Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Rene Lamontagne Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10 Subject: Re: Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 18:08:52 -0500 Lines: 139 Message-ID: References:

Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net TJk4CHgoFDwiJ/+O8GKfTQFLC1d5O357j8hOIdT4nCnF86uBgT Cancel-Lock: sha1:+PBGrThkhrDpFkz+sgCUtp3B3KA= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com alt.comp.os.windows-10:99085 On 2019-09-21 4:39 p.m., Paul wrote: > Rene Lamontagne wrote: >> On 2019-09-21 10:36 a.m., Frank Slootweg wrote: >>> Eric Stevens wrote: >>>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 13:03:06 -0400, Paul >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eric Stevens wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:38:06 +0100, Chris >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 20/09/2019 01:39, Eric Stevens wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:18:13 -0800, "Bill Bradshaw" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Char Jackson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 15:29:18 +0200, "Carlos E.R." >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 18/09/2019 11.07, Eric Stevens wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 22:30:33 -0400, "Mayayana" >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know what to think, personally. I'm not >>>>>>>>>>>>> convinced that >>>>>>>>>>>>> we have the capability to really know what's happening or why. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But I do know that I used to play hockey on local ponds from >>>>>>>>>>>>> late November to March when I was young, and in recent years >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ponds rarely even freeze over. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So wouldn't it make sense to just avoid actions that might >>>>>>>>>>>>> contribute to global warming, just to be on the safe side? >>>>>>>>>>>>> What harm is there in increasing solar and wind energy >>>>>>>>>>>>> sources, >>>>>>>>>>>> It will lead to horrendously expensive and unreliable power. >>>>>>>>>>> LOL. There is an island in Spain that has gone a month with >>>>>>>>>>> only wind >>>>>>>>>>> and solar power. Just an example. >>>>>>>>>> A second example is the Isle of Eigg, near Scotland. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Eigg generates virtually 100% of its electricity using renewable >>>>>>>>>> energy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigg >>>>>>>>> Example: Kodiak, Alaska >>>>>>>> They are fortunate. 80% of their power is hydro. No CO2. That >>>>>>>> is, no >>>>>>>> CO2 after they have built the dam. >>>>>>> That's the point. >>>>>> >>>>>> But you can't ignore the CO2 generated while the plant is being >>>>>> built. >>>>>> Its like ignoring the purchase price of a car when calculating its >>>>>> running costs. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There is at least one hydroelectric project which is running >>>>> 100 years after it was built. The CO2 component of the build, >>>>> is amortized over those 100 years (compared to any competing >>>>> generating technique). Now work out the CO2 per GWH. >>>> >>>> Hydro is fine but there is considerable CO2 produced while it is being >>>> constructed. The filling of large man made lakes has considerable >>>> adverse consequences, including for CO2. But the real kicker is that >>>> there aren't sufficient potential lakes to fill the worlds need. >>> >>> Maybe that's why nobody pretends that *any* method - i.e. including >>> hydro - is the one and only solution!? Only you seem to argue the >>> fallacy, that if a solution doesn't solve all problems, it's not a >>> solution. >>> >>> Hydro is *a* solution, not *the* solution. And like any and all >>> solutions, it's only a *partial* solution. >>> >>> N.B. Our country - The Netherlands - is totally flat. For some reason >>> I think hydro isn't going to save our bacon. >>> >> >> On the lighter side, How many hamsters running in their wheels belted >> to their teeny, tiny generators would it take to power an Electric Arc >> furnace which is drawing 44,000 amps at 750 volts 3 phase AC? :-) >> >> Rene >> > > Churchill Falls > > Installed capacity 5,428 MW > Capacity factor 73.6% > > so it has 4000MW to offer. > > The load in this case is 33MW. > > I don't think Churchill Falls would notice you > switching that on and off. Whereas at the substation level > there would likely be an effect on the distribution system. > > Hoover Dam, a very nice high-head setup, is > > Installed capacity 2,080 MW > Capacity factor 23% > > Still wouldn't stop it in its tracks. You might hear a > "click" when you connect the load. > > One of our nuke setups. Four reactors. > > Units operational 4 × 878 MW > Make and model 4 × CANDU 850 > Nameplate capacity 3512 MW > Capacity factor 63.22% (2017) > 82.90% (lifetime) > > You could make lots of steel, I would think, from > all those crushed Hondas. No worries. > > This is why we have time-of-day billing and charge > 3X as much for electricity during "peak" time, so you > can run those 33MW loads. The billing system makes sure > the little people don't "waste it". It's really very > clever, as at one time, there might have been a need > to import electricity to make up the balance, but now, > the system can handle the daily load OK, as the load > curve has had the "fat" kicked out of it. I don't > run the AC here, during peak. It remains switched off. > Now, my fucking water bill costs more than my > electricity... Grrr. > > Paul My water is included and unlimited, BUT is not free as my neighbor says. My AC is 12000 BTU and I run it as little as possible eve though my hydro here is reasonable at 8 cents per KWH. I give up on the hamsters, cost too much to feed them. :-) Rene