do, but it takes the agreement of a bank and a seller of a house or property near the rail-line for me to be able to move and own. It takes ownership to be able to alter, build or renovate and insulate.

I don’t control the LAQC, the manner in which housing is built or financed or the way councils have interfered and seized control of the building process. I know what’s wrong with all that, and it has important results when its impact on the quality of housing stock in this country is considered, but it is beyond the scope of this post.

So far I have seen nothing to justify being an “Optimist”

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Pressure Retarded Osmosis:
http://www.statkraft.com/pub/innovation/tecnology/osmotic_power/how_osmotic_power_works.asp

This is one approach to extracting power from salinity gradients, i.e. where fresh water meets sea water. The likely power out is 1MW per cubic meter per second. New Zealand has lots of fresh water flowing into lots of sea. The Manapouri tailrace could generate around 500MW alone.

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

High-altitude wind power:
http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm

Essentially electric helicoptors flown like kites several kilometers high.

Not so good for a mountainous country, but I’m sure we could find some suitable areas, perhaps north of Auckland.

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hi optimist, My forte is systems analyis. I have no choice but to accept environmental arguments that can withstand critical analysis. I cannot accept environmental arguments that can be disproved or neither proved nor disproved to my satisfaction.

Did you go outside and take a deep breath before you wrote “At the moment our air is pretty clean”? Maybe that was a rainy or cloudy night. It’s definitely dirty air tonight, pungent. The entire length of the expressway. If there is a filter in the heater of my car it doesn’t work. Maybe the northeast is the “poor” part of town?

Insulation expensive? That’s a sad endictment of the cradle-to-grave mentality this country has been lumbered with. Hardly anybody can think past the cost at the checkout. And anybody who trusted the government to save their taxes for their pension is going into retirement without a good lump sim payout to fix the insulation problem before the move to fixed income makes them vulnerable to energy price inflation.

“I need the environment like I need my car.” Very good analogy. But try taking it a step further. Do you look after your car or do you just run it till it breaks then get another one? Now a thought just popped into my head…are you thinking that environmentalists are similar to car enthusiasts? I was going to say boy racers, but I think recreational hunters and fishermen fit that particular comparison better than environmentalists do.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The Optimist is trotting out the “There Is No Alternative” line again…

New Zealand does NOT need to head towards more coal-fired power stations. If you want to dispose of some of those heaps of coal, sell them to China or India and spare the lives of some of their miners, and use the foreign exchange to buy geothermal generation plant or other renewable technology.

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

treesoftomorrow we really are going off into the weeds here. But I just drove through LA a few hours ago and the air seemed pretty clean to me. And that was on the motorway!

There is nothing wrong with being coal dependent – NZ really needs to head that way as we have heaps of coal and our electricity prices are far too high. I don’t think burning coal has much impact on air polution. This idea that we would rather be cold than have another coal fire power station is just silly. Put it to the vote, I say.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>> GM is considering pulling the plug on Hummer

Indeed. And look – no socialism required….

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

On Campbell live: market forces deal to big cars. GM is considering pulling the plug on Hummer.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

sue wont be going unless the party goes, shes third on the list i believe – and then theres delahunty…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Aha!!! Finally Russell gets into parliament. This might signal the beginning of the Greens waking up to how sizeable their vote could become if they improved their public profile.

Goodbye Sue! (I hope)

Hello real environmentalism (I hope!)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

> Your mention of China is an extreme case anyway, the communist countries always seemed to have a particular way of filling the air with crap and the rivers with sludge. Democracies are much better.

Australia and America (Poland and India) are all coal dependent, none are ‘communist’. Democracies (as in not Zimbabwe, Burma etc?) aren’t always so crash hot on clean air (think LA in the US or Rio in Brasil, Or parts of Mexico..)

> I haven’t noticed widespread pollution in NZ due to coal fire power stations. Not enough to want me to turn the light switch off, anyway.

Thats because largely we don’t use it. Huntly is our sole coal fired power station for electricity (marsden B didnt get approved and built, and Labour and Solid Energys West Coast coal fired power station seems to be dust at current).

No widespread coal power/no widespread coal pollution.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The Optimist Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:38 pm

> For example, Al Gore fails to mention that CO2 concentration follows temperature rather than the other way around. An important point I think.

Most previous warmings show co2 levels following warming. The current phase of warming shows co2 leading, and temperature increase following.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The Optimist Says:
June 1st, 2008 at 3:14 pm

> CO2 argument – don’t believe it

that’s okay. I don’t believe you really exist, either.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

toad Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 11:39 pm

> I do, indeed. But being a competent, or even exceptional, property developer or enrepreneuer doesn’t mean you have the skills to be a competent politician

are you suggesting that that is somehow a prerequisite for being re-elected?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

New Zealand’s electricity demand is around 7.2 GW peak and 40,000 GWH per annum. Most of the alternative resources are individually capable of supplying this much energy, although storage is needed to ensure that energy is available when needed. So when The Optimist described these as “small beer”, I thought that “there goes a real alcoholic”. But then I realised that The Optimist was probably refering to the cost. Most of these systems (except Hydro) are moduler, and can be expanded with another turbine or another generator for little more than the weekly tab at Bellemy’s

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hello again bjchip,

Soon we will have all the issues sorted out I’m sure. I have completely forgotten the original topic and I’m heading away tomorrow so limited time.

But the numbers I have show oil production did not drop last year…do you have a spreadsheet with the data?

Oil is an odd thing because it is mostly controlled by a bunch of dodgy countries, mostly corrupt dictatorships. Western oil companies have very limited access to this oil, much of it is bound up in a cartel, and speculators and government stock policies have all sorts of effects on the market. I reckon the price is going to fall soon though, so watch out.

Definitely this Global Warming Swindle doco has got environmentalists heated up. It is good for the debate. I have to say your statement that Al Gore’s one is more accurate doesn’t fit with my view.

For example, Al Gore fails to mention that CO2 concentration follows temperature rather than the other way around. An important point I think.

Anyway it’s great being an optimist. I will sleep soundly tonight knowing that the goblins can’t get it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hi treesoftomorrow

> pollution optimist – are you talking about coal fired power stations in China? because you are ill informed or lying if you belief there arent health problems associated with them.

Of course there are, the question is, is the pollution worse than not having power? Obviously the decision has been made that it isn’t, so the power stays on. Just because there is a bit of black smoke doesn’t mean we should go back to the stone age.

Your mention of China is an extreme case anyway, the communist countries always seemed to have a particular way of filling the air with crap and the rivers with sludge. Democracies are much better.

I haven’t noticed widespread pollution in NZ due to coal fire power stations. Not enough to want me to turn the light switch off, anyway.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hi greengeek

I hope you turn off your computer between comments

> This is exactly what defines your typical optimist: “…the world won’t be here in 2000 years, so we don’t have to worry. Just keep on trucking exactly the way we are�.

Your typical optimist has other worries and certainly isn’t that bothered about what might happen in 2000 years. Star Trek has been and gone by then and we’ll all be in space.

If I can adopt a similar parody of environmentalists, “we have a small concern that the wheels might come off if we don’t make radical change and make everyone poorer and more miserable, so let’s do it just in case”

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)